Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS Forth
Message-ID: <9008230614.AA28560@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 21 Aug 90 15:52:32 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 30

> I believe it is through this method that they are able to  determine that
> the Forth-83 standard was NOT a success as it is NOT  used by almost all
> the customers of the vendors, and therefore the current committee cannot
> merely update the Forth-83 standard with minor changes. ...
> Without this countability it would  be much more difficult to determine
> that Forth-83 was so terribly  unacceptable to so many people.

> ... this method of counting  excludes
> the few users of L&P's F83 (and the few users of its few  derivatives such as
> F83X, Y, etc & F-PC), some of which probably DO  find the Forth-83 standard
> acceptable.  Surely, and the sample made up  from the vendors' to represent
> all of them.

a) F83 and F-PC users are not ignored.  Far from it.

b) 3 very respected Forth vendors (Creative Solutions (MacForth), MVP,
   and Miller Microcomputer Systems) are still using Forth 79.  Together
   they represent a significant Forth user community.

Neither side is being ignored.  Where the committee has "picked one side
in favor of the other side", it has always chosen in favor of Forth 83.
In other cases, the committee has tried to accommodate both groups.


> Of course, in the previous paragragh I'm not being entirely  serious, or fair.

The ANS Forth committee does not have the luxury of not being fair.


Mitch