Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: FIGI-L, and Forth versus(?) standards
Message-ID: <5:51PE3ggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 19 Jan 90 11:25:57 GMT
References: <9001180238.AA28716@jade.berkeley.edu> <1032@acf5.NYU.EDU>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 17

First of all, a side comment.

	Would someone at SCFVM.bitnet or jade.berkeley.edu change the
	FIGI-L mailing list gateway so that it leaves the Reply-to: field 
	set to the original poster, instead of bouncing replies back into
	the mailing list?

Secondly, the meat. I'm a little confused by the following comment:

> The advantage that Forth has over other languages is that if you are not
> worried about portability, YOU DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STANDARD. However,
> every system developed must provide at least the standard.

You see, I can't think of a single language for which this statement is not
true.
                                           OOo.
No flames, and this is not a pipe either:  ---U
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'