That could certainly be done, but I don't want to fall into the Forth trap, where every running Forth implementation is really a different language.
About this quote
- What does it mean?
- They could implement something but avoid it to prevent creating many incompatible Forth‑like languages.
- In plain terms
- They avoid a solution to not fragment the language.
- What can you take from it?
- Prevent language fragmentation.
Where it applies
Putting it to work
Questions to consider
- When is fragmentation acceptable?
- How to manage multiple implementations?
Another view
Sometimes diversity can foster innovation.
More from Larry Wall
We question most of the mantras around here periodically, in case you hadn't noticed. :-)
Permalink to quote #79 Tcl long ago fell into the Forth trap, and is now trying desperately to extricate itself (with some help from Sun's marketing department).
Permalink to quote #81 I think $[ is more like a coelacanth than a mastadon.
Permalink to quote #78
Related quotes
... greatest single programming language ever designed. (About Lisp programming language)
Alan KayAlan Kay quote #24 Of course, I reserve the right to make wholly stupid changes to Perl if I think they improve the language. :-)
Larry WallLarry Wall quote #76 We didn't put in ^^ because then we'd have to keep telling people what it means, and then we'd have to keep telling them why it doesn't short circuit. :-/
Larry WallLarry Wall quote #92