Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS FORTH TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Message-ID: <565.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 27 Feb 90 00:49:30 GMT
References: <563.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 26

In <563.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, DARRYL BIECH writes:
>  Being a novice with FORTH, but involved with other languages as well, it
>  sounds like history repeating itself. Problems of group dynamics, and of
>  fears that an implementation may be left behind etc., or that the
>  standard will be too big. Having to support both Intel and Motorola
>  based architectures, and yet maintain performance and a high degree of
>  compatibility are difficult items for a small group to address let alone
>  a committee. If all the standard does is provide a good small core that
>  encourages increased commercial involvement, the language will benefit.
>                                                    -d.b.
Has anyone on X3J14 yet read Plauger's comments on X3J11 in (Feb or Mar?)
issue of Computer Language?  He talks about some of the things that Darryl
mentions.  I recall reading somewhere (no, I don't remember where) that
the folks that got involed with X3J14 initially didn't know much about the
workings of ANSI.  Perhaps someone on the committee now could drop ANSI
a note and suggest that perhaps they oughta get something like Plauger's
article to give to the various 'approach-ees' and perhaps cut down somewhat
on 're-inventing the political wheel'?  (Of course, this might be a good
idea even if I'm wrong and the original X3J14 cast *did* know what they
were getting into)

		-Doug

---
Preferred: willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp   [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]