On Mar 13, 9:07 pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mark W. Humphries wrote:
> > This is getting old. Why don't you just put together a list of
> > ==explicit requirements== for your desired language and see if it
> > generates interest, instead of incessantly repeating the same
> > question?
>
> I did.
>
> 1. Interactive.
> 2. Based on the iron.
> 3. Acceptable to ordinary users.
Do you intend it to be a fully extensible language like Forth, would
development follow the Forth approach of extending the language until
an application specific vocabulary is achieved?
Would it follow a two stack model? RPN?
Have far from Forth are you willing to go to cater to the m*****?
> > It would help to understand if what you desire is Forth-
> > related enough to be of interest to clf. If it ends up being more like
> > Python than Forth than it belongs in comp.lang.python.
>
> Pythonians generally cannot conceptualize the need for (2), I think.
> Their approach is to im****t C as needed.
That may be, but if your language ends up being more like Python than
Forth it still would be more appropriate to comp.lang.python than
comp.lang.forth.
> --
> John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.http://www.noqsi.com/
> --
> History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor
> necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to
> use logic for that purpose are abusing it.
|
