Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!emory!mephisto!udel!new
From: new@udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Anyone want to design a language?
Message-ID: <11864@nigel.udel.EDU>
Date: 22 Feb 90 14:28:29 GMT
References: <22569:05:10:24@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <8475@wpi.wpi.edu> <111355@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> <447@fwi.uva.nl> <10979@saturn.ADS.COM> <111706@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
Sender: usenet@udel.EDU
Reply-To: new@udel.edu (Darren New)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 21

In article <111706@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> gateley@m2.csc.ti.com (John Gateley) writes:
>So, why is postfix better than prefix? 

Well, for one it is much easier to parse. I would estimate it is about as 
much easier to parse compared to prefix as prefix is to infix.

Two, it is much more flexible.  For example, in FORTH there is a word 
(aka procedure, function, ...) called : (pronounced COLON :-) that
reads the next string from the input and starts compiling
a new function with its name being that string.  Much like defun in
LISP, except that the syntax is not fixed. With prefix, you must make
a distinction between functions that evaluate their arguments and
functions that do not (defun, cons, etc).  In postfix, the evaluated
arguments come first and the non-evaluated arguments come afterwards.

Of course, I've been working on my own language that is postfix and
completely syntax-free; this may make me see some of this stuff in
a prejudiced way. Maybe it is possible to make prefix as flexible as
postfix, but I don't know how off hand. 

		 -- Darren