Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!orion!lowry
From: lowry@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Dave Lowry)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Merits of Forth
Message-ID: <1991Mar22.161424.5517@src.honeywell.com>
Date: 22 Mar 91 16:14:24 GMT
References: <1991Mar21.192611.28487@src.honeywell.com> <17792@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.com (News interface)
Distribution: na
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: orion.src.honeywell.com

In article <17792@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> eaker@sunbelt.crd.ge.com (Charles E Eaker) writes:
>
>You need the language to tell you that : 1 2 ; is a stupid definition?
>or to prevent you from stringing together lexemes into structures that
>represent semantic nonsense? Every language allows any manner of
>semantic blathering. Try teaching a first programming course in Pascal
>or C.
>

First, a clarification.  "usefulness" was a bad word to use, because it
implies I think Forth is *useless*.  I do not.  I like Forth.

No, I don't need the language to tell me that : 1 2 ; is stupid.  I also
don't need my circular saw to tell me that it's stupid to stick my 
fingers in the blade, but I leave the blade guard on anyway.

Yes, all languages will allow input of semantic garbage.  The difference
with Forth is that the semantic garbage instantly becomes system garbage.
And, IMHO, it is vastly easier to shhot yourself in the head with Forth
than with any other language.  I understand the arguments about freedom
of expression (semantic, that is) = power in a language.  It just seems
to me that Forth is too "powerful" for its own good.


As always, opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily that of my
employer.