Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!uunet!world!dcp
From: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Merits of Forth
Message-ID: <1991Mar25.162143.5775@world.std.com>
Date: 25 Mar 91 16:21:43 GMT
References: <1991Mar21.192611.28487@src.honeywell.com>
Reply-To: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty)
Distribution: na
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 21

In article <1991Mar21.192611.28487@src.honeywell.com>,
lowry@src.honeywell.com (Dave Lowry) writes:

``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:

My favorite, in a system with constants that store their value in the
first cell of their bodies and in which 1 CONSTANT 1 exists at a low
level, is: 2 ' 1 >BODY !  (One of the first things I did when I was first
learning Forth.  It is fortunate that I never did much chemistry in
school, or I probably would have burned down the lab.)

Actually, I am not sure of the spirit of Mr. Lowry's posting.  Is it
meant to ridicule or revere Forth?  Personally I wouldn't program in a
language that did _not_ allow the equivalent of : DOWN  UP ;
-- 
 David C. Petty | dcp@world.std.com | ...!{uunet,bu.edu}!world!dcp /\
      POBox Two | CIS: 73607,1646   | BIX, Delphi, MCIMail: dcp   /  \
 Cambridge,  MA | `It must've been some-other-body,              /    \
02140-0001  USA |  uh uh babe it wasn't me...'                  /______\