Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Broken cmForth
Message-ID: <2386.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 20 Feb 91 13:00:07 GMT
References: <9102211446.AA20543@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 48

In article <9102211446.AA20543@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
	wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes:
> A bug that doesn't happen to show up in a particular application is
> still a bug.
> 
> A bug that is easy to fix is still a bug.

I get the impression that the bug is really that CM changed the definition
of THRU instead of picking another word.

> One of the reasons that Forth has a bad reputation is because there
> are so many half-hearted Forth implementations floating around.
> Too many Forth implementors have a tendency to take shortcuts that
> compromise the quality of their implementations.  The "I don't need
> that feature this week, so the heck with it" attitude has probably
> damaged Forth's reputation more than anything else.

Hmm.  I find this a peculiar point of view.  I have heard it said that
one doesn't really know Forth until one has implemented it.  As Forth
implementions qua personal-systems, I see no problem with taking
short-cuts.  As for products, I don't understand why market forces
haven't straigtened the situation around.  The "problem" is that
shareware/PD systems abound and somehow it is those systems that scare
people off?  My question is why are there so few PD/Shareware C
systems (semi-rhetorical question) and why has the Forth PD/Shareware
market had such a great eclipsing influence over the "professional
product" market?

Personaly, I feel the answer is that the proliferation of PD/SW
systems tells people that they are dealing with a "little language,"
one so easy to implement that any bozo can do it, and therefore they
would get little out of it ("To carry out the treasure of the Indies
you must carry in the treasure of the Indies" attitude).  The
commercial Forth vendors must distinguish themselves from the
PD/Shareware people.  I find it hard to believe "support" can be taken
seriously as a distinguishing factor when the whole philosophy of
Forth is build your own language to support your application.  How can
commercial vendors expect me to believe they'll support "my" code?
(not a rhetorical question)

I'm curious to know what the commercial vendors see as their added
value.  In anticipation of one obvious answer: "Libraries," I ask
further how that will be affected by the ANSI effort (where the
library will be less unique because it must conform).

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei,uunet}!willett!dwp