Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Experimental Ideas
Message-ID: <1427.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 90 13:06:29 GMT
References: <1417.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 45

In <1417.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, D.RUFFER [Dennis] writes:
>  > 3 Character Names.
> 
> I did not mention it because I do not consider it a "feature", but an
> annoyance I must deal with.  IMHO they cause more problems than they are
> worth.  However, if you only have a 64K address space then they are almost
> essential.  If you can address more than that, I think other alternatives can
> be found that are much more appealing. Our polyFORTH product for MSDOS still
> only uses 64K, but we are experimenting with other alternatives for our large
> model systems.

Aha!  So just because it was that way in the old days doesn't mean that
it should be that way now?  (If it was good enough for Classic Forth,
its good enough for me :-) )  In another article you list some of the
old methods/techniques as still being "right" today.  I think I probably
agree that many of Forth's ideas were/are innovations.  However, I do
not think that the experience gained from over 10 years of usage would
fail to show any improvements.  Grace Hopper likes to say: "Because it
has always been done that way" is not an acceptable answer.  Forth is
powerful in part because it is simple.  That doesn't mean that every
simplicity in Forth dictated by twistedly scarce resources is powerful.
Three character + length names are twisted, appropriate to certain
particular circumstances, buyt are not a generally powerful idea.

>  > what makes the perfect Forth?
> 
> When anyone can redefine the language at will, can it ever be perfect?  For
> that matter, will it ever be finished?
> 
> I think not on both counts.   DaR

Is there not a perfection to adaptability?  Is not Forth more flexible and
more powerful than most (all?) other languages, allowing a seamless
integration that spans Assembly Language and intimate control of the
hardware up through the currently traditional High Level Languages'
constructs?  What other language will be able to accommodate so easily any
new hardware and new software ideas more easily than Forth?

[I could ask more questions, but I don't want to get rhetorical.]

-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]