Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!orr
From: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth Pre-Compier
Message-ID: <1593@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 30 Aug 88 15:15:34 GMT
References: <8808121826.AA23206@jade.berkeley.edu> <1575@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <6882@well.UUCP> <1581@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <4057@juniper.uucp> <472@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Reply-To: orr%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@ucl.nss.ac.uk (Fraser Orr)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 25

In article <472@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> gandreas@ub.d.umn.edu.UUCP (Glenn Andreas) writes:
>As a disclaimer, I want it noted that I like the basic idea behind forth.
>It is elegent.  And there are some neat things you can do with it.  And it
>is small.  I like forth since I first learned about it in 82? when Byte did
>an issue on it.  I just don't like the syntax WITH REGARDS TO ARITHMETIC
>EXRESSION (I have no problems with the RPN of procedure calls, although
>control statements are a minor hassle - this is something you can get use
>to).

Don't you mean that you like one of the consequences of the basic idea
behind forth, that you get what you consider to be a nice procedure call
mechanism. The things that you have problems with are to my mind much more
direct consequences of the RPN is best attitude. Need I say that you could
have the best of both worlds if you wrote a preprocessor that RPNed your
arithmetic and control structures? At the same time you could add all the
other nice things - structures, type checking, at least optional parameter
lists, my nice implicit parameter passing stuff etc,etc,etc.

Sorry if your getting bored hearing me saying the same thing over and over
and over and over again, but really I've yet to here a serious objection
to it.

Regards,

===Fraser