don't get me wrong, i do think

    : square dup * ;

is better code

but the possibility of such clean, concise definitions is a seductive trap; it is easy to write code that isn't obviously correct in pursuit of that aim

quickly this leads you to code that is not just unreadable but full of bugs, and that is how the person who started this thread was, in their words, trying forth and failing; this is not just a common experience but nowadays a nearly universal one

so it is much better to err on the side of too many variables and too little stack manipulation than the opposite

you can always streamline the code later once it works

i'm pretty sure leo brodie would agree with me on this

I was just curious, you seem like a meticulous thinker so I figured you had done your homework before adopting an unusual Forth style. Cheers

oh, apologies for misinterpreting your comment as meaning 'too bad you didn't understand the book any of the times you read it'

my defensive tone was uncalled for

thank you for making the additional effort to clarify despite it