Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Feedback to the Forth Interest Group
Message-ID: <6705@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 90 17:01:05 GMT
References: <281.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 21

In article <281.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP> ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
>D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 23:35 EST
> > You want to take a guess at the percentage of Forth programmers
> > who are members of FIG?  One in a hundred?
[...]
>Still, I would be comfortable with
>saying the FIG members account for less that 5% of the Forth communitee.  That
>would also imply that the best we have ever done is to have about 10% of them
>pay the membership fees.  Therefore, I am less worried about the 5% that we
>lost due to rising costs than I am about how to attract the other 90% to give
>us a chance.

Why should it be that important that Forth users are FIG members, as far as
Forth is concerned?  What percentage of C users are in a C users group? I'd
guess far less than 1%, probably less than .1%, yet look how successful it is.
You only need a users group if you have to band together for support, and I
feel Forth has matured beyond that point.

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply