Re: on Perl

On 23/04/2024 15:09, Richard Harnden wrote:

On 18/04/2024 10:31, David Brown wrote:

On 18/04/2024 10:36, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:30:49 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>

With the list of pointers design of Forth, you can just
redefine these "local" words as you need to, and ignore any previous
definitions.

>
So, they reinvented local variables, and thought it was some great
innovation ...

>
"word" in Forth terminology is more like "function" in common imperative languages.  (It is not exactly the same, since Forth "words" are much more flexible - that is both a good thing and a bad thing.)
>

 Why not include c.l.forth?
 

Sure - if you would like to continue in this line, then you could bring in some experts.  I have no idea how popular c.l.forth is, or how much more you'd learn from them that you wouldn't get from others here such as John Ames.
For my own part, I think Forth is interesting to know about, but it's not a language I am likely to use, and I've learned a little more now (thanks to John), and I am satisfied.  But if you or others want more depth, it probably makes more sense to drop the "comp.unix" groups and add "comp.lang.forth", and - as Kenny suggests - change the subject. (Or even just start a new thread!)