Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: CASE mis-understanding? Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:25:25 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <52e03ea6.129724862@news.demon.co.uk> <52e0e8dd.173300325@news.demon.co.uk> 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:28049 On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:21:28 -0500, wrote: > Forth is whatever you want it to be. If you change the syntax enough that there are *no* standard or common Forth words remaining, is it still Forth? ... E.g., if Forth syntax was completely changed to be another high-level language, like C or Fortran or Pascal or COBOL, can you still claim it's Forth? How much Forth must still remain? > I'm designing a Forth that will be suitable for writing "simple, > reliable and maintainable source code" and it will still be "an > emulation of a low-level stack-based assembler instruction set." If there are no Forth control-flow words remaining, then I'd argue that it's a new or different language using a Forth backend, e.g., assembly, Gcode, etc. Rod Pemberton