Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrcce!c10sd3!anderson
From: anderson@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM (Joel Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: RPN, fights for its life
Summary: Space Dogs need cheap systems
Message-ID: <251@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM>
Date: 31 Aug 88 19:50:25 GMT
References: <248@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM> <1588@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: anderson@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM (Joel Anderson)
Organization: NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN
Lines: 64

In article <1588@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk 
(Fraser Orr) responds to my praise of a CBM 64 Forth where I remarked
on the fact that 

>>  Too long have I used the system  without using its full potential.

In response Fraser makes the odd remark - 
>Too long have I used systems that are difficult and akward to use. 

This has nothing to do with my statement.  All I was pointing out was
that I had a professional quality implementation of Forth, that I used it 
for a terminal program, and that it actually could do all kinds of very
nice things (graphics, sound and such).  I didn't say the system was awkward
(it isn't).  And, if you have the taste for it (no Fraser doesn't apparently),
Forth isn't awkward either.

Again a non sequitur -
>Yes, and i can do scads of useful things with my pocket calculator, doesn't
>mean it is the best way to do it though.

I was talking about a low cost computer with a useful Forth implementation
what did that have to do with the things Fraser does with calculators?

>>You don't need a massive expensive system to do meaningful work.
>>This implementation of Forth (Blazin' Forth, by Scott Ballantyne) was snatched 
>>from Quantum Link for pennies (well a few dollars).
>
>Yes, and for a few dollars more, or a few weeks effort more, you could
>build a preprocesor that would give you all these wonderful things
>(which I deleted for brevity) and you could do it in a pleasant programming
>environment. 

Ahem - again in my original post, I forwarded the remarkable notion that a
Forth system is an 'appropriate technology' solution.  Those of us whose 
personal budget (or priorities), limit our computing money may like the 
incremental approach Forth affords.  And I think the preprocessor idea, how
ever useful that may be in some settings is a far overblown notion on a C64.
I already have a C compiler if I want to  tangle in the 
edit-compile-test-edit-compile-test-edit-compile-test-edit-compile-test-
edit-compile-test-edit-compile-test- cycle.  What <I> want and what I get
in Forth is a nice, neat, fast (cheap) development system. 


I think this has gone far enough.  Lets keep up the quantity of the postings
but drop this silly Forth bashing.  If you don't like Forth, Fraser, fine.
You are entitled to your opinions, however stupid.  If this keeps up we are 
going to devolve into name-calling and personal abuse.

>Do you see my point?
>===Fraser Orr (orr%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.ucl.ac.uk)
Yes, but if you part your hair ... oops - see what I mean.....


On a serious level - I saw a note about a Forth neural net simulator in 
Dr.Dobbs - can anyone else tell me about this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"..If you own a machine, you are in turn owned by it, and spend your time
serving it...."    The Forbidden Tower, Marion Zimmer Bradley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  anderson@c10sd3.StPaul.NCR.COM |UUCP: {rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!jpa
     Joel Peter Anderson         |ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!jpa@nosc.mil
  NCR Comten / Software engineer |INET: jpa@pnet51.cts.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------