Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!world!dcp From: dcp@world.std.com (David C. Petty) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: To chuck or not? Keywords: ANS Forth Message-ID: <1991Feb27.063427.15268@world.std.com> Date: 27 Feb 91 06:34:27 GMT References: <9102122125.AA04897@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Reply-To: dcp@world (David C. Petty) Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 36 I wrote: ``> Au contraire... the fact that ``we can think of problems with a part ``> of the standard'' is _absolutely_ reason enough to ``chuck'' that ``> part. Only those things that are proven aspects of Forth should be ``> standardized as part of ANS Forth (in my heretical opinion). In article <9102122125.AA04897@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, Mitch Bradley writes: ``No way, Jose. I can think of problems with just about *every* aspect ``of Forth. There is no such thing as a word that does everything well. <...stuff...> ``I have a hard time respecting the "I don't like it, so you can't have it" ``attitude. My desire to include a quote from another posting led to a misunderstanding in the definition of the word ``problem.'' I was referring to _new_ (and unproven) Forth features that may have problems that we do not yet know about and (in my heretical opinion) should, therefore, be chucked. It happened with FORTH-83 and I see no reason (please, do not send another X3J14 resume list) that prevents ANS Forth from suffering a similar fate. No one interested in any serious way in standardizing Forth would ever advocate removing DO from Forth, whatever its problems, and I do not. I find it _impossible_ to accept the ``I like it, so you must accept it'' attitude. -- David C. Petty | dcp@world.std.com | ...!{uunet,bu.edu}!world!dcp /\ POBox Two | CIS: 73607,1646 | BIX, Delphi, MCIMail: dcp / \ Cambridge, MA | `It must've been some-other-body, / \ 02140-0001 USA | uh uh babe it wasn't me...' /______\