Talk:PForth

"See also" section
Where did the "See Also" section go? Claystu (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it as the links contained seemed to me only rather vaguely related to the subject of the article. For example, what is the connection between pForth and Factor and Joy (other than Factor and Joy being concatenative programming languages)? Anyway, feel free to reinsert the section if you think it adds value to the article. —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I took those links from the main forth article -- I think the connection is exactly that they are concatenative programming languages and since such languages are so light on the ground it helps readers to know this is a real paradigm that links these languages together. What do you think? Claystu (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no direct connection between pForth on one side and Factor and Joy on the other side. I would not expect from a user of Factor or Joy to ever have heard about pForth and vice versa.
 * I think it depends on whether you consider pForth a language on its own right or as "just an implementation of Forth". Forth, Factor, Joy, Cat etc are concatenative languages, so there is a direct connection, and it is therefore appropriate if the respective articles link to each other. I see pForth as a specific implementation of Forth, and in that sense to me it takes two "hops" to get from pForth to Factor. I would not expect the article on the Intel C++ Compiler to link to the article on the Eiffel programming language just because Intel C++ is an implementation of the C++ programming language and C++ and Eiffel are both object-oriented programming languages.
 * However, as I wrote above: feel free to reinsert those links if you think they add value to the article and help the interested reader. I am sorry if I caused offense by removing these links (and in a drive-by fashion, too), and thank you for writing this article in the first place.
 * —Tobias Bergemann (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I see your logic. I'll leave it as it is. Just discussing. No offense or upset. Claystu (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)