Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!gatech!purdue!bouma From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth in CS Message-ID: <13662@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 4 Mar 91 19:33:03 GMT References: <9103031944.AA02112@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 16 In article <9103031944.AA02112@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> UNBCIC%BRFAPESP.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes: >No, C has just types, and have no strong typing, so it's weak in this respect. >TYPEDEF just defines macros. It doest'n have abstract data types also. C++ is >another history. Forth can have abstract data types and, consequently, strong >typing. So, although Forth has no built in type system, it can have much more >efficient data type than C. It is not what Forth CAN have but what it DOES have. The question was whether Forth "encapsulated more of computer science" than C. The capability to add a nice type system or OO constructs to Forth does not count in this regard. It has neither of these things built in and thus does not "encapsulate" them. It matters not whether C's type system is any good. The point is that C has addressed the issue and Forth has not. -- Bill