Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma From: toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth and PostScript Message-ID: <3346@tekgvs.TEK.COM> Date: 14 Apr 88 14:53:22 GMT References: Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.UUCP (Tom Almy) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 14 In article boris@M66-080-3.mit.edu (Boris N Goldowsky) writes: >I just learned a little bit of PostScript the other day, and it seems >to be a lot like Forth in several ways. [...] the nice way that def >(equivalent to Forth's :) is a postfix operator like everything else. >Anyone know more? Not only is def postfix, but also the control structures. The trick is that code sequences are simply data, so an IF function gets passed two things, a boolean value and a block of code to execute if the expression is true. A nice "Forth-like" idea that would have made Forth completely consistant; this concept is used in Lisp and Smalltalk already. PostScript memory is dynamically allocated, thus is more flexible than Forth. On the flip side, PostScript is considerably slower.