pop@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Robin Popplestone) writes:
>The zeitgeist works in mysterious ways...
Ain't it the truth, Robin!? For instance, it's pretty obvious that
Forth and C were invented primarily to solve one and the same problem,
which was to transform the archaic, lugubrious human-oriented syntax of
the then-extant languages into a more machine-oriented, low-level compromise
syntax.
>I suspect that Moore, in developing Forth, had less the needs of symbolic
>computing in mind. That would seem to be the primary difference between POP-1
>and Forth.
Interesting in this regard is to compare Forth to Postcript,
the latter being more oriented towards symbolic computing, yet
differing from Forth in essentially only three respects:
1) Addition of the /symbol data type.
2) Metachar parsing forcing forth "+", for example, to be renamed
Postscript "plus".
3) Temporary heap objects and garbage collection added to PS.
=jax=
--
#jax@cygnus.com # "Forth is the only SDI possibility. The
#jax@well.sf.ca.us # chance of convincing them of that is zero.
#72203.1320@compuserve.com # So pray for disarmament."
#SYSOP RCFB (303) 278-0364 # - Chuck Moore, live on Compuserve, 1986
|