[tongue in cheek]
Sorry, Mr. Kochenburger:
5th has already been written. I knew it as fifth :)
How about 6th. I haven't seen any implementation with that name!
brianm. :)
===
In article <35209173.1533183 at news>,
kochenbu at khe.scn.de (Andreas Kochenburger) wrote:
[snipped]
> IMO this - and a standardized OOF mechanism - on top of Forth would be
> worth to be called a successor of Forth - perhaps 5th?
>> Andreas
>> P.S. Did anybody in the past try to power up the Forth compiler by
> adding unification capabilities or evaluating stack annotations?
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 09:34:25 -0500, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
> <philrob at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Bart Lateur wrote:
> >> Of course, since then, an "official" 4th generation of languages was
> >> created, which is, err.... either database query (like SQL), Prolog like
> >> languages, or maybe even something else (natural query language?).
>>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
