Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <9103301533.AA22551@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 29 Mar 91 21:46:35 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29

>It would inspire a bit more
>confidence if the people so articulate about what they want changed
>could also articulate their understanding of qualities that should be
>preserved.

Okay.  Here's what should be preserved in Forth:

1) Parameter passing on a visible stack
2) The names and semantics of common operators (corresponding to the
   ANS CORE wordset)
3) The very simple lexical structure (i.e. white space is the only
   "magic" character, and you can use any other character in a name).
4) The ability to redefine anything you want
5) The inherent "programming environment" model, i.e. you don't run the
   compiler, then run the program; you program by interacting with the
   environment.
6) The lack of a fundamental distinction between system-supplied
   and user-supplied functions.
7) The lack of language-enforced data typing (data typing is a useful
   thing, but adding it to Forth would compromise Forth's simplicity,
   efficiency, and malleability; leave data typing to other languages
   (which may or may not be implemented on top of Forth))
8) The ability to implement a useable Forth system on a small machine.

Most of the things that I want changed fall into the category of standard
extensions, the addition of which has no effect on the fundamental nature
of Forth.

Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM