Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Where to get Standards documents
Message-ID: <1379.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 90 04:02:39 GMT
References: <11971@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 30

In <11971@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes:
> 
> fig-Forth is worth looking at. The intent was that vendors (rather 
> than individual users) would use the model as contained in the 
> listings as the basis for their implemention of Forth. This is what 
> actually happened. For a period of several years, versions of Forth 
> which ran in essentially the same way were available for a large 
> variety of computers. Unless you have had experience with fig-Forth you 
> won't be able to understand why some people feel that Forth has gone 
> down hill since. 

I take it from your comments that experience with just one Fig-Forth
based system is not what you are referring to here?  I get the
impression that there is something about a group of highly-related Forth
systems that is the real point?  Setting aside whether or not a
diversification from Fig-Forth was good or bad, and the reasons for it,
are you implying that there was something other than mere conformance to
a defacto-standard that made Fig-Forth important/special/???  ?  Are you
lamenting the diversity of lack of portability that followed from
Forth-79 and Forth-83 and XYZ Inc.'s Forth, or is there something else that
was lost?

-Doug

P.S.  Although this is in the form of messages to/from John and I, anyone
with similiar views should feel welcome to reply.

---
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]