Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!willett!dwp From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth in PostScript Message-ID: <459.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP> Date: 13 Feb 90 03:18:14 GMT References: <456.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP> Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain. (Pgh, PA) Lines: 31 In <456.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, GARY-S writes: > As I pointed out in the FIGGY BAR conference on 9 Feb 1990 on GEnie, > PostScript may fairly be referred to as a subset or superset (depending > on your perspective) of Forth, but it is NOT Forth. If PostScript > qualifies as Forth by your definition then all other PostFix, stack > oriented languages such as REPTL, Fifth, and STOIC do so as well. This > is clearly not the case. If an analogy may be drawn it might be this: > All Cactii are succulents, but all succulents are not cactii. All > Forth are postfix stack machines, but not all postfix stack machines > are Forth. Sharing mechanisms is only part of the definition. PostScript > is no more Forth than a golfcart is an automobile, though both are > motor driven and most have four pneumatic tires and propel people and > their luggage from point-to-point. I don't think I stated my point clearly. What I'm trying to do is to get at the 'essence' of Forth. I know that Forth and PostScript are not the same thing (species), but I know that they probably belong to the same genus. In trying to understand Forth, it is as helpful for me to understand what Forth *isn't* as it is to understand what Forth *is*. PostScript is the candidate I chose because it is so similar to Forth that the distinctions between the two seemed to me as if they would be very informative as to the subtleties of Forth's essence. One difference that has been pointed out as important is the typing of PS's stack. I'm curious to know what the other (if any) important differences are. -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]