Re: The strengths of FORTH

Bruce McFarling <agila61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Jonah Thomas <jethom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> > You can have anything you want. But after you
> > make it work your way, it isn't exactly Forth. Because you haven't
> > forced everybody else to do it too.
> 
> ... "it isn't exactly Forth, unless you've made it possible for anyone
> else to do it too."
 
.....

> Thinking in terms of whether or not someone is forced to do it is a
> category mistake. Its thinking of herding cats as if its the same
> nature of activity as herding cattle.

Sure, but I'm trying to see it from the other guy's point of view. You
can indent your control structures and use the indentation to help make
the flow of control real easy to see in Forth. But you don't have to. In
Python you have to, if it isn't indented it doesn't work. People who
read Python programs can depend on that indentation, they can depend on
it to be there *all the time*, no matter what. When a Python programmer
talks about what Forth isn't, he's got to be talking about what Forth
doesn't enforce. 

If Forth is everything we can choose to do in Forth, then Forth is
everything. Forth is OO, Forth is a functional language, Forth is lisp,
Forth is infix .... If Forth is everything you can do in Forth then
there isn't much left out. Forth is a language construction kit.

But if Forth is only what Forth enforces, then Forth is nothing. And
that's the approach he's taking. Look at a word in a Forth program, and
you can't tell just by the name or the syntax whether it's a variable or
a pointer. You can't even tell whether it's a noun or a verb. He says
that's unreadable. And it does take a different way to read it.