Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Toolshop Standards
Message-ID: <1273.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jul 90 14:10:10 GMT
References: <11713@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 62

ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik), in <11713@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> writes:

> We all have visions of what Forth should have become. Mine was that 
> the foundations would have stabilized about 8 years ago to the point 
> where one could write significant applications which would run on any 
> Forth.
Meaning we should have stuck with Forth-83, Forth-79, Fig-Forth, or
perhaps done the ANSI effort earlier?  I think you have a nice idea
here.  I curious as to why you think it didn't happen?  Was it even
realisticly possible?

>        This would have led to the development of a refereed library 
> of high quality tested tools that one could buy at modest cost (but 
> which could be freely used in applications). This, in turn, would have 
> led to the concept of "Tools You Can Modify" -- tools explicitly 
> written to facilitate adaptation.
Aha, perhaps what we need here is GNU-Forth?  Free, widely distributable,
add on libraries?

>                                   The net result would have been a 
> programming environment both more flexible and more powerful than 
> anything conventional languages can provide. 
I'm curious about your "Tools You Can Modify" concept.  It sounds to me
like Object-Oriented Programming.  Is that it?  If not, how do you see it
as different from OOP?

...

>                         Instead we have a 30-sided sponge and no open-
>     end wrenches. (But don't worry, the sponge is in the extended 
>     wordset, so you don't have to use it if you don't want to)

I think Mitch's rebuttal says everything I have to say about this from a
technical point of view.

What interests me now is how this sort of "political" divisiveness ends up
happening.  Is it really the case that there are only 16% 5-sided bolts
or is it 50% as Mitch suggests.  I have seen NO evidence to support those
numbers one way or another.  I still haven't seen any answer from anyone
on the TC about how they go about quantifying that kind of information.
I am neither more inclined to believe John nor Mitch at this point, since
both are merely making assertions to support their positions.  Doesn't
ANSI spell out in any procedural detail how the TC is supposed to assess
"existing/common practice?"  Does it instead require the TC to submit a
proposal for how it will do that?  Does the TC just get to say what it
wants to on that topic, unchallenged?  I find it hard to believe that
the various sides of this issue are merely promoting their own self interest
by lying with statistics, but don't have the information to draw any other
conclusions.  If this kind of bickering has been going on since the beginning
of the "standard" effort, I can see why many of the TC committee would be
fed up.   I also don't understand why they wouldn't have adopted some kind
of formal policy about what was to qualify as common practice and just cut
past all the BS.  Is it because ANSI will let anyone who wants to be "sit"
on the committee and just nay-say anything that comes by, if they feel
like it?  Are John and Gary really saying that the ANSI process waters
down standards so much that they are worthless?

-Doug

---
Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp   [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]