Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ENG.SUN.COM!Mitch.Bradley
From: Mitch.Bradley@ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Writing a stack based language
Message-ID: <9106251247.AA07801@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 24 Jun 91 23:30:28 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Mitch.Bradley%ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 15

> I am just starting a project for which a small in-house language seems like
> it might be a solution. Because I need to get this running rapidly, and
> because the syntax/semantics question is not of overwhelming importance a
> Forth-like language (eg stack based) might be suitable.

Why reinvent the wheel?  Why not just buy an existing Forth implementation?
That way, you won't have to write all the docmentation from scratch, and
you have some chance of buying trained programmers later to maintain it,
if that becomes necessary.  I can't imagine it costing less to develop
something from scratch that it will cost to get a full license for an
existing Forth implementation (a very few Forth systems are very expensive,
but most Forth systems are sold for far less than what it cost to develop
them, and some are given away outright.).

Mitch.Bradley@Eng.Sun.COM