anderson@uwvax.ARPA (02/12/84)
There have been several messages recently voicing dissatis- faction with the extent of the changes in the FORTH-83 pro- posal. While I appreciate the difficulties that these changes might cause, I feel that the following points should not be overlooked: 1) In terms of widespread use, FORTH is relatively new. Its underlying concepts are novel, and some of its design weaknesses became apparent only with time. I don't think what we have is good enough to consider casting it in stone. I also think that some sets of extensions (not in the nucleus) should be proposed and standardized. 2) The main idea of the FORTH philosophy (as I see it) is that you are free to fashion your own programming environment, or hierarchy of environments, using FORTH as the nucleus. In particular you can simulate the environment provided by any previous version of FORTH by defining a vocabulary that sits on top of the newer FORTH and redefines (to their original meanings) what- ever words were changed. These remarks are not meant to endorse FORTH-83, which I haven't read, but only to support the idea of an evolving standard. As an aside, I am working on extensions to FORTH for doing computer music. These involve concurrent processes, and some object-type structures. I would like to hear from anyone interested in this. David Anderson (uwvax!anderson) U. of Wisconsin Comp. Sci.