Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!koopman
From: koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Postscript & stack machines
Summary: From Mark Martino
Message-ID: <5475@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Jul 89 12:04:31 GMT
References: <5470@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <5471@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 17

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 89 16:10:20 PDT
From: mtk!marmar@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mark Martino)

One other thing Phil...

I forgot to mention this in my last message:

PostScript, like Forth, promotes the use of a number of small, reusable,
routines.  And, like Forth, if it is run on a traditional processor,
the calls to subroutines and the returns from subroutines make it seem
slow and clumsy.  Like Forth, I think that PostScript can benefit from
processors that allow zero clock cycle returns.

This is probably the single most important reason for using a Forth
processor and writing PostScript in Forth.

Thanks again for the exchange of ideas.