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