Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm!reeves
From: REEVES@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Terry Reeves)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Merits of Forth
Message-ID: <91080.145526REEVES@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 91 22:55:26 GMT
References: <1991Mar21.192611.28487@src.honeywell.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Lines: 29

In article <1991Mar21.192611.28487@src.honeywell.com>, lowry@src.honeywell.com
(Dave Lowry) says:
>
>With all this discussion of the merits of Forth, I wonder if somebody
>could comment on the usefulness of a language that merrily accepts
>things like:
>
>: 1 2 ;
>
>resulting in:
>
>1 1 + . 4 ok

I don't get it. How does accepting : 1 2 ; make a language useless? There
are some computers that allow me to accomplish the same thing using FORTRAN.
I still find FORTRAN to be a useful language because I perform useful
calculations with it. I think the more important questions are related to
"Can I use technique x with language y in the context of situation z to
accomplish the task at hand?" It should be noted that situation z includes
things like the computer, it's operating system, language availability, what
everyone else is using (and is it important for me to use the same thing),
time to complete the task, etc. In some cases, it may be that the best
language for the task is RPG II (otherwise known as chicken scratch heaven).

                                                  Terry Reeves

Disclaimer: These are my opinions. They are not necessarily related to the
            official or unofficial policies of SLAC, Stanford University,
            the DOE, or of the U.S. government.