Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!world!dcp From: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Keywords: ANS Forth Message-ID: <1990Dec18.061629.17086@world.std.com> Date: 18 Dec 90 06:16:29 GMT References: <1990Dec15.063653.20548@world.std.com> Reply-To: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty) Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 118 This is an open letter I sent to the ASC X3 / X3J14 in care of Elizabeth Rather, the chair, on behalf of the Boston Forth Interest Group -- American National Standard Forth Group (BFAFG). It was recorded as X3J14 document TC90-067. It describes the differences between the views of the current members of X3J14 and those of the BFAFG, and where we see those differences arising. No one should have any illusions -- those differences are fundamental. I am not convinced that it is not possible to forge a compromise that reconciles those points of view to the extent that one can include the other. If such a compromise is to be forged, however, it must come from _both_ sides making an effort to understand the other's point of view and try to include it in their own thinking. Thus far our group has said (by way of proposals and comments), ``This is what we need'' and X3J14 has replied, ``That's nice, but, sorry, you can't have it.'' There is also a very strong (though I do not yet know how widespread) grass roots opinion that the current membership of X3J14 does not necessarily represent the views of the Forth community at large, specifically with respect to the BASIS they have thus far constructed. It is certainly true that an ANS Forth that is not supported by the majority of Forth _users_ will not be in the best interest of _anyone_. ------------------------------>8 CUT 8<------------------------------ September 21, 1990 Elizabeth D. Rather, Chair, X3J14 FORTH, Inc. 111 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 300 Manhattan Beach, CA I90266-6861 This is an open letter to the members of ANSI ASC X3 / X3J14 addressed to you, the chair. I would like to thank you and X3J14 for the opportunity you afforded the Boston FIG ANS Forth Group, and me as their representative, to air our views and act upon our proposals at your recent (thirteenth) meeting in British Columbia. Our group had hoped to sway X3J14 to our point of view -- a so-called "minimalist" point of view -- but the only proposals of ours that passed were either not controversial at all (post), or fit the already existing views of the current members of X3J14. The Thirteenth Meeting of X3J14 was therefore a disappointment to us. To be fair, there were a few small victories that must be mentioned with the casualties. X3J14's treatment of division and NOT represent compromise between FORTH-79 and FORTH-83. X3J14's passage of my motion to the technical committee (TC) makes it clear in the Scope of Work for X3J14 that the lack of this or that whizzy feature is not to be considered a "problem area" (though an amendment stating "...unless deemed indispensable to the production of a coherent standard" significantly weakened the wording). And BASIS did get smaller, if only by one word. My mission, however, was to try to change the "world view" of the current members of X3J14 and in that, I failed. This letter is an attempt to better explain our point of view and to sway the current membership of X3J14 to it. At our most recent meeting on September 5th the discussion focused on the question, "why don't they understand our point of view and act on it?" To that end, the group came up with a way of understanding the standards process that we hadn't thought of before: "the three Cs" -- Completeness, Compatibility, and (self-) Consistency. Completeness refers to ANS Forth specifying a language complete enough to be useful without adding extra features. Compatibility refers to ANS Forth being compatible with accepted practice. Consistency refers to the wording of the ANS Forth BASIS document being self-consistent. It first appears obvious that "the three Cs" are each goals that ANS Forth should approach as closely as possible, but a second look reveals that significantly attaining some goals necessitates compromise on the others. We feel it best to compromise completeness, while the current members of X3J14 continually compromise compatibility with existing practice and apparently want ANS Forth to be a specification for the ultimate, complete Forth. It is our belief that the vendors are responsible for providing complete Forths and that the standards process should provide the Forth community at large with a standard document (not a specification) that describes the Forth that is compatible with accepted practice. Forth is, after all, one of the few extensible languages. It is not necessary to put every language extension into standard Forth. It is only necessary that standard Forth provide the facilities for extending itself, so that users (and vendors) can add any language extension they want. We believe that trying to specify every nook and cranny of a complete Forth system -- especially in new areas that are outside of accepted practice -- is a process that is doomed to failure. Any specification written describing what Forth ought to be, rather than what Forth is, is bound to have holes in it. It is the usual fate of most well-meaning specification writers and it was the fate of the process that yielded FORTH-83. X3J14 must standardize last year's Forth, not next year's Forth. It is the belief of the Boston FIG ANS Forth Group that our point of view, while not well represented among the current members of X3J14, is prevalent in the Forth community at large. We will continue to drum up support for our point of view outside of X3J14 and continue to attempt to win over the current membership of X3J14 to that view by submitting proposals and comments. I close with a quotation from Chuck Moore that is appropriate to the compelling sense of rightness our group recognizes in the minimalist point of view: ``One principle that guided the evolution of Forth and continues to guide its application is, bluntly: Keep it simple. A simple solution has elegance. It is the result of exacting effort to understand the real problem and is recognized by its compelling sense of rightness. I stress this point, because it contradicts the conventional view that power increases with complexity. Simplicity provides confidence, reliability, compactness, and speed.'' Sincerely, David C. Petty Boston Forth Interest Group -- American National Standard Forth Group -- David C. Petty | dcp@world.std.com | ...!{uunet,bu.edu}!world!dcp /\ POBox Two | CIS: 73607,1646 | BIX, Delphi, MCIMail: dcp / \ Cambridge, MA | `I thought I was wrong once, / \ 02140-0001 USA | but I realized I was mistaken.' /______\