Re: BETWEEN

mhx@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:
> William James <w_a_x_man@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes Re: BETWEEN

> [..]
> >> Playing with the algorithm for WITHIN (A.6.2.2440) one gets:
> >>
> >> : BETWEEN  ( n1|u1 n2|u2 n3|u3 -- flag )   OVER - -ROT - U< 0= ;
> 
> > Stuff like this leads one to believe that Forth code is
> > unreadable, cryptic, unsharable, and unmaintainable.
> > It's worse than some assembly language I've seen.
> > Forth needs to become a higher-level language.
> 
> Maybe, but in the case under investigation the offered 
> functionality might be trickier than a quick glance 
> reveals. Maybe you can rewrite BETWEEN in Pascal to find 
> out just how tricky.
 
I wonder if that's what they mean. When something that looks simple and
straightforward turns out to be tricky, maybe that's a problem.

Maybe we'd be better off if everything that looked simple was actually
simple, and you have to write something obviously complicated to do
anything complicated.

I can't name a language where that's true, but maybe we'd be better off
if we had one.