gandreas@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Glenn Andreas) (09/08/88)
(Note: Not crossposted to comp.lang.smalltalk because they already know this) Just to add some more from a point of view that agrees with Fraser in many respects (but not all), if you want a language that does everything you want, and then quite a few, check out SmallTalk. It is completely infix, there is a very nice debugger, and you are in an extremely interactive invironment (you can fix and recompile a procedure that has an error in it and keep executing the program). The only problem is that this uses a lot of resources. Forth, on the other hand, needs very few resources (none, compared to SmallTalk). But what if you have lots of resources - hard disk, megs of memory, powerful cpu's. Should I use the same programming system on my Mac as on my Apple II? What's wrong with expanding Forth to include some of the things that you want in a programming environment (such as a pre-processor). And hey, maybe some other people will think this is neat and want it too. Oh, one more thing that Forth can do beside return multiple arguments from a function is to return a variable number of arguments (such as ?DUP). There are lots of neat ideas in Forth, and there is nothing wrong with trying to find others, even if they may seem to be bad ideas. Remember, I like the idea behind Forth, but still have problems liking postfix expression in some contexts. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = "When I was young, all I wanted was to be | - gandreas@ub.d.umn.edu - = = ruler of the universe. Now that isn't | Glenn Andreas = = enough" - Alex P. Keaton | = =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
raino@td2cad.intel.com (Rodger Raino) (09/10/88)
In article <484@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> gandreas@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Glenn Andreas) writes: >What's wrong with expanding Forth to include some of the >things that you want in a programming environment (such as a >pre-processor). And hey, maybe some other people will think this is neat >and want it too. Nothing is wrong with doing that. In fact that is the central idea behind the language. But there is a big difference between what you *can* do and what you *must* do. Everything is permitted but very little is required. The Colonel says the stack underflow Don't worry, be happy. rodger -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ i know i'm a bad speller, don't waste FlameWidth pointing out old news intel agrees with this, but not necessarly anything above the line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .