1. Re: PeuForth
>David Cuny wrote:
>
>> Ken Rhodes wrote:
>>
>> > Hellooooooooooooooo!!!! Knock, Knock, Knock. Anybody there?
>> > Hellooooooooooooooo?!!!!!!
>>
>> I'd say an apology to Peter Lawrence would be in order here.
>>
>> > Quit distracting David Cuny from writing graphical
>> > interfaces that are the best thing going for making
>> > Euphoria a mainstream language.
>>
>> Distracting me? I used to code in Forth professionally for a number of
>> years, and (up to this point) found this thread quite enjoyable, although I
>> certainly don't plan on coding in Forth again.
>>
>> Besides, I hardly think (1) the future of Euphoria rides on my shoulders or
>> (2) Euphoria will ever be a mainstream language.
>>
>> -- David Cuny
>
>I apologize to Peter Lawrence for so cynicaly suggesting that a FORTH
>implementation of Euphoria would be of little benefit.
The ONLY positive benefit I was suggesting was that a cascader would
increase the range of platforms Euphoria could reach easily. All the
discussion of efficiency, disadvantages of Forth from being write-only,
etc., was just meant to show that the cost wasn't too high for an interim
bridging measure after all. The idea was NOT to suggest that a cascader was
the right way to produce a final product. PML.
GST+NPT=JOBS
I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production
tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other
items on that page for some reasons why.
