> On 29 Apr 2016, at 21:10 , Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> On Apr 29, 2016, at 3:01 PM, ben <bfranc...@jetnet.ab.ca> wrote: >> >> I liked Forth when it was still threaded. > > ??? > > Base FORTH is not, in and of itself, threaded. PolyFORTH was if memory > serves. Then again, creating a thread scheduler (cooperative scheduler) for > FORTH is just a modest exercise for the programmer.
I'm guessing Ben means threaded as in "Threaded Interpretative Language", and not a concurrent programming language. There are still plenty of Forth implementations based on threading (of words).
