Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: 1990 FORML
Message-ID: <2041.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 2 Dec 90 16:59:44 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 28

Category 5,  Topic 16
Message 11        Sun Dec 02, 1990
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 10:56 EST
 
Gee, sorry, Frank, but I think I agree with all of your points 1-4.
 Mostly agree, anyway.

1. We _do_ need some tools with the "polish" of Turbo Pascal/C. It's
embarassing to show a client the typical Forth metacompiler. Granted, good
tools does not mean "fat" Forth.

2. I bestow upon you my recent enlightment: X3J14 isn't here to standardize
the language, they're here to _improve_ it.  I was given a copy of the ANS
guidelines for X3 efforts, and damned if that isn't what ANS X3 is slanted
towards.

3. Hmmm.  I'll have to think about this.

4. Agreed.  I've recently implemented a kernel in assembly language, and it
_is_ a trial.  But show me a metacompiler that someone besides the author can
use.  (No offense, I haven't seen your metacompiler yet.)  Tools again.

Sorry I missed FORML this year.  Do you plan to attend Rochester?
 - Brad

-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com