Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!abvax!iccgcc!schmidtg From: schmidtg@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth and CS Message-ID: <3554.27d21955@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> Date: 4 Mar 91 14:54:28 GMT Lines: 91 In article <13640@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes: > In article <9103011826.AA19197@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 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. > > What a lame thing to say! (esp. comming from someone who I agree > with 98% of the time) Syntax is a major conveyor of meaning. How > could anything be communicated (esp. programs) without syntax? Forth > may have flexible syntax, but it definitely has syntax. > > Perhaps you meant that Forth teaches that syntax should be driven by > semantics rather than the other way around? That I could partially > agree with. But "syntax is a waste of time" is like saying that > information in general is worthless. Interesting, I would categorize LISP as a language with a somewhat "weak" syntactical structure, yet much of LISP's power results from this. In LISP, everything is pretty much a lump of "LISPstuff" where meaning is imparted not by syntax, but rather by program structure, much like it is in FORTH. Both languages are "applicative" in that side effects are avoided by LISP's list management structure and in FORTH by the stack. This encourages functions which are self contained expressions, much like mathematical functions. What is important is the transformation performed by the function, little or no meaning is conveyed by the "weak" syntax. In fact, LISP and FORTH have much in common in this regard. Whether or not syntax important depends upon the problem one is trying to solve. I do not believe syntax is a necessary requirement for a general purpose language, in fact it is an additional constraint. It is easy to implement specialized languages on top of FORTH for just this reason. FORTH allows the programmer to decide how much syntax is required for a given application. On the other hand, a specialized language such as YACC, is 99% syntax and this is fine if all you want to do is to write programs which accept a certain grammer. >>Some Forth programmers have argued that most of CS is a waste of time. >>I do not concur. > > If this newsgroup be any indication, many Forth programmers know > even less about CS than they do about programming. > -- > Bill I wonder what prompts you to say this, as I have seen no evidence of what you are describing within this newsgroup. Keep in mind that Computer "Science" is still in it's infancy. It is not some "holy grail" which may not be questioned. Certainly tradition has a lot to do with the languages which are being promoted in contemporary C"S" courses and unfortunately for C"S", FORTH has not been part of this tradition mainly due to its "grass roots" non-academic origin. This accounts for much of the frustration which FORTH programmers have, since they are always having to defend FORTH against the more "legitamate" languages. I find it interesting that some of the current trends towards "object oriented" languages and "rapid prototyping" have been enjoyed by the more experienced FORTH programmers for years. Once again, drawing parallels between FORTH and LISP. Both were concieved by an individual, not by committee. LISP's inventor was a professor at MIT, FORTH's inventor was a frustrated programmer. Interesting to speculate on FORTH's current status if Chuck Moore had been in the right place at the right time! Both languages were intended to be "general purpose", although LISP has gravitated to the AI community and FORTH has gravitated to the embedded processor arena (I still consider FORTH to be an excellent "general purpose" language and I am sure many would say this about LISP too). The point that I am trying to make is that FORTH has not received the widespread acceptance that it deserves, it has had no "Academic sugar daddy" or equivalent -- it's inventor was kind enough to place the language in the public domain rather than turn it into an exclusive enterprise. As a result, proponents of FORTH have had to maintain a somewhat defensive posture with respect to the academic establishment. Simply because one questions the tenets of traditional C"S" does not make one deserving of being labeled as "ignorant". Greg Schmidt Senior Software Engineer ALLEN-BRADLEY Inc. -- ============================================================================= Greg Schmidt -> schmidtg@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ============================================================================= "People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from O.B.I.T" -- Peter Lomax ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: No warranty is expressed or implied. Void where prohibited. =============================================================================