Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!purdue!bouma From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth in CS Message-ID: <13693@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 5 Mar 91 22:04:57 GMT References: <9103031944.AA02112@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Mar4.050505.27571@csi.uottawa.ca> <1991Mar4.143704.13146@cbnewse.att.com> Distribution: na Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 76 This a reply to Clyde Phillips reply to Chris Browne. It is mainly an attempt to get him to clarify a number of cryptic remarks he made in that post. In article <1991Mar4.143704.13146@cbnewse.att.com> cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) writes: >Are CS people only interested in "language Design"? No wonder they don't >respect FORTH, it says they have no clothes... Basically, "CS people" are interested in Computer Science. Language Design is ONE are of interest for what should be obvious reasons. I am surprised that you would think it the ONLY area as several others are listed below in plain sight. I am not sure what you mean by the "no clothes" bit? >Is this the heart of CS? > Browne> Computing theory is not happy with languages that are not constant > >Is this the heart of CS? What is "the heart of CS"? Browne> Forth will be interesting to people into architecture design - This was the only place I found disagreement with Browne's post. I am not convinced Forth has anything new to contribute in this area. If so, what exactly? Browne> it does lots of neat stuff > >Thanks. You had nothing to do with it! Browne> Yes, you can define new "operations"/procedures/words. That's been Browne> possible since FORTRAN. Subroutines are hardly a new concept. > >But ones that work in hardware are. Huh? >Ever see the cryptic C contests? What does that have to with anything? In cryptic contests people are TRYING to be cryptic!! Browne> What "new" control structures have been created in Forth? I'm not sure Browne> Forth has introduced ANY new control structures... > >But youre point was we don't abide by CS. If we use every existing control >structure you guys have why would we need new ones just to distinguish >ourselves? What? The "point" has always been to find a reason why Forth would be of any interest to CS. Browne is simply stating it has done nothing new in this particular area, thus we can dismiss it (area) as a possibility. Who is this "we"? Am I included? Is Browne? One of the problems here is you are reading Browne as though he is not included in the "we". >Neither in C so why a bias? Who is biased over control structures? >I guess I should have looked at your bottom line... I think the problem is you are looking only at single lines and not thinking about the large picture. Browne is just telling you how CS probably sees Forth. Don't take it out on him, it isn't his fault. You think it's wrong, tell us why, we don't read minds. -- Bill