Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Why is Postscript not Forth?
Message-ID: <449.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 90 00:36:01 GMT
References: <19928@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 23

In article <19928@bellcore.bellcore.com> sdh@flash.bellcore.com (Stephen D Hawley) writes:
> In article <431.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP> dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) writes:
> >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.
> 
> So is PS Forth?  Well, that's unclear.  Forth is a bizarro language.  It's
> not so much a language as a set of loose semantics.  I can put a layer on top
> of forth that will make it look like BASIC.  Is BASIC Forth?  People have
> mentioned implementations of Scheme layered on top of Forth.  Is Scheme Forth?
...
> I put it that, no, PS is not Forth, but merely similar in semantics.

Aha!  I almost got an answer here!  ;-)  Is PostScript merely a layer on top
of Forth, or is it, at heart, a different language?  If it is a different
language, what is the fundamental difference?  Is PostScript's post-fix-"mania"
more Forth-like than 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]