Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: polyFORTH
Message-ID: <1426.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 90 04:38:58 GMT
References: <1407.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 29

In <1407.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, R.BERKEY [Robert] writes:
> I've used polyFORTH and have something of a love/hate attitude toward it. 
> It's been described as the personal programming tool of Charles Moore circa
> 1978, and he notes that he has made a point of throwing out things that aren't
> really needed.  Yet without knowing the history of things that have been
> removed, it's not necessarily obvious what's not there, and that there are
> tools that can be easy to replace when needed.
> . . .
> If pF is still like the 1982 versions there may be a long learning curve in
> store for new users.

From your comments that I quoted (and I didn't intentionally elide anything
that I thought would change your meaning) it sounds as if your real contention
with pF is that it is poorly documented???? Or is it well documented but
some how intrinsicly opaque?

>                       Yet pF is authentic Forth, which in my opinion is more
> than can be said about many of the "Forth" systems available today.

Are you just rephrasing "New is Good, but Old is Better?"  I'm curious to
know *why* you have formed that opinion.  (From what you said about the
capabilities of pF, it doesn't sound like a minimalists system (but I may
be wrong).)

-Doug

---
Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp   [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]