On Mar 17, 9:39 pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mark W. Humphries wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 9:03 am, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Mark W. Humphries wrote:
> >>> On Mar 17, 5:47 am, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> Bruce McFarling wrote:
> >>>>> When you see the language as operations doing things when told,
rather
> >>>>> than as RPN operators on preceding text, that's half the hurdle
> >>>>> overcome right there.
>
> >>>> In other words, you learn to suppress your normal human language
> >>>> instinct instead of using its power.
>
> >>> In other words don't suppress the power don't suppress the power of
Forth's paradigm under
> >>> the pretext of bringing it to a wider audience. You keep wanting to
throw our the baby with
> >>> the bath water, Forth is not Machine Python.
>
> >> What power? It's literally useless if nobody uses it.
>
> > You seem to confuse every concept with popularity.
>
> No users, no product. Why is his a difficult concept?
The power of a language and its popularity are synonymous, learn
something new everyday. You'd make a great salesman for Microsoft.
> >>> of Forth's paradigm under the
> >>> pretext of bringing it to a wider audience. You keep wanting to
throw
> >>> our the baby with the bath water, Forth is not Machine Python.
>
> >> Why throw out the baby? Make another one. That's more fun ;-)
>
> > What you have described so far does not seem like Forth to me, it
> > seems like Machine Python.
>
> >> You have this strange notion that somehow attempting to make a better
> >> Forth will somehow diminish the Forth you like.
>
> > Not at all, I'm all for better Forths. Everything you have described
> > so far fits the paradigm of a Machine Python not of a better Forth.
> > Once again, Machine Python is not even Forth, let alone a better
> > Forth.
>
> It doesn't matter what it's called: what matters is what it achieves.
I agree it doesn't matter what it's called. Merely calling your new
language Forth does not make it so, and calling it a Better Forth or
Twenty-First Century Forth is misleading if your suggested
'improvements' are antithetical to the Forth approach to solution
development.
|
