Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> wrote:
Forth, LISP, PostScript and a few others I'll
leave others to name
Forth and PostScript are quite similar but I wouldn't
say that LISP was a stack based language. It uses stacks
but most languages use stacks. In Forth, you have direct
control of two stacks as necessary for the language.
The differences that contrast the languages are
post-fixed versus pre-fixed. Both of these are actually
better than in-fixed that is used by most popular
languages( flame bate ). Parsing rules are always
the same, with no special cases to deal with or
ambiguous implementation depended rules.
Forth has the advantage that action is read
left to right or "Do-it As You See It". LISP
has the ability to concatenate several of similar
operations like (+ ). LISP has the advantage over
Forth in that all parameters are specific in the
text. Both can do recursion with equal ease although
many early Forth's did not explicitly define it.
One of the big advantages of Forth and that is it has
flexibility to add new capabilities in high level
Forth or low level code and make it seem as though
it were part of the language. LISP has a similar
ability but the explicit parameter passing often
makes the usefulness of this lost in the coding.
Oh well, each to there own.