On Mar 15, 9:22 pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Of course, that's almost like forking the language from a user's
> viewpoint. I predict that few users would care that Forth 94 was
> underneath, just as few care that RTL is under GCC.
Its not forking the language if its a distinct language in its own
right, which imposes a specific syntax. In that case, its an
application of Forth.
And *of course* if an application is successful, a majority of users
do not care what language its coded in ... that's what successful
applications are like. For a niche language, especially one where most
successes are in proprietary code on proprietary platforms, having
currently successful publicly accessible applications to point to
remains a good thing.
If Forth is available as the assembly language for new primitive
operations, it would be in a carefully structured framework tailored
to the writing of the distinct syntactic units. Indeed, that is an
appealing design decision, since it allows the language to start up
its basic processing routines and then to load its own foundation
elements using its own compiler framework. The sooner in the process
the language starts building itself, the lower the ****tability hurdle.
|
