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

Jonah Thomas wrote:
..
..

> I'm troubled by what you call "false friends", commands that have the
> same name as Forth commands but radically different actions. If you
> implement it in Forth that looks like it invites problems, and it
> shouldn't be too hard to make new names. But a quick look at your Pygmy
> code did show new names.

The question coming up there, pretty much the reason I am testbedding,
is to see whether it makes more sense to end up with a distinct
functional language a la Joy, only put together bottom up to find
implementation issues, or to find a useful word set for Forth that
would make it easier to code functionally in that. For a new language,
you're anyway going to get false friends for non-Forthers who come to
it if you try to be too Forth-like, so it's best to seek "natural"
approaches - natural in terms of the new language - and warn Forthers
that it is NOT Forth. But yes, if I end up with a word set for Forth,
I agree that there should be distinct word names. P.M.Lawrence.