Re: The Promise of Forth

Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "astrobe" <fdubois76@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:f69d2c0b-5221-4809-b21d-b6a07df6f62b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> You've seen the light. Thanks for that too. I suggest that the few
>> people working on the next standard should follow your advice in order
>> to fix Forth. I also suggest Corth as a new name for that new langage.
>>

> Although your (unlabelled) sarcasm is funny, I wasn't criticizing Forth.
> I'm currently trying to use a Forth-like interpreter in a C project.  My
> response was a serious reply to JD's statement:

>> Then why do domain experts find Forth code "unmaintainable" and
>> "write-only"? These are not cliches: they represent the actual
>> experiences of real people.

I'm surprised it was serious: there were so many "facts" in your
posting that clearly were untrue I just assumed it was a troll, and a
pretty lame one at that.  Do you still claim, for example, that Forth
"doesn't manage variables" ?  Given that Standard Forth has had both
local and global variables since 1994, that is rather amazing.  "FORTH
only has a single data type: integer" Really?  And what on Earth does
"[Forth] lacks visual grouping" mean?

Andrew.