Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!dcp
From: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS Forth
Keywords: ANS Forth
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.034316.10027@world.std.com>
Date: 11 Jan 91 03:43:16 GMT
Reply-To: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty)
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Lines: 96

I was sick with pneumonia through new year's day and so wasn't able to
read news for a couple of weeks and during that time (of course) the
messages were purged from my system.  I missed any messages posted
between 20 December and the first of the year.  I am not sure if I
missed any responses to the attached message, but since it mentions
``important areas of agreement,'' and ``...that there is much room for
compromise between the two points of view,'' and the hope that ``...we
can all agree to the extent to which [ANS Forth] can allow for minimal
Forths to still be standard'' I am reposting it.

The advocates of a ``less is more'' ANS Forth are not unwilling to
compromise, it's just that some of us:
        a) would like a standard that is more layered so that the Core 
           Word Set is truly the _kernel_ of Forth and
        b) fear adding (relatively) new and untried ``improvements'' to 
           ANS Forth, because that may (will) lead to the types of 
           problems we experienced with FORTH-83 and it may (will) 
           prevent adoption of the (possible) _best_ versions of 
           language features that may be just around the corner, but 
           incompatible with what we adopt in ANS Forth.  

Having said that, let's each move towards the other's position.  After 
all, this ain't the Persian Gulf!  (Except that you _must_ remove 
>COLROW and LEX from the BASIS, or we will unleash a Forth jihad and 
nuke you into the stone age.)  

------------------------------>8  CUT  8<------------------------------

Greetings:

I am new to Usenet, so please bear with me as I get used to the network 
etiquette.  I am particularly interested in the Usenet (and GEnie and 
BBS) discussion of ANS Forth.  I have been, off and on, a member of the 
X3J14 Technical Committee since the first meeting.  

I am also a member of the Boston Forth Interest Group -- American 
National Standard Forth Group (BFAFG), a sub-group of our local FIG 
chapter with a long name.  That group has been meeting monthly for the 
past fifteen months to try and form a coherent minority position in 
opposition to the view held by the majority of the current members of 
X3J14.  

It has been difficult to formulate a succinct description of our view 
versus X3J14's, because oppositional catch-phrases (minimal versus 
maximal; compatible versus complete; useful versus portable) only serve 
to polarize the discussion and always leave out important areas of 
agreement.  The group's position is simply that BASIS is too big -- that 
there are too many Forth words in ANS Forth -- but it is not a 
simplistic ``small is beautiful'' position.  The kinds of words we 
object to are those that cannot, in our view, reasonably be said to be 
included in ``accepted practice.''  

Rather than going into a full blown specific discussion of what those 
words are and to what extent they are not ``accepted,'' I will simply 
make the point now that there is a difference of opinion between some 
vendors who are members of X3J14 and some in the Forth user community as 
to what makes a good Forth standard.  It was heartening to learn that a 
group from southern Ontario has been making proposals to X3J14 that are 
_very_ consistent with our view.  I only hope a groundswell of input 
will continue to come into X3J14 before, during, and after they 
``promulgate'' a Forth dpANS (draft proposed American National 
Standard).  

In future postings I will attempt to make the ``less is more'' point of 
view explicit (though that point of view seems so naturally consistent 
with Forth itself that it is sometimes difficult to come up with words 
of justification).  I just want to add that I (personally) believe that 
there is much room for compromise between the two points of view.  
Adding tons of whizzy new, but _optional_, features to Forth might be OK 
as long as we can all agree to the extent to which they are optional and 
can allow for minimal Forths to still be standard.  

I hope that by adding to the discussion of ANS Forth I can sway some 
people to our view and can encourage those that already share it to make 
that view known to X3J14.  I can also _guarantee_ that I will be hearing 
from those that do not agree, but _c'est la vie_.  

The BFAFG can be reached care of Gary Chanson at the snail-mail address 
that appears on all of our proposals.  

        Boston FIG -- ANS Forth Group
        c/o Gary Chanson
        360 Waltham Street
        West Newton,  MA    02165-1732    USA

        Telephone: +1(617)527-7206

My addresses and telephone numbers are:

        Telephone: +1(617)492-1232
        FAX:       +1(617)491-2345
-- 
 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.'              /______\