Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!ames!amdahl!pacbell!sactoh0!tree!stever
From: stever@tree.uucp (Steve Rudek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Request For Comments (was Re: Declining Forth popularity.)
Summary: I'll sign up to write documentation! :-)
Message-ID: <1990Jan4.024003.29796@tree.uucp>
Date: 4 Jan 90 02:40:03 GMT
References: <8912270501.AA01856@jade.berkeley.edu> <744@noe.UUCP>
Organization: TREE BBS (916)349-0385 Sacramento, Ca
Lines: 29

In article <744@noe.UUCP>, marc@noe.UUCP (Marc de Groot) writes:
> Mitch Bradley writes:
> >Furthermore, Forth programmers are anarchists at heart (otherwise they
> >wouldn't buck the establishment and continue to use Forth despite all
> >the pressure to use C).
> 
> Absolutely right.  Now, how about if the Un*x Forth people continue
> the anarchist trend and write their own standard?
...
> Starting with a group of Un*x Forth programmers will make the job a wee
> bit easier.
... 
> Here's some ideas:

What! No curses support! :-( 

I think you've made an excellent suggestion, Marc.  I'm going to be with
Unix for the long term and obviously a majority of the rest of you folks
are intending the same.  I think that Forth and Unix have a lot to lend
each other.  If Mitch would be willing to share his ideas for memory
allocation, files, etc. maybe we can see about getting them to work under
the main Forths which are available for Unix.  I propose (in keeping with
my previous posting) that we stone to death anyone who appears to get too
caught up in making things "perfect".  Let's go for "good enough" as a 
first cut and save revisions for next year.  I apologise that at first,
at least, I probably won't be much help in implementing the standards but
I will help as best I can in whatever way I can.
-- 
{pacbell!sactoh0! OR ucdavis!csusac!}tree!stever