Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!udel!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: What are the existing standards?
Message-ID: <1838.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 8 Oct 90 23:39:26 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 60

Category 10,  Topic 1
Message 13        Sun Oct 07, 1990
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 21:29 EDT
 
Dennis, there are four ways (or more) to standardize a word:

1. use the existing meaning of a word
 2. when more than one meaning is in common usage, enforce one of the
   existing meanings of a word
 3. change the meaning of a word
 4. change the meaning and name of a word

Somehow the TC has developed the idea that #4 is superior to #3. In my
priorities #3 is superior to #4.  (The TC also rates #4 superior to #2, and I
have problems with that, too.)

The TC's attitude toward renaming is rather cavalier.  Gee, I guess we can
just paste a sheet reading
        s/NOT/INVERT/
        s/COMPILE/POSTPONE/
          etc.
 inside the front cover of all the Forth books in print, and the conversion
process for reading is automatic.  Right?  (Pardon my sarcasm.)

> ENVIRONMENT? is the only way to enforce the documentation of
 > system specific settings.
 I beg to differ.  What is section 5 "..Requirements,...Compliance and
Labeling" for?  (I have a more detailed objection to ENVIRONMENT? which I'll
be sending to the TC shortly.)

> CATCH/THROW have been in practice in at least two major systems
 > for quite a while.
 What constitutes "major"?
 How long is "quite a while"?
 Which two systems, and how many people use them?
 Do two systems constitute a significant cross-section of the Forth community?

> How many systems have you seen, and what percentage of the
 > implementations do you think that represents?
 More than two.  Last time I checked I have around twenty Forth
implementations kicking around here, for about eight or nine different CPUs. 
Plus maybe a dozen more which I've acquired but not used yet.  Plus
documentation for polyForth, which I've used but don't own.  Included among
that multitude are fig-Forth and F83, to which I suspect the majority of
Forths in use today can trace their lineage.  Is that enough?  Am I qualified
to comment, now?

> ...the ANS standard will bring in things that may be new to us.
 I have yet to hear a more horrifying statement from a member of the TC. 
When, exactly, did this become an R&D project?

I apologize if my tone is becoming more harsh.  Since its inception I have
gone from being a supporter of X3J14, to a cautiously- supporting critic.  Now
I'm starting to feel like Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory assistant -- what
monster have I helped (however indirectly) to create?

- Brad
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp