🚀 go-pugleaf

> I would suggest polyForth from Forth, Inc as a professional, consistent,
> and well-documented implementation of the language for the IBM-PC. I have
> several years of experience using various Forths in different projects

So have I, and PolyForth fails badly in one important respect:

	THE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM DOES NOT RUN UNDER MS-DOS.

This means that:

	- You cannot run it under DoubleDos, or with Sidekick, or use any
	  of the other tools that try to make the PC a usable software
	  development environment.
	- You cannot easily transfer files between MS-DOS and Forth screens.
	- You cannot use it on anything but an IBM or a good clone.

Fig-Forth, while it requires you to write more software, helps you by letting
you work under MS-DOS... or whatever other O/S you are using. I wouldn't dream
of using another Forth that requires you to discard the native O/S after my
experiences with PolyForth.

Otherwise, you're quite right. The multitasker is nice, and the fact that the
same system is available for a wide variety of processors is extremely useful.
But if you want respect from your system, it's a total loss.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva
-- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076