Re: The Promise of Forth

On Apr 1, 4:07 pm, Aleksej Saushev <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> No, that's not "weak typing" in any way.

Under what definition of weak typing is is not? And what purpose would
be served in switching to that definition away from the normal meaning
in computer science?

> It is _typeless_, numbers-only at most.

Under what definition of types, and what purpose would be served by
switching to that definition and away from the normal meaning in
computer science?

> C has real types, even though it uses integers for characters too, try
to add C structures for example.

I assume that this claim can be made correct, for some specific ad hoc
definition of the term "real types". Given license to redefine any
term in a statement, any statement can be transformed into a correct
one.

But you are simply speaking in your own specially invented language,
not presenting a persuasive case why anyone else should abandon the
normal computer science terminology in favor of your specially
invented language.