In article <2025Oct25.181001@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:   
   >>The real goal should be that if you are in a graphic Debian package   
   >>manager, gforth should show up, if you search for forth.   
   >   
   >And then what?  Get a slow Gforth package without documentation?  Sure   
   >makes a good first impression.   
      
   That is a cardinal sin, a package without documentation. Why have modern   
   Gforth's no documentation?   
    Gforth 0.7.3 has a reasonable info documentation in Debian.   
   After unzipping this is 723Kbyte  for 1864 words.   
   All in all this is a usable Forth.   
   (lina has 500 Kbyte for 351 words. )   
      
      
      
   >Not in my experience.  I actually receive the bug reports that Debian   
   >gets for Gforth.  They are few, and most of those are specific to the   
   >Debian package.  We get many more bug reports on the Gforth mailing   
   >list, and also more on gforth's bug tracker.   
      
   That means that gforth 0.7.3 is a mature product. It is also   
   reasonably documented.   
   It is time to stamp it release 1.0.0 . I hear that you don't see an   
   opportunity to improve upon that.   
   Algol 60 was a distinct improvement over all its successors.   
   No shame info that.   
      
   >- anton   
   --   
   The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.   
   The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy   
   over 80 years, like Western Europe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)