Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: BASIS Feedback Message-ID: <1669.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 3 Sep 90 04:08:39 GMT Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips. (in Pgh, PA) Lines: 183 Category 18, Topic 54 Message 109 Sat Sep 01, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:19 EDT Re: JAJZ801@CALSTATE.BITNET ("Jeff Sicherman,CSU Long Beach") This is just too good of an arguement (er discussion) to pass up. :-) Sorry for the length, but Aladdin added this "neat" feature that won't allow me to break it up anymore. > - they can be motivated to compromise to maintain self-interest > and existing practice, not improve the language, its environment > and consistency. The goal of any ANSI Standard is to "codify existing practice". Thus, they are prevented by their charter from attempting to "improve" the language no matter if or how much they want to. >> Sheesh, what a terribly pessimistic viewpoint. :-( >> > Often also known as realistic. Is your cup half full or half empty? > Most languges require some commenting, but as exceptions not as > the RULE for most every statement. Every language can be made unreadable. The only language that I know of where documentation is built in is ADA. All the others are left to the programmer's state of mind. I'm sure we all have seen pages of code that contained no documentation, that the programmer thinks is perfectly readable. The question is if anyone else can read and understand it. Both qualities require an understanding of the language and programming concepts. Lacking either will make even the best code seem unreadable. >> I like FORTH and am optimistic about its prospects, even for >> large applications. I think the ANS standard will help. > > Want to invest some money on that premise ? Or would you prefer > to be 'realistic' Many of us have invested our entire careers in Forth. I also am very optimistic about the oportunities that exist for Forth. An ANSI standard can do nothing but increase its acceptability. > In any case, portability of the document obviously wasn't a > priority along with the consequences of that choice. I beg to differ with you. MS Word was choosen because it DID have the highest degree of portability among the more advanced word processors. I have asked the question before, but maybe you can do better. Do you know of any word processor with similar capabilities that supports a wider distribution of its file format? > Anyone who can (claim to) read FORTH should obviously be able to > handle an ASCII file, with some study and intelligence. I don't know why this arguement has to be repeated so often but maybe you just are unaware of the problems with an ASCII version of BASIS. There are many formatting features of MS Word that are being used to convey important information in each version of BASIS. They are strike-out, editor boxes, rational boxes, subscripts, automatic table of contents generation, word concordance (available seperately), etc. These features are not easily supportable in a plain ASCII file. If you disagree, please supply us with examples and support tools to support your opinion. > Does that mean that vendors will remove non-ANSI compliant > features from their products. Will they produce both ANSI and > non-ANSI ones (to support old applications and stubborn > customers) and which ones will sell and last ? I don't think > happiness is the question, implementaion is. Implementation IS the prime issue here. Speaking from the point of view of one vendor, FORTH, Inc. is committed to producing ANSI compliant systems. Whether these systems replace our existing systems will depend on market acceptance. Within the ANSI systems, all non-compliant words will be brought into compliance where they conflict with ANSI words. However, features which we have within our systems that do not conflict with the standard will be maintained as "enhancements". Our hope is that the ANSI compliant systems will be prefered by our customers, and very likely all work on the non-compliant systems will be stopped due to lack of resources. However, I think it is too early to say what the market response will be. The most we can probably say for sure is that, in the past, customers have turned us down because we did not have an ANSI Standard language. > it took about five years to get that, another five to iron out > all the objections and clear all the bureaucratic obstructions to > adoption, another one or two to get everyone compliant. 12 years might be about right. I don't think any ANSI standard has taken less than 5. They have actually only been at it for 3 years so far, and they are hoping it will only take a couple more to get the dpANS finished. The hope is that everyone is getting their objections aired now, and that the review process can go smoothly. That is why they are being more open than is typical during this phase. Of course, there will be those who only desire to deride and delay the work they are doing, but none of us fit in that category. Do we. > The best thing that could have been done for FORTH as LANGUAGE > would have been to decide to fix everything that needed fixing > regardless of whose toes were stepped upon. Again, that is not within the X3J14 charter. Also, I'm sure I could find people who would contend that Forth does not need to be "fixed". >> Any and all comments or proposals you submit will be discussed >> and considered. > > Show me the formal, announced, supported procedure for doing > this. Until then it's merely a nice idea which may be honored. It > may even be done occassionaly. If you do not have an "official" proposal form, I'm sure we can send you one. It is even in pure ASCII format. The form has been in existance since the beginning and was even publish in Forth Dimensions (I forget which issue). In fact, you don't even need the form to get your comments to the TC. I have personally been forwarding any comments I considered interesting, and I will deliver your comments to Elizabeth Rather, Chair of the Technical Committee, next week. BTW, about the ONLY thing done at TC meetings is to discuss and vote on proposals sent in for their consideration. Typically, they deal with over 100 proposals per session. > Let's face reality: it's an elite language which will be > comfortable for a limited part of the pool of potential > programmers. Thank you very much! You have confirmed I have made the correct career choice. >> I routinely read other people's Forth code, with no problems, > and other people read my code. > > That's great, wonderful. And Of course you're Mr Typical > Programmer. Give me names and numbers. We're talking about > potential for popularity here. Call FORTH, Inc. at (213) 372-8493 any time to talk to many programmers who can read Forth fluently. In fact, we can even read "bad" Forth code and typically have to when we are called in to modify packages done by sloppy programmers. I'm sure the same is true for almost all the succesful Forth consultants and most experienced Forth programmers. > As long as we're talking about engineering here, what's the level > of productivity for FORTH as compared to high-level languages. My > guess is its better than assembly and quite lower than HLL's, > especially if you include debugging time. I believe the most widely agree on figures are at least a 3 to 1 improvement in development time when using Forth as compared to ANY other language. Especially considering the debug time, I have seen cases in excess of a 10 to 1 improvement. You might consider this hogwash, but I have personally experienced it. > I also imagine Case and quality control are more difficult and > time consuming for it. While I have to admit that most of the available CASE tools are difficult to work with in Forth, I consider that a tool problem rather than a problem with Forth. I have developed CASE tools for Forth and I use some sort of CASE for every project that I work on. Quality Control is also no more difficult in Forth than it is in any other language, but again, the tools that are on the market have been customized for other languages so you must know how and be willing to enforce the techniques yourself. > Seven programmers is NOT a big team by any contemporary standard. Is 20 enough? That is how many people are now working in Forth at the company I worked at before joining FORTH, Inc. While it is true that most Forth programmers are lone-wolfs, I think that has a lot to do with the "elitist" status that you mentioned. While it is very true that one Forth programmer can accomplish what a whole company of programmers working in other languages, I have worked in large programming evironments both in Forth and in other languages. Personally, I prefer the Forth environment, but I have to admit that managing them is a lot tougher. JAFO DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us