Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What's WRONG with Forth?
Message-ID: <1712.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 12 Sep 90 03:26:33 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 22


 Date: 09-09-90 (12:10)              Number: 3737 (Echo)
   To: GARY SMITH                    Refer#: 3716
 From: RANDY LAWRENCE                  Read: NO
 Subj: WHY NOT FORTH                 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 Your right.  It sounds like he sat down in front of a FIG-Forth for
 five minutes, wrote the paper on it, and then went back to his C
 compiler.

 Having played with C (Turboc C++) for a while, I am not convinced that
 complex syntax and strong type checking is such a wonderful idea. I
 would much rather program my way than the C compilers way.

 Umm... did he say that Forth was not structured?   ;-)

                                         Randy
 ---
  ~ EZ 1.27 ~ I do it mmmmy  wayyyyy
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us