Path: utzoo!attcan!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: <1609@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 5 Sep 88 17:36:03 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> <1593@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <7002@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 39

In article <7002@well.UUCP> jax@well.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr) writes:
>	The key word in that sentence is "hear", Fraser.
>
>	You haven't "heard" Forth.
>
Sorry, don't understand what you mean.

>	You are all wrapped up in that academic conceptualization
>	of conceptualizations about computing.

? I don't undersand what this means, but the implication is that
nothing good or useful ever comes from acedemia, an implication that
I'm not even going to bother to answer since it is so ridiculous.

>	Heck, I'll bet you say "instantiate" instead of "store" :-)

No, No. I say "change in the run time state" :->

>	Forth is a *rethinking* and *retooling* of the fundamental
>	constructs of serial computation. Maybe it is a little late
>	for that, standing as we are at the dawn of parallel, but better
>	late than never?
>
What on earth does this mean?

>	If individuals as intelligent as yourself would get down on
>	your knees and peer through the keyhole, you would see that
>	Forth is the assembly language of a more powerful model
>	of serial computing.
>
>	But megabux are committed to the old way, so who cares?

I agree totally, forth is the assembly code of a more powerful model
of serial comunication. What I've been suggestion for the past few
months is designing a compiler that can produce this machine code
without loosing any of the power of the new model.

Regards,
=== Fraser "Head in the clouds academic" Orr  :^>