Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!abvax!iccgcc!schmidtg
From: schmidtg@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Re: Forth in CS
Message-ID: <3729.27db5037@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 11 Mar 91 14:39:03 GMT
Lines: 81

In article <13699@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:
> In article <3554.27d21955@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> schmidtg@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>>meaning is imparted not by syntax, but rather by program structure,
> 
>     Can you clarify the difference?  I think our discussions up to now
>     have all been pretty consistent about what syntax means.  The way I
>     see it the structure is the syntax.  Perhaps I just don't follow
>     what you mean.

Clarity vs. meaning.  Adding additional syntax to FORTH might improve
the clarity of FORTH code, but would not add to the expressive power
of the language.  This is to be contrasted with a highly specialized
language such as YACC, where the expressive power of the language IS
a direct result of its syntax.

>>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.
> 
>     "object oriented" programming had been going on for a long time
>     before so called "software engineers" jumped on the bandwagon and
>     made the term popular.  That is not unique to Forth programmers.  It
>     easy to look back now and say Forth was ahead of its time in this area.
>     But why didn't someone publish about constructs in Forth to support OOP
>     before any of the OO specific languages had been built?
>  

I don't honestly believe that FORTH "anticipated" OOP.  I would say that FORTH
was ahead of its time in that with FORTH's extensibility, one can easily extend
the language to encompass OOP.  True, OOP can be done in almost any language,
but with FORTH, it can be seamlessly integretated into the language.  With
FORTH,  I don't need to throw everything out, and invest in a smalltalk or c++
compiler to effectively take advantage of OOP.
(refer to Dick Pountain's book, "Object Oriented FORTH")

>>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).
>  
>     I do not think Forth is a very good general purpose language.  The
>     reason is same one (I believe) that has kept and will keep Forth from
>     being accepted generally.  The lack of a type system is what has kept
>     Forth down.  A language that deals only with characters and integers
>     is a joke.  It is no coincidence that Forth gravitated to the embedded
>     processor area, they don't need to deal with anything besides integers
>     and characters.  Forth will not be accepted academically or be useful
>     generally until it adopts a general consistent way to deal with a wide
>     variety of types.
> 

FORTH is an excellent general purpose language for just these reasons!  FORTH
provides one with the tools to create more specialized tools which are useful
to solve a given problem.  Try adding a new control structure to 'c'!
Traditional compilers just make too many assumptions about what it is you
want to do.  If additional data types are required for your application, FORTH
allows you to easily create them.  Perhaps FORTH's expressive power is not
for everyone, but when used with discipline, allows the creation of higher
level languages which are custom tailored to your specific applications.

>>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" 
>  
>     8^) Perhaps.  Perhaps it just isn't that deserving of attention from
>     people who aren't tring to interface to hardware or aren't limited to
>     64K of memory.

Or is it that concepts such as "rapid prototyping" and "extensibility" aren't
"deserving of attention" unless we refer to them in a language like smalltalk,
which originated in a research laboratory?

-- 


=============================================================================
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.
=============================================================================