From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2002-12-06T15:58:41+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] ratlast 0.1 -- embedded FORTH in Ruby

In article <5.1.0.14.2.20021205171651.021cce20@zcard04k.ca.nortel.com>,
Mark Probert  <probertm@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>Hi, Rich.
>
>Thank for your interest.
>
>At 06:19 AM 12/6/2002 +0900, you wrote:
>>Mark,
>>
>>     I'm not nocking ya and I don't have a clue about FORTH... so... why
>>would I use FORTH instead of Ruby?
>
>FORTH is good for some things that Ruby is less strong on.  One of the
>main "advantages" of FORTH is that when you define a word, you are
>actually extending the language.  The mechanism for doing this is
>very efficient.
>
>The main idea that I have for ratlast is as a user-extensible command
>language for Ruby applications.  For example, what do you do if you have
>a running Ruby system that you can't take down, yet you have to add some
>functionality?  That is very easy to do using ratlast.
>

Actually, that's easy to do using Ruby. ;-)


Phil
-- 
"Or perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" 
Amy Weiss (accusing theregister.co.uk of engaging in 'tabloid journalism')
Senior VP, Communications
Recording Industry Association of America