Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684
From: a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS Forth
Message-ID: <4410@mindlink.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 91 01:13:09 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 56


dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty) writes:

> 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

What are your expected applications that require only the minimum kernel?  ANSI
Forth is supposed to make portability--both of programs and
programmers--easier.  If you need a minimum-kernal Forth for some special
application and know that portability isn't a problem, then no one will force
you to use the full ANSI Forth wordset.  Think about what you really fear: will
it actually make a difference in actual use?

>         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.

Those language features will be here "real soon now"?  If so, what computer
will you run them on?  You shouldn't buy a computer now, since a better one is
"just around the corner".  There will always be something better "just around
the corner".

The ANSI standard has to deal with what is available today.  Where possible, it
should allow for future additions or changes, but it can't deal with them
before they exist.


> 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. ....
> 
> 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).

Usually, difficulty in communicating a point of view indicates that the speaker
(or writer) has an imprecise understanding of the issues.  There has been a lot
of confusion about the definitions of "core word set", "extended word set",
"standard words"etc.  There is also confusion between "ANS Forth Programming
System", "Standard System" and "Standard System with Environmental
Restrictions".

Do you know exactly what it means to be able to call your compiler an "ANSI
Forth" implementation?  I know the definitions were still fairly vague at the
Vancouver conference.

Look over your complaints again, and the definitions in the basis document.
Are you absolutely certain that what you are arguing against is really what you
think it is?