Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU!EBERBERS%yubgef51
From: EBERBERS%yubgef51@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (____ Zarko Berberski ____)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: 4 Lbs 12 oz
Message-ID: <9104251330.AA07631@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 25 Apr 91 01:51:06 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ____ Zarko Berberski ____ <EBERBERS%yubgef51%PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 31


      A long posting can be interesting or boring but this one
simply made me sick.

      In computer science (and programming as its applied part)
it is well known what the word "semantics" mean and if Mr. Warvik
have spent at least come smaal time browsing through even some very
basic c.s. litherature then he certainly wouldn't try to enforce
a quite nonsense meaning to the same word and wase both net and
our time.

      You can imagine my horror when I've seen another posting
by the same author and with the same name :-) Fortunately this
one was much shorter but as missleading as the previous. Mr.
Warvik guarantees us that any significan application we have now
will crash on future ANSI Forth system. The same statement can
can be given FOR ANY POPULAR PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE including C
since significant applications always must use system-specefic
resouces it they are to be good. Even quite simple C programms
may need changes if things like (sizeof int) are important for
their corectness. Not to mention Fortran EQUIVALENCE-a and
porting from linear-memory to segmented-memory sytems. So, we
have another nonsenses.

      Do we really have to be bugged with tons of nonsense just
because somebody thinks that he have created the world and knows
better then all of us what are the "real" meanings of the words
and what is the "essence" of portability ?


            Zarko Berberski           EBERBERS@YUBGEF51.bitnet