Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Why is Postscript not Forth?
Message-ID: <431.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 90 22:59:55 GMT
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 27


In trying to understand the essence of what 'Forth' is, I've been
trying to understand why many Forth supporters don't want to call
PostScript Forth.  Let's set aside two 'easy' arguments:

	1) PostScript is too S-L-O-W.
I'm *not* concerned with particular implementations, I'm interested in
philosophical reasons.  [Unless you can show that PostScript is
*always* *necessarily* going to *have* to be slower than Forth.]

	2) PostScript is BIG.
My response to this is two fold:
	a) There are packaged Forth systems available now that are
	   BIG (FPC and BBL/Abundance spring immediately to mind).
	b) PostScript comes with a lot of the words predefined for
	   doing graphics/page-layout.  This is not part of the
	   language per se, but more the result of starting with
	   something and growing/planning it towards a particular
	   application.

Why do think that PostScript should/shouldn't be called Forth?

		-Doug

---
Preferred: willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp   [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]