Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Basics of the Forth Language
Message-ID: <243.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 90 01:28:42 GMT
Organization: Latest Link in ForthNet Chain (Pittsburgh, PA)
Lines: 29


 Date: 01-09-90 (05:46)              Number: 1551 (Echo)
   To: STEVE PALINCSAR               Refer#: 1549
 From: GORDON GANDERTON                Read: NO
 Subj: BASICS OF THE FORTH LANGU     Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 SP>of library functions that "aren't part of C" but seem to be standard
 SP>with every commercial C.  And amazingly enough, they provide the sort of
 SP>functionality that comes in forth only with "fat" systems... and then
 I have always been aware of this. It was the reason why I wondered why
 Forth was not more popular. I have since discovered that the first
 thing you do when you write a Forth program is start adding words to
 the vocabulary. This would be kind of adding functions to C but more
 powerful because they dont have to be initialized and called up as
 functions. Your own words in Forth are as genuine as Forth words. So...
 in the same way that Kernigie and Richie's original C is the only true
 nucleus of C and the rest is the library, I would imagine that it would
 do justice to Forth if we used the standard F83 (latest standard) and
 anything else could be allocated to a separate vocabulary (C library).
 After all, how compatible are all the versions of C when you include
 every word in the libraries? Rgds.

 ---
  ~ EZ-Reader 1.20 ~ .EXE -ex

 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886   
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'