Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!purdue!bouma From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Declining Forth popularity. Summary: what popularity? Keywords: Forth, changes, extensions, marketing Message-ID: <8979@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 15 Dec 89 18:56:23 GMT References: <1989Dec14.013516.24694@tree.uucp> Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 61 When I first started reading net.news about two years ago I was amazed, no, shocked to find a group devoted to the forth language. No one had even heard of it at my undergrad institution. Few people here have heard of it and none that I have met have ever used it. These are places that teach computer science folks! If it isn't being taught then people have to learn about it on their own. Given that there are so many accepted languages powerful enough to do real work, what motivation is there to seek out a new one? In article <1989Dec14.013516.24694@tree.uucp> stever@tree.uucp (Steve Rudek) writes: >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. I will have to agree with the jax on this one. If there had been no basic, but only forth for the early micros I do not believe it would have affected their sale at all. Most people just use what they are given since they don't know there is anything better. Those who used canned software wouldn't have known the difference, and those who wrote the programs back then were mostly hackers at heart anyway. >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 People are basically lazy 8^). They were faced first with finding an implementation of forth that would run on their micros, then with learning, on their own, the differences it presented. It does not surprise me that some people take one look at forth and decide it isn't worth the effort. But if they were given forth rather than basic, and had not already been molded into the basic way of thinking, they would have used forth and found it acceptable to do work. >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". Could you isolate what it is about forth that is giving you such a hard time? I don't see how it could be giving you any trouble if you have learned all these other languages. Just take your lisp program, remove the parenthesis, and write it backwards. You now have a forth program 8^). Perhaps you are having trouble because you have to learn it on your own. All of these other languages were taught to you in school? If you want forth to become more popular, you have to get it into the schools. -- Bill || ...!purdue!bouma