Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!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: Re-inventing the wheel.
Message-ID: <2387.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 20 Feb 91 13:04:01 GMT
References: <9102211449.AA20733@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 20

In article <9102211449.AA20733@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
	S47852EF@ETSUACAD.BITNET ("Frank C. Earl") writes:
> Despite this, if the dpANS is turned into ANS Forth, I'll use it...
> (I may not like it, but I'll use it...)
> If anything, to just avoid re-inventing the wheel as much as I possibly can
> :)

Agreed.  As a minimalist purist (or partly one anyway), I would really like
to see a tight coherent and powerful CORE wordset and couldn't care less
about the extensions.  As a pragmatic programmer and designer, I don't want
to have to reinvent the wheel.  Performance, esp. on a workstation, is not
as much a concern as are maintainability and portability.  If I really need
the speed I can rewrite the file I/O words.  I would much rather plug in that
part and concentrate on the application specific parts of my application.
Yes, I realize that the standard file I/O words may not suffice in all cases,
but 90% is better than nothing.

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