Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!genbank!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!tree!stever
From: stever@tree.uucp (Steve Rudek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Declining Forth popularity.
Keywords: Forth, changes, extensions, marketing
Message-ID: <1989Dec14.013516.24694@tree.uucp>
Date: 14 Dec 89 01:35:16 GMT
Organization: TREE BBS (916)349-0385 Sacramento, Ca
Lines: 72


As you know, I've been playing "devil's advocate" in a number of previous
postings and I've been disparaging Forth (though mainly Forth
implementations...it's tough to disparage a language which won't hold
still :-).  It seems to me that Forth use is in decline.  It's possible I'm
mistaken, but I've noticed that computer magazines have increasingly 
distanced themselves from the language and that even past Forth implementors
seem anxious to dissociate themselves from Forth.

For example, the only reference to Forth you'll see in current issues
of Dr. Dobbs is in the "Structured Programming" column where the
column logo shows a tree with various programming language names
labelling the branches.  The Forth branch is broken and falling off the
tree.  The logo dates back to when Forth articles
were almost as common as C articles...then it was cute but now it
seems more sarcastic.  And when was the last time that Ray Duncan admitted
in PC Magazine that he was a Forth vendor...or that he even used the language?
DOES he still use the language or does he only sell it?  He's promoting
C and assembler and MS-DOS and OS/2...but no Forth.  In another magazine I
read a glowing report about the "Actor" language.  The article mentioned how
Actor's author, Charles Duff (?), previously designed a neat language
called "Neon" for the Mac.  I thought it was interesting the way the 
article left of mention of the fact that Neon was a Forth derivative. Forgive
my paranoia, but I got the feeling that piece of information was left out
deliberately.  And notice how hidden are the few remaining ads for Forth
implementations.  I got a 150 page catalog from The Programmers Shop which
contained probably 1500 language products...but only one Forth
implementation. 

What happened?  WHY did it happen?  What (if anything) can be done to reverse
or at least halt the declining popularity of Forth?

In <14874@well.UUCP> jax@well.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr) said:
> 	Forth showed a path for the future, but the future diverged
> perversely. Imagine if it had been Forth, not hopelessly crippled BASIC,
> that had been provided to every purchase of a late-'seventies micro ???

The implication is that Forth would now be the premiere language for
computer programmers, I guess?  I think it's more likely that far fewer
microcomputers would have been sold and that the microcomputer revolution
would have been delayed by several years until other languages came around.
Other than BASIC and assembler, Forth was the only language easily available 
for the first few years of microcomputers.  A lot of people were dissatisfied
with BASIC for a variety of reasons and were highly motivated to adapt
themselves and their projects to Forth.  For those who needed a high level
language with copy protection of source code or speed or structure
Forth was the only game in town.  So a lot of people eagerly investigated
Forth...and concluded that they'd rather not play at all than play with
Forth.  It was much easier for me to learn my first assembly language than
to learn Forth; I *still* don't know Forth well enough to write a decent video
game but I could write one in assembly, or C, or Pascal, or BASIC.

For some strange reason, approximately every three years I get a hankering
to take another shot at Forth.  It BUGS me that I have such a tough time
with Forth--I learned APL and LISP okay and they aren't that "conventional".  
So here I am in another of my Forth cycles.  This time, though, I have F83
(with F-PC on the way) and the Kelly and Spies "Text and Reference" and I
suspect I'll survive the learning curve.  Whether I'll *like* Forth or not
I won't know for a while.  However, I *do* like a number of aspects of the
language considerably (the modularity, the extensibility, the speed) or I
wouldn't keep coming back to it.

Anyway, I've developed some definite ideas about why Forth has failed to
catch on except as a "cult" and "hardware hacker's" language.  And I have
some definite ideas about what might be done to improve its popularity.
I've shared some of my thoughts with you folks in this and earlier postings.
I'd like to read more of your ideas, though, before I present more of my
own.  Here's the challenge:  Suppose your life depended on getting Forth
established as a (reasonably) popular language.  Further suppose that you
had considerably programming and MARKETING resources.  What would you do?
-- 
{pacbell!sactoh0! OR ucdavis!csusac!}tree!stever