wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (12/22/90)
> In April I posted gray, a parser generator written in Forth. > Since I received next to no reactions, I wonder, if anybody uses gray, > and if not, why not. I kept a copy of it because I was interested, but so far I haven't used it. Why? Because one of the great lessons of Forth is that syntax is usually unnecessary and often even bad. I realize that, realistically, it is sometimes prudent to resort to syntax, especially for marketing purposes. In this light, a parser generator is a welcome addition to my Forth "toolkit". Nevertheless, I will endeavor to use it as little as possible, by "designing-out" syntax where I can. People often accuse me of wanting to make Forth like C. This is true in a limited sense: I wish that Forth had a complete set of standard library interfaces to modern OS features. It is not true in the syntactic sense; I don't want Forth to "look like" C at all. Indeed, I would prefer to go in the opposite direction, removing some of the syntax that Forth already has (defining words have "one word lookahead" syntax, and control structures have syntax). Syntax is an impediment to extensibility, and the few syntactic constructs that Forth already has frequently cause problems. Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM