Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What makes Forth Forth
Message-ID: <9012092322.AA03989@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 8 Dec 90 00:23:57 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27

It strikes me that we are in the midst of a "tastes great/less filling"
debate.

The truth is, Forth has a lot of nice properties, many of which have
already been articulated.  It also has some flaws.  Trying to decide
which subset of good properties is the "essential Forth" is like trying
to decide why you like your wife.

It all boils down to the fact that some combination of attributes
pleases you, and taken as a whole, they outweigh the unpleasant aspects.

Also you may be stuck with her.

If I had to choose any particular aspect of Forth as the "one essential
feature", I would probably be forced to program in some other language.
For just about anything I like about Forth, there is some other language
which does that thing better.

But the Forth "package deal" works for me.  Ditto for my wife.  (That's
a setup for witty rejoinders if I ever saw one!)

I bet every person has a different weighting function for adding up the
values of the various language attributes.

(Female readers, please invert the sex of appropriate words).

Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM