Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!agate!ucbvax!YUBGEF51.BITNET!EBERBERS From: EBERBERS@YUBGEF51.BITNET (____ Zarko Berberski ____) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Message-ID: <9104091319.AA16974@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 9 Apr 91 03:13:27 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ____ Zarko Berberski ____ Organization: The Internet Lines: 85 > copyright (c) 1991 Robert Berkey > Splitting this posting into two parts or truncating it, for transmission > to other computer message systems, constitutes violation of copyright. So, I'v just violated that by including this excerpt since I'v truncated the original postingfot transmission to other computer message system :-) > I would vote NO against any so-called > "standard" that violated the mathematical use of the word MOD. This is the only real fact in the whole posting and it is certainly NOT the reason for such severe attack not only to all participants of Forth standardization prosecc but to X3 and CBEMA too. Actually, I seems to me that tha author is simply (mis)using Forth standardization as an excuse for a small private political campain and thas the kind of thing the Forth community certaily does NOT need. By the way - "the mathematical use of" MOD is not as an operator but as a qualifier of equivalence statemant so there is no popular computer language that implement the MOD the way we are using it in mathematics. > exposes fundamental hypocrisy and corruption in X3.J14. ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > However, my experience with X3 has been > that they cannot be trusted any more than X3.J14. ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- > Robert Berkey Member X3.J14 Technical Committee A nice contradiction - all 3 clauses can't be true! So if I trust the first clause then I might trust the second but then what am I to conclude about Robert Barkey :-) and how am I to trust anything that such person have said ? > Note to SPARC that X3.J14 doesn't even pretend to themselves that > the current draft proposed American National Standard document is > ready to be an American National Standard, that it is a disguised > political trial balloon, and as such is a fraudulent attempt to > coerce analysis from the Forth public. First let me say that the recognition of the fact that dpANS is not ready to be ANS simply proves that members of X3.J14 are honest and reasonable people. Is something is a draft proposal it is NOT EXPECTED to be final, otherwise there would be no point of having that draft and I think that no one needs 500% IQ to realise that simple logical fact. If, after 4+ years the result of X3.J14 is not ready for public review then it will never be and Forth community desperately NEEDS the ANS standard as soon as possible. So, we could all disagree with something in dpANS but I hope that we all realize that standard is NOT something that is supposed to satisfy all our wishes but the document that has the main purpose of providing reasonable common base that will make information/knowledge transportable and widely recognizable/comprehendable. > BTW, lest you think that we're the only group with these problems, check out > the article "The Standards Process Breaks Down" in the September 15, 1990 > issue of Datamation. Among other issues, it mentions the problem of X3 > standards being driven by vendors and not users. Read previous and this excerpt in sequence and you have another contradiction - how could somebody complain about early release of draft proposal for public review and in the same time complain about public not being included in standardization proces? Mr. Barkey who are you trying to fool ??? > In this context it should be remembered just who X3 is part of: The Computer > Business Equipment Manufacturer's Association (CBEMA). Hmmm, a vendor's > association picking only vendors as officers? There are actually just two kinds of people that can realy do any techical standardization - university people and manufactuers. This is not to say that users shouldn't be listened to but just to emphasize that the formal proces of techical standardization must be based on serious work of experts and not on chit-chat in local pub or 1M wish-lists. We all know that there are no two users of anything that agree 100% on how the object they are using look, funcion etc. And we also know that disagreement in Forth community is even more severe so we could either let the honest and qualified members of X3.J14 do their job and then, during the public review period, try to persuade others that this and that should be changed or we can simply forget the very idea of having the ANSI standard. > Demand that X3 be deaccredited and reconstituted outside of CBEMA. With Robert Berkey as a leader perhaps? Why I have such strong filing that the autor of "copyrighted" posting has some kind of political aspiration ? Zarko Berberski : eberbers@yubgef51.bitnet eberbers%yubgef51@pucc.princeton.edu