Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cwpjr
From: cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth and CS
Summary: CS & FORTH
Message-ID: <1991Mar4.142211.12511@cbnewse.att.com>
Date: 4 Mar 91 14:22:11 GMT
References: <9103011826.AA19197@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

In article <9103011826.AA19197@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes:
> The thing that Forth taught me about Computer Science is that syntax
> is a waste of time.  Not only is syntax a waste of time, in lots of
> cases it is harmful, because it boxes you in and prevents you from
> doing something next year.
> 
> Some Forth programmers have argued that most of CS is a waste of time.
> I do not concur.
> 
> Mitch

I agree. What I find worthwhile in CS has been anticipated in FORTH.
But what I find useful in the real world has little to do with CS
and much more to do with the things I stated in my original post
which tho I implied were CS issues, they are not. FORTHS memory
management/overlay solution relates to CS. It's *optional* typing and
builds does does not. I do find forth more useful than CS to
do real work 8^).

I really argue that we don't want FORTH in CS but want CS to
be more relevant to real world programming issues. But then
it wouldn't be science...

Clyde