Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!willett!ForthNet From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Message-ID: <1069.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP> Date: 3 Jun 90 04:28:16 GMT Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain. (Pgh, PA) Lines: 84 Category 18, Topic 16 Message 13 Sat Jun 02, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 17:10 EDT Re: ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) > Declaring the action of fundamental words to be "implementation > dependent" is not the kind of compromise which will contribute to > portability. John, that wording is only used in cases where the committee members can not agree on the action. IMHO, specifying where those grey areas are goes a long way to helping me decide what things to avoid when writting a "standard application". It also means that I can choose to take advantage of a vendor's "value added" features if I do not care about portability. > How many users are aware of what has been decided? I agree with you there John, but I don't see many alternatives. Thanks to Mitch and others who have been keeping us aware of what is going on by discussing it openly. However, having been one of the ones who tried to make the whole process electronic, I can tell you it is not easy to get everyone involved. The process they are using now (paper mail) is adequate, but IMHO not sufficient. There are many people who can not contribute. However, anyone can order a copy of the BASIS, and starting with BASIS 12, anyone will be able to download it in electronic format. That is a step in the right direction, albeit very late, but about as much as we can expect. As for the goals of the TC, they were hotly discussed during this last meeting. I do not have a copy here at home, otherwise I would type them in, but they do describe precisely what ground rules the TC is using to decide what it is doing. It appears as if they have choosen different interpretations of those goals on occasion, but having read it very carefully, I feel it expresses all of our concerns. Perhaps someone with a copy will take the time to type it in for those who have not seen it. > Let me propose a simple test for doneness: > > Suppose the programmers at FORTH, Inc or any other software shop > that uses programming teams, were equipped with different > computers running randomly selected different ANSI-Standard > implementations of Forth. Would it be possible to complete > projects just as easily as now? That is certainly "a" test, but I'm not sure how valid it is. When we work on a project at FORTH, Inc. we are not even hampered by the standards of our existing polyFORTH. As ace programmers, we can make just about anything work no matter how the system works. If the system gets in the way of our solution, without hesitation, we change the system. Giving us ANS Forths would not make any difference, so by this test, the standard was "done" before we started. Let me suggest an alternative to your words: Suppose you were required to write an application that would run on any ANS Forth. Would it be possible? Notice, I did not say what kind of application, for IMHO that merely describes how rich the standard is. I also removed the requirement that it be as easy to write the application as it is now. Certainly writting portable applications is going to be harder than it is to write non-portable ones. Anyone who believes otherwise has not been writting applications long enough. This is also "a" test, and I contend that it is not possible now. Even with Martin Tracy's PRELUDE suite, you can not cover all the Forth implementations unless you limit yourself to such a small set of words that the application is impossible. Now, who is willing to propose an application that could be done with BASIS 12 so that we can call it done? > I believe that the ANSI effort is a one-shot deal. I certainly hope that is not the case, but it is certainly true that the current TC members are going to be burned out for a while after this standard is released. However, I believe we must have a dynamic standard that can be expanded as we learn new techniques. Certainly we could resolve a lot of the debates between the minimalists and the kitchen-sink groups by making the standard extensible, and I think that would fit very nicely with the nature of Forth. This is not the first time we have attempted to standardise Forth, and I can not believe it will be the last. This time, we have CBEMA telling us how to do it, so the standard might actually be followed. Let's just hope that the process does not kill the evolution. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu