Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ism780c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim
From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.lang.c,net.lang.pascal,net.lang.forth
Subject: Re: FORTH, the heat is on (sorry Don Henley)
Message-ID: <240@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 18:09:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ism780c.240
Posted: Tue Jan 14 18:09:47 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 01:36:48 EST
References: <1191@princeton.UUCP> <681@pucc-j> <444@tekchips.UUCP> <703@pucc-j>
Reply-To: tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith)
Distribution: net
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 14
Keywords: set oven temperature to 250 degrees
Xref: watmath net.micro:13496 net.lang.c:7591 net.lang.pascal:433 net.lang.forth:346

In article <703@pucc-j> rsk@pucc-j.UUCP (Wombat) writes:
>
>"efficient" is a nice buzzword, but efficiency is not the issue here.
>The lack of a clean, built-in, and natural way to do recursion in Forth is.
>

I use recursion in Forth.  What difference does it make if it is built-in?
It is simple to add, and does _exactly_ the same thing that built-in
recursion would do.  It is clean and natural.  Why build something into
a language that not everybody wants, and that those who do can easily add?

Forth: the Unix V6 of languages.
--
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim