Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth for education Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:47:31 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 56 Message-ID: References: <0d34c96e-d56b-4d85-85f3-7379a3a1eb72@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:25668 On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:20:19 -0400, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 12/09/2013 13:10:24, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:52:54 -0400, Alex McDonald >> > wrote: .. >> The point was "spaghetti code" can be written in interpreted Forths, >> contrary to the claims of Hugh and Ms. Rather, because most of them >> have a named equivalent of GOTO that is available to the user. > > Count me with them, in that case, because you're way off base. > Well, I disagree, but there is no point in continuing since you are clearly set in your perspective. Ditto for Ms. Rather. >>> [link Wil Baden code] >> >> He's an interesting guy. > > Was. Nobel. Fox. ... I won't insert an "everyone around here is dying comment." We all know Forth is a dying language. I also won't incite more hostilities by pointing out that ME, Hugh, gavino, and perhaps Mark and Marcel, are going to be some of the only ones who know Forth who are still living a few years from now... > Neil Bawd (Wil Baden was an anagrammatic pseudonym for his > Forth stuff) Well, I said interesting... But, like GOTO, it seems you have it the wrong way around. See "Who is Neil Bawd" section here: http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/dad/ > I don't think he was a fan of GOTO. Despite Knuth's supposed claims to the contrary, explicit GOTO's are completely unecessary as a standalone language element. Structured code eliminates all need for an explicit GOTO in a high-level language. > The link demonstrates the power of Forth in developing new control > structures in Forth alone. Why do you think that is important? For some of my C code, I only use a very small portion of the flow control available in C. C has the same control flow that is available in Forth, or less. I.e., most of C's flow control is entirely unnecessary, therefore Forth's must be too. If it's unnecessary, can it be that important? Rod Pemberton