Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewse!cwpjr
From: cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: What's WRONG with Forth?
Summary: Yup
Message-ID: <1990Sep13.135813.4933@cbnewse.att.com>
Date: 13 Sep 90 13:58:13 GMT
References: <1712.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

In article <1712.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
> 
>  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.
> 
> 
>                                          Randy

Yup, you cant substitute tools for brains. C is no more
tolerant of bad programming than FORTH. But it's easier to KNOW
you have a correct implementation in FORTH. You can test for it
as you go. Incremental compilers are man's best ( computing ) friend!