Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth NON Standards Team
Message-ID: <607@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 19:29:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.607
Posted: Fri May 10 19:29:07 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 14-May-85 07:09:33 EDT
References: <133@kontron.UUCP>, <588@astrovax.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 24
Xref: linus net.lang:1354 net.lang.forth:192

[...............]
>Amen.  A thing not mentioned there was an earlier, I believe, less official
>attempt at standardization in 1977.  I started programming in Forth around
>1976.  I had just finished getting all of my software converted to the 1977
>style Forth when the 1979 standards came along. I had just finished converting
>to the 1979 standards when the 1983 standards came along.  I haven't even
>had the stomach to try to convert to the 1983 standards.  I look forward to
>1987 with dread.  These constant incompatible changes in the basic structure
>of the language play havoc with any attempt to maintain any large base of
>existing software written in that language.
>-- 
>Bill Sebok			Princeton University, Astrophysics

I agree.  Me?  I started with a Forth-79/Starting Forth hybrid, and later
decided to convert completely to FIG-Forth.  FIG-Forth is the easiest and
cheapest to get hold of, most public domain is FIG, and so far, I've seen
no reason good enough to change.  I've got 4 different systems at home, and
two at work, and as much as I like the LMI Forth, there's no way I'm going to
buy 83 (or whatever) versions for all 6 of these systems, especially if
there is something available public domain.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd