<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">

  <title>Maschenwerk.de</title>
  <link href="http://maschenwerk.de/"/>
  <updated>2009-06-12T18:03:26Z</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Helmar Wodtke</name>
    <email>helmwo@gmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <id>http://maschenwerk.de/</id>

  <entry>
    <title>Is Forth an "ultralight" thing?</title>
    <link href="http://maschenwerk.de/"/>
    <id>http://maschenwerk.de/atom/c781f23c97dbbb1c2ef4887d9dcb828e</id>
    <updated>2009-06-12T18:03:26Z</updated>
    <content type="xhtml">
    <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
      <b>Is Forth an "ultralight" thing?</b> I just followed the instructions at <a href="http://home.arcor.de/casu/canstove_de.html">http://home.arcor.de/casu/canstove_de.html</a> . <br /> My example of the stove I've build is only 7g (or 1/4oz) in weight. It works very good as far as I've tested it and it seems to follow Forth ideas in construction: make it as simple as possible, get as much as is possible from the simple construction. I even do think it's similar to Forth in that it's internally a little bit more complicated than you see at first. Maybe that "ultralight" backpacking guys are something that still happens to Forth too: just something that goes against mainstream (at least here in Germany) and has good ideas but is ignored by big companies. Nevertheless both are working. And Forth is an "ultralight" language if you want to have it so.
    </div>
    </content>
  </entry>

</feed>

