Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!acf5!sabbagh
From: sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU (sabbagh)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: FIGI-L, and Forth versus(?) standards
Message-ID: <1034@acf5.NYU.EDU>
Date: 19 Jan 90 15:44:49 GMT
References: <9001180238.AA28716@jade.berkeley.edu> <1032@acf5.NYU.EDU> <5:51PE3ggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: sabbagh@acf5.UUCP ()
Organization: New York University
Lines: 42

In article <5:51PE3ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>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.

Your point is well-taken.  I meant that Forth is _much_ more malleable
a language than any other, except Lisp and its derivatives.  I was
trying to get at the idea that you could even provide PORTABLE
NON-STANDARD EXTENSIONS with Forth, if the initial standard was
comprehensive enough (i.e., gives standards for manipulating vocabularies,
param fields, code fields, name fields, etc.).

>                                           OOoo
>No flames, and this is not a pipe either:  ---U

I suggest you take in a museum with post-Impressionist or
modern art :-).

Hadil G. Sabbagh
E-mail:		sabbagh@csd27.nyu.edu
Voice:		(212) 998-3125
Snail:		Courant Institute of Math. Sci.
		251 Mercer St.
		New York,NY 10012

	    +===============================+
	    |				    |
	    |	________        _______     |
	    |	\       |      / ______     |
	    |	 \      |     / /           |
	    |	  \     L____/ /            |
	    |	   \__________/             |
	    |				    |
	    |				    |
	    |	Ceci n'est pas une pipe     |
	    |				    |
	    +===============================+