Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Case of Code Message-ID: <9101102147.AA13938@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 10 Jan 91 20:05:33 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Mitch Bradley Organization: The Internet Lines: 29 > >-- so the fact that it has not been part of Forth Standards is hardly > >evidence of the sluggishness and perversity of the Forth community -- > >but is, rather, evidence that previous Standards teams have understood > >the nature of Forth. > Oh, oh, oh! That surely is beautifully written, especially the final > phrase! Beautifully written, perhaps, but irrelevant. The "nature of Forth" is an abstract thing that is largely a matter of one's personal set of programming values. Some people appear to be trying to use it as a decision criteria. As such, it is pretty useless, because it is so imprecise and so subjective. Regardless of the "nature of Forth", whatever that is, the "nature of the computing world" has changed by a factor of about 200 since the Forth 83 standards team last met. This is an objectively measureable. Consider the price per bit of RAM or disk storage, the number of bits per unit volume, the speed of processors. In addition, personal computing in general has changed from an interesting hobby for technonerds to a huge business. A factor of 200 in 8 years is extraordinary. It changes every tradeoff. Forth must adapt to the new "climate" or die. Mitch