Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!TOWSONVX.BITNET!S72UZAW From: S72UZAW@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Yahn Zawadzki) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Forth standards - just how standard CAN you make it?? Message-ID: <9001081531.AA15962@jade.berkeley.edu> Date: 8 Jan 90 02:26:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Forth Interest Group International List Organization: The Internet Lines: 26 Greetings... I have been witnessing the arguments between you folks for/against a windowing standard (and other standards). I am running a forth version for a C128. It has a window 'interface' (the 128 does not really support windows in the sense Macs or Amigas do). The interface is nice and simple - because it uses features unique to the 128. After all - do you want your system to be FAST, or to be 'compatible'??? What about colours? Sound? Just how far is the standarization reaching..? As a poor student - I cannot afford the new Forth Standard. And until I will be making $20+ an hour, I will not buy one. Maybe not even then... If my forth runs on my machine only, but does it well, why standarize? I don't see why you people use Forth, if you expect your code to work on different machines. If you want to port a small application, you might as well rewrite it - optimize it for the particular machine... If you are trying to port a larger application - well, consider yourself lucky if at least a minor portion of the code isn't written in assembly. Use C, or Pascal, or whatever... We do NOT need a Reverse-Polish C! (I apologize: I do not have the memory for names... Whoever said this before...) Certain things should remain the same for us to be able to call 'it' Forth - by all means... But this is too much like trying to standarize system calls between VMS, DOS, UNIX, and whatever else.. However 'neat' an idea - but unrealistc and, I feel, unneeded. --- Jan (Yahn) Zawadzki INET: yahn@midget.towson.edu Bitnet: s72uzaw @ TOWSONVX ---