Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!isis.cs.du.edu!jwoehr From: jwoehr@isis.cs.du.edu (Jack J. Woehr) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: 5 Lbs 3 Oz Summary: 5# 3z but Three Bricks Short of a Load, John :-) Keywords: implement,it,or,just,be,quiet Message-ID: <1991Apr23.070117.18761@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Date: 23 Apr 91 07:01:17 GMT References: <18518@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> Sender: usenet@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account) Reply-To: jwoehr@isis.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr) Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.) Lines: 173 In article <18518@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes: > >Readers of this newsgroup have been tipped off by the reactions of >Mitch Bradley, John Hayes, Elizabeth Rather and others to submitted >code fragments. Thus USENET readers have had some indication that >certain things which could be done in a relatively straight-forward >way in traditional Forth systems may have to be drastically altered >(or possibly cannot be done at all) in the proposed ANSI Forth. Yes, some things can not be done PORTABLY in ANS Forth, John. So what? You will still be able to store to the bodies of CONSTANTs *on your own system* ... Hell, do anything you want. But PORTABILITY implies TRANSPARENCY TO ARCHITECTURE. Is this a difficult concept? >Most users of Forth are not readers of ForthNET. They will need to >rely on definition of the language in the Standards document. Even if >there is an "Ask Mitch" column in Forth Dimensions, it will not >satisfy the needs of most users. Suppose you are right, John? C users depend on PJ Plauger to tell them what ANS C means. I mean, John, you're a *teacher*, right? SO TEACH!!! > They will ultimately rely on a >glossary based on the Standards document for their understanding of >what words are available and how they can be used. The BASIS docu- >ment, as it stands now, reflects a systematic attempt to fuzz and >eliminate word meanings. Oh, foof, John! It does no such thing. It attempts to remove 16-bittedness and other architecural and implementation dependencies from the PORTABLE syntax. Your personal Forth system can provide you with any hacking tools you want. Just don't expect that assumptions that worked in FIG-Forth will be transportable. > As a result the average user does not even >have the means to identify where existing code fails to be portable, >and how to fix it. Neither is he in a position to know if any words >are "missing" -- i.e. whether BASIS provides the tools to replace the >code (once it has been located). Ok, so who in the C community reads the Standard? They read Plauger's book, that's what they read. Golly, what a shame ... a few more Forth books might get written! :-) >The ANSI project has been an unusual building project. The work has >been conducted from a builders' perspective -- decisions have been >made for the convenience of the builders. The elimination of meaning >is not just a "t" left uncrossed or "i" not dotted -- it is the >result of a systematic application of a misconception: if meaning is >left vague, they think that the language becomes more flexible. > You fail to grasp the Zen of BASIS, grasshopper. What we do NOT say is as important as what we DO say. "The emptiness of the room," said sage Lao Tse, "gives the room its usefullness." John, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO? We could say, "`Comma' compiles sixteen bits." WELL THAT DOESN'T EVEN WORK NOW! My co-worker came into my office to complain to me about my Forth for the 80C196. Seems he had an application from our Forth for the 80188 that had 1234 , 34 c, 678 , 9999 , etc. scattered in an array. Of course it didn't run! The 80196 enforces word alignment on 16-bit quantities! So you just ABSTRACT as much of the architecture dependency as humanly possible from the language model and you have BASIS 15. >Forth has been looked at from the singular perspective of one group >of people. Diverse as they may seem to each other, they share certain >assumptions that must be challenged. The idea that word meanings >should be fuzzed or eliminated is one of these assumptions. It has >its origin in a real short-term advantage (i.e. vendors don't have to >change existing products) -- but it has long-term disadvantages to >users, teachers, and researchers for whom portability is important. > Horsefeathers. Meanings are not fuzzed. Your interpretation is skewed. ANS Forth will offer the most unified statement of what for all practical purposes constitutes the essence of the academic model of Forth. BASIS 15 works, John. I've got it running. > SUMMARY > >A great point is made about Forth being controlled by semantics >rather than syntax. A description of how a word acts is not the real >story of its semantics. The semantics of a word (here called its >"meaning") includes such things as what the word is typically used to >accomplish. > This is byzantine academic hair-splitting. Your ivory tower is showing. The BASIS describes the language. It cannot sufficiently describe the language for the novice. YOU ARE A TEACHER THIS IS YOUR JOB. >The ANSI document includes familiar words with altered meanings. The >words are there with the same name and (sometimes) the same semantics >-- but they can no longer be used to accomplish the same things. > 83-STANDARD changed stack indexing from one-based to zero-based. Golly, that's tough. >There is no way for most users to locate segments of their existing >code which are victims of the evaporation of meaning. It is not clear >if the proposed ANSI Forth provides viable work-arounds or how to >find them. [The problem is compounded by the fact that the BASIS has >been badly translated from the original Hungarian!] > We'll find it by doing it, John. Us *working* Forth programmers are great doers and problem mechanics. We'll get it up and running, that's our life! >This is not a cosmetic problem -- it comes from the fact that BASIS >has been put together by people who have come to share a singular >perspective. > Yes, the perspective of having participated in this effort. Can you tell me how we could NOT have a shared perspective after sitting in rooms together for years? The Spanish have a saying, "I hear you talking, but you are saying nothing." What is your complaint here? >Fuzzing the meaning of words does make it easier for vendors to call >current systems "Standard". This is a short term "gain" which has >serious long-term negative effects on a user's ability to write >portable programs; on power; and on eventual acceptance of the lan- >guage. This is utter nonsense and indicates you haven't really read the BASIS, or else you are intentionally misrepresenting the work. >Forth would benefit greatly by a good Standard at this time. The last >thing it needs, however, is a bad Standard. > BASIS 15 is pretty good. >The proposed ANSI-Forth is not a simple room addition. It is a new >language that shares many words (but not meanings) with the language >we now use. It should be honestly presented as a new language and >current Forth users should be given ample time to evaluate it (and to >meaningfully participate in revision). In its present state it is not >clear that the new language offers either power or portability. > Great, in the year 2002 you tell us if you like it, ok? Meanwhile, us *working* Forth programmers will be writing thousands of portable ANS Forth programs. We'll let you know if we have any problems. I apologize for being huffy, John. It's late. I've been up implementing BASIS 15. I just don't want to hear any more nonsense from sideliners. Implement it and show me where it's broken. I'm sure there are bugs. Please find them and fix them, otherwise just lay off the BASIS. We don't need carpers. We need workers. Implement or shut up. -- # ..!apple!dunike!nyx!koscej!jax # "Therefore, the L-RD G-d # # ..!hplabs!hp-lsd!oldcolo!jax # sent him FORTH ..." # # {apple,hplabs,pacbell,ucb}!well!jax # - Genesis 3:23 # # JAX on GEnie SYSOP RCFB 303-278-0364 # Member ANS Forth X3J14 TC #