Are there many differences between Forth and colorForth?

ColorForth adds a new 'time' to Forth. Forth is intrinsically interactive. The programmer must distinguish compile-time from run-time, and switch back-and-forth between them. Anything that can be done at compile-time will save run-time. In colorForth there is also edit-time, which can save compile-time. The colorForth editor pre-parses text into Shannon-coded strings that are factored into 32-bit words. Each word has a 4-bit tag the compiler uses to interpret it. Compilation is very fast. ColorForth also restricts its primitives so they can be efficiently executed by a Forth chip.

Where do you envisage Forth's future lying?

I'm betting that parallel computers will be the future, and Forth is an excellent parallel-programming language. But I expect that conventional languages will become more complex in order to describe parallel processes. Computer scientists must exercise their ingenuity and have something non-trivial to teach.

Do you have any advice for up-and-coming programmers?

I think it behooves new programmers to sample all the languages available. Forth is the only one that's fun. The satisfaction of finding a neat representation cannot be equaled in Fortran, C or even Lisp. (And mentioning those languages surely dates me). Try it, you'll like it.

What are you working on now?

Currently I'm working with OKAD, my colorForth CAD tools, to design multi-core computer chips. They're small, fast and low-power, just like Forth.

Would you like to add anything else?

To reiterate: Forth is an existence proof. It shows that a computer language can be simple and powerful. It also shows that "The race is not to the swift". The best solution is not necessarily the popular one. But popularity is not a requirement. There are many applications where a good solution is more important than popular methodology.