From: ODO Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: NEW: Alpha-testing for MUSIC compiler announced Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:15:24 -0500 Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <56l4qm$7fq AT herald DOT concentric DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: mariner.cris.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII To: Paul Shirley In-Reply-To: To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp 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