Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!koopman
From: koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: How will others see ANS Forth?
Message-ID: <9912@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 16 Jul 90 13:36:50 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 68

>> [ML implementors] ... "...realized that having any other division as
>> the default was *stupid*".
>I don't get a sense of your point here, are you saying that
>the "purists" are stupidly getting their way, or, that it was stupid
>to worry about some efficiency issue in this one place in an otherwise
>inefficient language anyway and the purists are finally getting things
>straightened out?
 
Peter apparently thought that the default division should be the
fastest one (the one supported by hardware), with other divisions
called out with special function names, even in a generally
inefficient language.  He doesn't seem to agree with the purists.
My discussion with him was brief, and I haven't had a session
with him where I have dug in deep for reasoning.
 
>> [Discussion of NOT and function renaming to as a compromise]
>Are you implying that his laughter was due to the inappropriateness
>of the solution or was due to an understanding of the predicament the
>standards committee was in?
 
It was probably a mixture of seeing the mess the 79/83 function
changing caused, the fact that words currently in use will be left
floating, and an appreciation for the politics at work
within the standards committee.  The point is that he reacted
with amusement at the situation/solution instead of with
a comment such as "that sounds like a reasonable course of action".
 
>> One way to solve this would be to find a few
>> non-Forthers to review the standard in its penultimate form....
> ... Is the review to contain a capsule history
>that EXPLAINS why each part is the way it is, or are you just going
>to present it out of context?  How are you going to factor for the
>people who have no inkling of what Forth is (applies to some degree
>to Peter since you present him as being a non-Forther, albeit, perhaps
>sympathetic)?
> ... how are you, in the space of 1-2 hours,
>going to be able to communicate an understanding of Forth philosophy
>sufficient for the outsider to evaluate the standard fairly *and*
>actually get to the evaluation of the standard part.
 
The point is one that I believe John Wavrick has been making.  (Please
forgive me, John, if I don't get it quite the way you have been putting
it.)  An important function of the standard is to show that the
language is mature and ready for consideration by folks who have
been waiting on the sidelines for any number of reasons.  If they
pick up a copy of the standard (and perhaps Starting Forth) and
*perceive* it as hopelessly compromised, or otherwise faulty, that is
probably the last they (or many people they advise) will think of Forth.
If the Standard has no capsule history, they won't see one.  Just
giving someone a Basis document with little/no support is the relevant
context for this sort of review.  If they follow the usual reviewing 
process, they will probably form their first impression in an hour 
or two, then either throw it away or get down to serious study.
Therefore, it is vital to get feedback about the "feel" of the
document before we commit to it and invite world-wide scrutiny.
 
What I am suggesting is that we get a few intentionally uneducated
reviewers to tell us what they think of the document as a trial run.
The document must stand on its own merit.  Dealing with prejudices/
ignorances of readers is part of the game.  The politics of reaching
consensus in X3J14 are of little concern to a potential new user trying 
to decide if the language is useful.
 
  Phil Koopman                koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu   Arpanet
  2525A Wexford Run Rd.
  Wexford, PA  15090
Senior scientist at Harris Semiconductor, and adjunct professor at CMU.
I don't speak for them, and they don't speak for me.