Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!ucsd!sdcc6!ir230
From: ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Food Chemistry
Message-ID: <5241@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 19 Nov 89 03:59:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 65


# In article <5172@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes:
# >
# >It's a shame that people homed in on the second sentence rather than the 
# >first.
# 
#      Why? What is wrong with discussing this? Does it bother you
#      that people disagree with you? Perhaps your statement was
#      wrong? Perhaps my statements were wrong? I would like to
#      learn. The way to do that is talk about it.

No -- it's because the first sentence indicated that I too want to learn. It 
said, in effect, "show me how something can be done".  The second sentence 
said, in effect, "unless someone does I will assume it can't be done"  
[Unfortunately, given my gift with the English language, I used the word "toy" 
in the second sentence which provoked petulant replies of the "it is not a 
toy!" variety rather than of the "Let me understand what you want done and 
I'll show you how to do it" variety]. 

#   You have not provided any evidence to support your claim.
 
I didn't know there was a Theorem on the floor. I thought I was trying to 
help people understand something. 

#   I stand by my claim that one can write forth in any language and
#   have it behave identically. Further, it doesn't matter how much
#   of it is written in the base language (asm, c, or whatever) and
#   how much is in forth.

But you HAVE made a claim for which I have seen no evidence.

                                  ===========

The choice of a programming language is a subjective one.  A programming 
language is complex -- and it is not usually clear what combination of its 
properties accounts for its power. It may not even be clear, in a formal 
sense, what the properties are or how they balance to provide what the 
programmer perceives to be a sense of "rightness". 

The task of trying to explain why you perceive a language to be powerful to 
someone who uses another language is something like the task of explaining why 
filet mignon is delicious to someone whose only experience with beef is the 
hamburger. [Well, actually, I guess I'm assuming your language is Forth!]  
Suppose he says "The only difference between filet mignon and a hamburger is 
that filet mignon is not chopped". All you can say is, "I know its not 
chopped, but my tastebuds tell me there is more to it than that." Probably 
even a food chemist could not say why filet mignon tastes better than ground 
<whatever-it-is> -- and what a food chemist says about food is not likely to 
enhance our appreciation of its taste. [The way things are going, I bet this 
statement will cause the next month of comp.lang.forth to be devoted to food 
chemistry!] 

Eventually you realize that, while it might be somewhat interesting to talk 
about the food you have tasted, there is no substitute for supplying the 
addresses of some restaurants and have the other person taste for himself. He 
may come back saying that he prefers hamburgers because of the lettuce, 
pickles, special sauce, and sesame seed bun -- and the fact that the golden 
arches can be found everywhere in the world (Americans have a knack of 
exporting the best of their culture!) -- but at least he will know how filet 
mignon tastes. 

                                                  John J Wavrik 
             jjwavrik@ucsd.edu                    Dept of Math  C-012 
                                                  Univ of Calif - San Diego 
                                                  La Jolla, CA  92093