Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!bu.edu!wang!harvee!esj From: esj@harvee.UUCP (Eric S Johansson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: X3J14 Goals Message-ID: <8365454@harvee.UUCP> Date: 29 Jan 91 01:03:20 GMT References: <2288.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Organization: gators 'r us Lines: 89 X-Version: Rodney's UUCP modules 05/09/90 V1.15 In article <2288.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us > [ edited to salient point ] > > From Daniel Sorbal: > > 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? > ( I think this attitude is what irks me most about the "forth" community. I don't mean to pick on you Brad, I guess you just got to be the lucky one. I am not sure this is clear 'cause it is late and I am tired. I will try to clear up any confusion in my arguments in future posts. Thanks for your understanding. ) In this context I figure Daniel's definition of standard is based on expectations of the user. For example, I consider a keyboard where the caps lock key is next to the 'a' key a non-standard keyboard. I know that 99.999% of all PC keyboards are non-standard by that definition but in this case the definition of standard is set my my *expection*. Likewise in the rest of the computer field (as well as the "REAL WORLD" tm). When people buy a C/C++ compiler they *expect* a minimum set of language features and routines in the run-time library as "standard". These expections carry over into other languages, environments, or situations. I guess I am trying to say is that we should not judge an ANSI forth addition with the eyes of forth hackers but with the eyes ( amd nore specificly their expectations) of a non forth user/consumer. Look at forth with the eyes of a manager who is going to commit $500,000+ dollars ( 4 programmers for 1 year ) and has to answer to their boss for every delay and dollar. This manager (and tums consumer) has expectations about what a programming environment will do to/for their project. Forth will not meet those expectations if this manager is accustomed to a C/Pascal/C++ type environment. Look at forth with the eyes of a technojunkie who is well versed in the theory and practice of programming environments. how well does forth compare to the rest of the programming world? Non-forth consumers judge forth harshly. Forth is not hanging on to design wins. This past summer I learned that the laser fusion lab in rochester is dumping forth. This week I helped a contractor who sought my advice in converting a game written in forth to C. In cases where I encountered forth being dumped, the reasons were based on forth failing to meet expectations. But in most cases the failed expectations were expressed as forth falling short in the area of "standard capabilities". Not meeting "standard capabilities" was usually expressed as an inability to use forth with pre-existing tools (favorite editor, debugger, and/or profiler) or libraries (comm, GUI, and file i/o) As long as forth continues to lack "standard capabilities", I believe it will continue to loose when compared to langages like C. I don't for one minute expect that forth has to become C to keep old customers and win new ones but I do expect forth to provide *similar* capabilities to that found in C and its run-time environs. > And, finally, from Jack Woehr: > > Like democracy, it pleases no one and satisfies, in the long run, > > everyone. > > "Democracy is simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, > for the people." - Oscar Wilde. > hmmmm. >klunk - Brad > ----- --- eric ( the sleepy poster ) -- ... ^^^ eric johansson UUCP ...!uunet!wang!harvee!esj esj@harvee.uucp * * a juggling fool AT&T (617) 577-4068 (w) o HAM ka1eec \_/ CSNET johansson%hydra@polaroid.com or hydra!johansson@polaroid.com source of the public's fear of the unknown since 1956