Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/11/19/23:44:17
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Paul Shirley wrote:
>
> Sounds quite a lot like Forth to me... (which now has an ANS standard)
>
> --
> Paul Shirley: who would like to apologise to djgpp'ers, for not being able to
> resist making this post ;)
>
Although Forth was one of the languages we extensivly reviewed in
developing the MUSIC standards, the only feature of forth that even comes
close to MUSIC is that almost the entire structure of forth is defined in
word terms of other forth commands. But this is also not that much
different from setting up a sub, or function, or class in other languages,
and still does not provide the degree, and simplisity that MUSIC offers.
Furthermore, charectoristics such as it's postfix arithmetic notation that
are hard coded into the compiler continue to show the static
charecteristics of the Forth language.
Try loading and compiling a C, or QB, or Pascal source file into a Forth
compiler, you will not have that much luck. Whereas with the dynamics of
MUSIC, you can load a Forth token set and easily compile it, or convert it
to another grammer/syntax set, such as C, or Ada, or what ever other token
sets that you might have.
I guess the real power of MUSIC will not be seen until you are able to
actually test and use the compiler. So, if I might suggest that before
everyone trys to knock down something they have never used, they atleast
wait to test it first.
Bryon
- Raw text -