Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!seismo!gatech!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!liberte
From: liberte@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.lang.forth
Subject: Re: The Flip side of Forth
Message-ID: <9100013@uiucdcsb>
Date: Wed, 25-Jun-86 17:16:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.9100013
Posted: Wed Jun 25 17:16:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 04:33:58 EDT
References: <9100009@uiucdcsb>
Lines: 63
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsb:9100009:uiucdcsb:9100013:000:2848
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!liberte    Jun 25 16:16:00 1986


Phil's response to my note was not the flame I anticipated.
Thanks for being civilized, not that I expected you wouldnt be...:-)

But it did reflect well the perspective of many Forth programmers.
As he repeatedly pointed out, if you want something different from
what is given, you can build it yourself.  But my point is that you
dont have much to start with.  Across the board, almost every feature
of Forth is very primitive compared to what I am used to, and even that
is primitive compared to what I want.  The one thing that attracted
me was the Builds-Does extensibility.  This is the only feature not
found in (many) other languages.

>/* Written 10:28 am  Jun 23, 1986 by philm@astroatc.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.lang.forth */
>If you want to modify the way Forth works, it is quite easy to Meta-compile
>a new copy with any extra bells and whistles (or necessities) that you desire.
> ...
>If you go too far, you lose alot of the advantages of Forth.
> ...
>I'd rather code in Forth than assembly language, any day.

OK, compared to assembly language, Forth is great.  But I don't code
in assembly language either.

> ...
>It seems that what you wanted to do was to radically restructure Forth.
>If you go too far, you lose all of the simplicity, portability and versatility
>of Forth. You end up with a system that can not be called Forth and does not
>share its advantages. Try restructuring LISP or C or Pascal if you want to
>really run into a wall.

Yes I wanted to radically restructure Forth.  I wouldnt mind trading
alot of Forth's simplicity for more powerful tools.  Other languages
dont have the same kind of extensibility as Forth, but almost all
(simple basics excluded) have a named subroutine extensibility *built in* 
to the language.  I won't comment on the portability and versatility issues.

>>Take this note as a warning of what you are getting into if you
>>are attracted to Forth as I once was.

>This sentence is what I really take exception to. Why the hell do you want to
>warn people away from Forth? 

My statement was not a warning to keep away from Forth.  Did I say "Dont
waste your time"?  You're welcome to waste your time if you want. :-) 
By all means, learn about Forth.  It is interesting as a language.  But
just keep in mind what you are getting into.

>Forth is not for everyone, but for those of you who are 
>interested in further readings about Forth and its relationship to other
>pools of thought, try these books :

If you are interested in how Forth works internally, you will need
something like (I forget the exact title and author) "The System
Programmers Guide to Fig-Forth".  Most books do not get into the
Builds-Does constructs either, which leads me to believe that
most Forth programmes do not use it much.


Dan LaLiberte
liberte@b.cs.uiuc.edu
liberte@uiuc.csnet
ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte