Re: advantages of forth over other languages

Bruce McFarling wrote:
> As a caution against the "not invented here" mentality ... people who
> are
> used to rolling their own solutions from scratch have to be careful
> that
> they do not fall into "can I improve this design?" mode when learning
> the pattern language in common use.

Yes, I agree with this.

I think a problem a lot of people have with design patterns is to view 
them as a kind of "cookbook solution" to a problem.  An example of a 
cookbook solution would be the kind of thing we see in comp.lang.forth 
all the time.  Someone asks a question ("how can I efficiently calculate 
the quadratic equation") and then people provide and discuss solutions.

There's nothing wrong with cookbook solutions, but as they are about 
implementation and not higher-level design, the NIH-mind can usually 
find ways to improve them.

Design patterns on the other hand tend to be things that you can't 
improve as much, because they aren't tied to a particular implementation.

The distinctions here are sometimes subtle and will be lost to anyone 
who confuses design with implementation.

> So, in other words, interpret it directly in terms of what it
> explicitly says, rather than trying to read between the lines.

I'm sorry, but even going back and reading your initial message with 
this new information, I'm still don't see that meaning as being obvious.