Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth in oblivion Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:18:30 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <53010196$0$6654$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <8e92ee6b-6a2e-4cf2-9d4b-d0785cb9e624@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:28575 On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 05:09:46 -0500, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rod Pemberton wrote: >> I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected, >> modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct. >> >> The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth. > > But, strangely, you are still here. Why is that? > I'm surprised you don't know the answer or, more likely, can't remember it. FYI, I've answered that question a dozen times now, and again for "visual..." whatever monicker guy. Of course, for each of the people who have asked me that, except the new "visual..." whatever monicker guy, I have asked the following or something similar to it: If you don't post any Forth code, don't help new people when they request it, mostly discuss ancient Forth history and argue about trivial specification semantics, then why are *you* here? You could've provided useful posts to the new people but didn't. Instead, you were spending your time arguing with Anton and Bernd. So, if you don't like simply seeing informative responses from me, you could've replied. Rod Pemberton