Re: advantages of forth over other languages

On May 7, 2:29 pm, John Passaniti <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bruce McFarling wrote:
> > Note that for this, a pattern language that is "good enough" to allow
> > people to talk about their design activity, and is widely understood,
> > is superior to a pattern language that is "ideal" for a particular
> > design activity, but is not widely understood.

> I'm not sure how to interpret this.

> > That is, after all, was the rationale for a Scientific Interactive
> > Command Language with Forth as its assembler ... something that looks
> > much like a common pseudo-code but can be interpreted, incrementally
> > compiled and run, and that when you crack the hood allows you to get
> > as close to the metal as the host Forth allows ... which for many
> > hosts would be quite close to the metal indeed.

> Again, I'm not sure what you're addressing here.

As states, that the rationale behind the first statement is the same
as
the rational for a previously sketched "Scientific Interactive
Command
Language".

I'm not sure where you got that the second statement is about pattern
languages. Its the rationale that is said to be common between the
two statements, not the subject matter.