Re: What's right with FORTH and wrong with c.l.f.

On Sun, 04 May 2008 23:26:57 +0400, Aleksej Saushev <asau@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>> And all the Forths adapted for Windows and *nix hosted platforms
>> do feature easy mechanisms for calling C or other subroutines,
>> so their users have the same access to libraries as anyone else.
>
>I doubt that either.

Why? Which Forths have you surveyed? I have ten non-MPE systems
that I survey regularly.

>It is a miracle, if you transparently create NUL-terminated strings 
>from pointer-counter pairs, and get the latter from the former at
>the same ease. And I don't believe in such miracles.

Ah, the one true way to handle strings! Every Windows/Unix Forth
that I have looked at also has a wordset for zero-terminated
strings and wrappers for common operations.

If you really mean that the "free" or "Open Source" Forths
have not caught up with the commercial Forths, then say so.
Hand-waving is not good enough. Give me examples and numbers,
and I'll consider them. Show me better ways to do things in
Forth, and I'll be grateful.

Stephen


-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com
- free VFX Forth downloads