Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: BASIS Feedback
Message-ID: <1672.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 4 Sep 90 04:47:37 GMT
References: <1646.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 29

In <1646.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, R.BERKEY [Robert] writes:
> Standardization occurs because of the absence of order.  Were the object of a
> standard already in a state of order, then what would be the purpose of a
> standard?
...
>            The jurisdiction of standardization is a superset of existing
> knowledge.

I think you point out an interesting tension.  Were there an existing,
defacto standard, all ANSI would have to do, if it had to do anything,
would be to formalize that standard.  Given that there is no such defacto
standard, or perhaps that there are several defacto standards (assuming
that that makes sense), the process is stuck about where Elizabeth
Rather has pointed out.  The question is whether or not an
ANSI standard will help or hinder the spread of Forth, but that question
itself assumes that the spread of Forth is a good thing.  The flip side
to the question is how much, if any, harm will a bad standard do to the
spread of Forth.

(Substitute "legitimacy" or any other favorite attribute of programming
languages for "the spread" of Forth in the above.  I'm still curious
as to the answers.)

-Doug


---
Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us  OR  ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp )
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp  [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]