Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!BRFAPESP.BITNET!UNBCIC
From: UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What is a Standard
Message-ID: <9101282232.AA20011@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 91 12:04:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: UNBCIC%BRFAPESP.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 31

'Forth can't be a standard language as it is not used by most part of the
"computers" community.'

I don't think this way, and this is why I said that:

> > You cannot say that a feature is not standard because it isn't used
> > by most part of the Forth community.


> Are you kidding?  What does "standard" mean to you?

Forth, today, is a "niche language". It can be standard in this niche, and, if
this happen, it would be a "standard language".

I think that something standard is something that is used in the "same way" by
all the people that use this thing.

If you complain about wether this features, that are not used by most part of
the Forth community, should be put in the ANS Forth, then you are right. The
counter-argments for this was already posted.

Surely, there is no need for everything, but we are REALLY not putting
everything. In first place, we are not putting things (please, forget CASE)
that can be implemented with dpANS Forth already existing words.


> - Brad

                              (8-DCS)
Daniel C. Sobral
UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET