Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!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's WRONG with Forth?
Message-ID: <2751.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 13 May 91 11:56:46 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 55

Category 2,  Topic 9
Message 97        Sun May 12, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 21:59 EDT
 
Funny you should ask, Dennis.  Last June or thereabouts I wrote what amounted
to an op-ed piece for Paul Frenger and the SigForth newsletter, entitled "Why
I Don't Buy Forth."  Someday he may run that piece, but obviously I've
modified my views since then.

I actually cornered Elizabeth at last year's Rochester conference to talk
about my biggest problem: I need to deliver clear, royalty-free title to any
software that I write, and I need to use the Forth compiler layer as part of
my application.  Forth Inc. and LMI both require royalty fees if the compiler
layer is to be included.  MPE allows the compiler layer to be included as long
as the end-user does not see a Forth programming environment; i.e., I can use
the Forth compiler to create special-purpose parsers and text interpreters,
and I can include a Forth "back door" for maintenance and field service uses. 
Both of these are important.  (By the way, MMS has the same intransigent
policy about their compiler layer -- I asked -- but that was an academic
question, since MMS doesn't make cross compilers.)

I hinted at requirement #2 in my previous posting: I need to deliver a
maintainable package to a group of assembly-language programmers. They don't
have, and mustn't need, a Forth guru on staff.  The polyForth target compiler
was the first _good_ metacompiler I ever used, and is still one of my
favorites -- but you know as well as I that some advanced Forth knowledge is
needed to be able to use it effectively.  The MPE compiler is, IMHO, much more
of a "cookbook" compiler, and much better documented.  It also allows the use
of text files; and I didn't at all relish the thought of selling screens and a
brand-new editor (and way of thinking) to these guys.

On top of that, the MPE compiler is more "glitzy" -- or perhaps I should say
"professional looking."  It's sad that this should make a difference, but it
does.  Interestingly, they achieve this mostly thorough a shell program which
is wrapped around their otherwise- ordinary-looking tools.  (Rather like Turbo
C, come to think of it.) I must admit, it makes the compiler easier to use.

Finally, I was attracted by their "Umbilical Forth" -- or, in Forth Inc
jargon, ChipForth -- for an interactive cross-development environment.  (You
may recall that I gave a paper on this topic at Rochester last year.)

At that, it was a long uphill battle to convince my client to spend even $1700
for a compiler.  I think if I had tried to hit them for $4K (the last price I
heard for the full target polyForth environment) it would have been a complete
"non-starter".

A real pity, because I still feel quite a bit of loyalty to good old
polyForth.

- Brad
-----
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