Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Non-Forth systems/languages.
Message-ID: <502.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 18 Feb 90 23:42:07 GMT
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 27

Category 3,  Topic 16
Message 75        Sun Feb 18, 1990
L.ZETTEL                     at 18:34 EST
 
  To: Zafar Essak (GEnie Category 3, topic 16, msg 72)
       In my experience (which is likely not exactly the same as Lee's)
  streams tend to impel you to the White Queen's way: "Begin at the
  beginning, go through to the end, then stop".  If that is what you
  want to do, fine; otherwise, depending on the capabilities of your
  operating system, you may have troubles.  Certainly, backing up in a
  pure stream is usually less convenient than putting the water back in
  the hose.
       IMHO, what really made streams was pipes.  Without pipes and
  a means of easily switching in midstream they are very limiting.
  Especially without that, what you tend to end up with are a lot of
  big files that are all slight variants on each other - wasteful and
  a nightmare come error correction time.
       As a long time admirer of the beauty in Kernighan and Plauger's
  Software Tools, I have now and again contemplated implementing them
  in Forth.  But with my Forth style what it is, I have concluded every
  time that I wouldn't have much use for them in a Forth environment.
  Long streams of stuff needing wholesale programmable modification
  just don't happen to me that often.
                              -LenZ-
-----
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'