Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!sss3
From: sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: What's WRONG with Forth?
Message-ID: <7283@harrier.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Apr 91 15:10:20 GMT
References: <2630.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Reply-To: sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock)
Organization: BioComputing, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 18

In article <2630.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
>Category 2,  Topic 9
>Message 90        Sat Apr 13, 1991
>F.SERGEANT [Frank]           at 13:09 CDT
> 
> This is a danger I had not previously considered, but, obviously, the  risk
>is so great that I dare not continue to use Forth.  I am  immediately
>switching to Ada and suggest you do the same before it is  too late.

I assume you missed the smiley by accident.

As for Ada, I wouldn't give it a second's thought, but then I am an OCCAM
programmer and somewhat biased!

Has anyone got a version of Forth for a transputer?

Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab.  Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain.
sss3@ukc.ac.uk