Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.lang.forth Subject: Re: FIGIL DIGEST Message-ID: <603@baylor.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 14:38:28 EST Article-I.D.: baylor.603 Posted: Wed Oct 30 14:38:28 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 06:04:29 EST References: <8510110938.AA09626@UCB-VAX.ARPA> <8510211813.AA09575@UCB-VAX> Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX Lines: 27 > I would suggest polyForth from Forth, Inc as a professional, consistent, > and well-documented implementation of the language for the IBM-PC. I have > several years of experience using various Forths in different projects So have I, and PolyForth fails badly in one important respect: THE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM DOES NOT RUN UNDER MS-DOS. This means that: - You cannot run it under DoubleDos, or with Sidekick, or use any of the other tools that try to make the PC a usable software development environment. - You cannot easily transfer files between MS-DOS and Forth screens. - You cannot use it on anything but an IBM or a good clone. Fig-Forth, while it requires you to write more software, helps you by letting you work under MS-DOS... or whatever other O/S you are using. I wouldn't dream of using another Forth that requires you to discard the native O/S after my experiences with PolyForth. Otherwise, you're quite right. The multitasker is nice, and the fact that the same system is available for a wide variety of processors is extremely useful. But if you want respect from your system, it's a total loss. -- -- Peter da Silva -- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076