Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SUN.COM!wmb From: wmb@SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth standards - just how standard CAN you make it?? Message-ID: <9001090123.AA24703@jade.berkeley.edu> Date: 9 Jan 90 00:32:39 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Forth Interest Group International List Organization: The Internet Lines: 22 > If my forth runs on my machine only, but does it well, > why standarize? ... If you want to port a small application, you > might as well rewrite it - optimize it for the particular machine... With standardization, the community as a whole can make forward progress, instead of everybody having to rewrite everything for every different machine. With computers as inexpensive and as commonplace as they are today, many people routinely use more than one type of machine. I routinely use about 9 different machines. I don't have time to rewrite for all the machines. These are the benefits of standardization. However, I still think that, at this time, it would be impractical for the Forth community to adopt a standard window model. In other areas, in particular file system interfaces, strings, and floating point, things have settled down to the point where standardization would be practical and timely. Mitch