Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: BASIS Feedback
Message-ID: <1238.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jun 90 03:56:30 GMT
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 49

Category 10,  Topic 35
Message 96        Thu Jun 28, 1990
F.SERGEANT [Frank]           at 02:02 CDT
 
  DP>It just seems strange to me that one the one hand the proponents 
  DP>of Forth nearly *rant* about its suitability-limited-only- 
  DP>by-programmer-ability/imagination (aka you can do *anything* in 
  DP>Forth), and one the other decry that it is *only* suitable for 
  DP>tiny systems. Does this strike anyone else as odd too?

  I've been following Doug's & Wil's exchanges on this subject.  1st,  with
regard to the above quote, I don't think the same people are  making both
types of statements.  "Forth is good for everything but at  least it is good
for embedded systems."  "I didn't do it.  Besides, it  wasn't my fault."

  I thought Doug had a good point in asking if Forth was good enough  for
Arabian airports why wasn't it good enough for Wil's Mac.  A  possible
reconciliation occurred to me:  The parallel to the airport  system on the Mac
is probably not the language a person uses who runs  the Mac, but the language
used in ROMs that tie the various hardware  parts of the Mac together.  (Just
as a video game player doesn't  program in Forth just because the game he is
playing was programmed in  Forth.)  (Just as Sun workstation users don't even
see their ROM'd  Forth.)  (I'm not saying there is any embedded Forth in a Mac
- just  suggesting the application on the Mac that seems to me comparable to 
the airport system.)

     I am not convinced that Forth is not or cannot be superior as a  general
development language on a large 'personal' computer system.   I'm still
searching for the answer to that and will continue to listen  to arguments on
both sides.

     (Is this really a BASIS feedback topic? - You bet!)  If Forth  really is
a little bitty language do we need a great big standard for  it?  Doug Adams
said something about only people who didn't want the  job could qualify for
President of the Universe.  Once someone said  more or less: "Lot's of people
talk about how to breathe - lot's of  rules & techniques - forget it.  I don't
care how you breathe - do it  wrong! - just do more of it."  Have any of you
ever attended a seminar  and seen a monkey dressed up in a suit?  They are
usually from the  Sales dept.  They are dressed like humans, but that alone
doesn't make  them human.  What a relief when the engineers or technical
people take  the floor.  (Is there really a common thread in this paragraph
and is  it related, even remotely, to the BASIS?)  (And, please, I am not 
suggesting members of X3J14 are monkeys.  I have the highest regard for  their
technical skills and for their good will.)

     -- Frank
-----
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