Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What should the Standard include?
Message-ID: <2669.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 24 Apr 91 03:10:46 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 62

Category 10,  Topic 30
Message 43        Sun Apr 21, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 21:50 EDT
 
As promised long ago, here is the text of proposal TP90-889 (defeated),
"Criteria for acceptance of new words."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Add the following text to the Standard, and use these criteria in TC
deliberations:

In order for a word to be adopted as a Forth standard, it must demonstrate
general acceptance, useful functionality, and implementability.

To establish general acceptance and usefulness, the exact word must have been
in use for at least one year in each of six or more major Forth systems
("major" being defined as having 200 or more users). These six systems must
include Forths for at least one 32-bit, one 16-bit, and one 8-bit processor.

Successful implementations must be demonstrated for at least one subroutine-
threaded, one direct-threaded, and one indirect-threaded Forth system.

Proposed words which do not satisfy these criteria shall be deemed
"experimental."
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

One clarification: when this was presented in Detroit, I indicated that the
phrase "the exact word" did not apply to word NAMES, but only to function,
stack effect, argument values, side effects, etc.
 (I've recently thought to add the requirement that the six implementations
must be done by at least three different people, but the above is what was
proposed, and I'll stand by it.)

These are, In My Humble Opinion, very "light" criteria.  (The Boston group
proposed a five-year period.)  The intent is a) to ensure that new ideas can
be implemented in all Forth environments (e.g., subroutine-threaded), and b)
that new ideas be tried out before being adopted.  And yet there are entire
sections of X3J14 which can't even meet this feeble test!

A more damning indictment of X3J14 is that the TC rejected the VERY IDEA of
ANY such criteria, with ANY numbers inserted in the blanks.

                              * * *

I was once taught a very useful test for intellectual honesty, to see if an
opponent is open to argument or persuasion: ask him "What would it take to
change your mind on this subject?"  The above is my answer to that question --
show me six major systems for one year, and I'll quit carping about local
variables and exception handling.

But when I asked that question of the TC members, several replied "Nothing" --
which was proof that I was wasting my time.

Brad Rodriguez        | brad%candice@maccs.uucp      (God willing)
 B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
 "Shoes for industry!" | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca  (archaic)

-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp