Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!orr From: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth and Functional Languages Keywords: Hot air, more of the same, SOS, press q to quit Message-ID: <1643@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 21 Sep 88 16:02:47 GMT References: <8809092121.AA09902@jade.berkeley.edu> <1625@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <7122@well.UUCP> Reply-To: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 19 In article <7122@well.UUCP> jax@well.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr) writes: > Really, what ever happened to the concept of MLL's? Why does >everyone try to prove that Forth is a lousy HLL? C is a lousy delcarative >language for that matter. Prolog is a lousy procedural language. > There are two possibilities for what MLL stands for: Medium level language; Machine level language. The latter I agree is a fair catagorisation of forth. In fact that is what I've been saying all along. To say though that this is a great thing is not very sensible. It is clear that the purpose of a programming language is to make the machine easier to use without loosing any machine function (which can most certainly be done in practice) I agree that forth is a more powerful assembler than most, but it is still an assembler. I don't want to use this assembler any more than any other, (although I might like to use a compiler that had the advantage of producing this more powerful machine model.) Regards, ===Fraser