Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What's WRONG with Forth?
Message-ID: <2793.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 20 May 91 01:38:10 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 29

Category 2,  Topic 9
Message 103       Sun May 19, 1991
D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 15:36 EDT
 
Re:  cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne (055908))

 > Or am I misunderstanding the nature of PolyForth?

No Chris, it sounds like you understand what it takes to actually "rip off" pF
given : but as to the nature of the beast, well I'm still having fun with that
one. :)

polyFORTH, as it stands today, the environment on top of pF is not nearly as
significant as the environment underneith it.  The fine tuning that has gone
into the nucleus is much more rigorous than the tuning that goes into the
electives.  If anything could be pointed at to represent the "nature" of a
given pF, it would be how the nucleus has been put together.

Given a way to make new definitions (i.e. extend the "development"
environment), then the one of the things you can make is a decompiler.  Sure,
it is going to require some work to do it, but the point is that it _can_ be
done.

DaR
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp