Self is not against Forth

[Billy Tanksley]

On Wed, 2 Aug 1995, Rainer Blome wrote:

> to all:

> billy, you said:

> > I know very little about self.

> sorry, if you don't don't know self, you'll sure have a difficult time
> understanding my message.

I agree.  :)

I am having a hard time getting info on Self because I don't even have 
access to a Sun workstation, nor can I print postscript (and viewing PS 
is a laugh).

> > All I know is that the easiest language to assembley-extend is Forth,
> > probably because it's so simple.

> how do you know that?  _why_ is that so simple?  if it's so simple, the
> reason for that can't be difficult to describe? ;-)

Perhaps I mixed my antecedants there (I certainly did mispell enough words!).

I said that Forth is very simple, therefore it's easy to extend.  That IS 
the resaon why it's easy to extend.  Surely you've seen Forth 
assemblers-- even for a CISC system the source for a Forth assembler is 
easy to read.  The same is true for more complicated projects, such as 
list processors and indeterminate finite state machines.

I didn't intend for that statement of mine to sound like a comparison to 
self, BTW-- I know nothing about it, and have no basis to criticise.  My 
statements apply strictly to Forth, and thus should have not used the 
comparative "easiest".  I'm sorry.

> greetings,	rainer

-Billy
Since I can't learn Self, can I at least look at it?  Does anyone have a 
site that has some actual Self code, as opposed to papers?