Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!UTRCGW.UTC.COM!RAYBRO%HOLON
From: RAYBRO%HOLON@UTRCGW.UTC.COM ("William R Brohinsky", ay)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: what to keep in forth
Message-ID: <9104011728.AA15280@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 1 Apr 91 12:39:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" <RAYBRO%HOLON%UTRCGW.UTC.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 13

The only thing I could (or would want to) add to Mitch's 8 items is:
9) the ability to reconstitute the source for definitions.

That doesn't mean that every forth must have a decompiler. Just that every
forth have the ability in its structure to be decompiled. I realize that this
is lost in many Forths already, and beheading code eliminates it. I just
believe (as a software and hardware developer) that having the ability
in existance makes FORTH more useful to me than any other language.

This is arguable, more so than (IMHO) Mitch's first 8 items are. It is
just, however, my desire to see this one kept, too.

raybro