ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/06/90)
Date: 12-28-89 (08:16) Number: 350 (Echo) To: R.BERKEY [ROBERT] Refer#: 338 From: ZAFAR ESSAK Read: NO Subj: BASIS FEEDBACK Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Until their is some consensus on the stack effect of " I have been using *" ...." as the word that returns the address of the counted string. This is a word in Dan Phillips' N-Forth. What I have found is there are no left over uses for a " that returns an address and the length. Maybe an artifact of the applications I work on? I doubt it from the comments I have heard from others, but I'm still listening. --- * Via Qwikmail 2.01 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated program. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/14/90)
Date: 02-12-90 (00:25) Number: 2897 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: BOB LEE Read: (N/A)
Subj: ANS FORTH Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
I'm pretty excited about the ANS Forth Standard that is coming along. I
got Basis 6 last year, and Martin Tracy's ZEN is really opening my eyes
anew to the power of Forth. How soon can we reasonably expect the
standard to become a reality?
One of the things I noticed in the Basis 10 Summary was a word I'd never
heard of: >COLROW - what an ugly word! I don't see why such a word is
necessary in a standard system. Even if it must be included for some
reason or another, I wish it had a more readable name (POSITION maybe?).
b0b @ Interface
707.823.3052 2400 bps
8pm-8am Pacific time
Visit our Forth room!
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/15/90)
Date: 02-13-90 (08:44) Number: 365 To: IAN GREEN Refer#: 328 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: LANGUAGE OF ANS FORTH Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE The BNF for Forth is actually of very little value in understanding how the language works. The power of constructs like CREATE...DOES> is nearly impossible to capture & convey in BNF. BNF is best for strongly typed, heavily syntax languages like Pascal, but offers very little in extensible languages like LISP and FORTH. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
wmb@ENG.SUN.COM (02/16/90)
> One of the things I noticed in the Basis 10 Summary was a word I'd never > heard of: >COLROW - what an ugly word! I don't see why such a word is > necessary in a standard system. It's not necessary in every standard system. That's why it is in an extension wordset. > Even if it must be included for some reason or another, I wish it had > a more readable name (POSITION maybe?). We spent several hours trying to think of good alternatives. Many alternative names unfortunately conflicted with existing words in some systems. One advantage of the chosen name is that it tells you the stack order of the operands, which is a common problem with this operation.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/17/90)
How about "tgoto", to match the 'C' function.
I've also seen "setxy" for this one (while in the "existing usage" department).
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/19/90)
Date: 02-17-90 (20:02) Number: 2925 (Echo)
To: JERRY SHIFRIN Refer#: NONE
From: BOB LEE Read: NO
Subj: >COLROW Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Jerry, my other point is that the underlying concept of >COLROW is
rapidly becoming obsolete. It seems to assume a character-mapped output
device with equally spaced characters (or did I read it wrong?).
While I can see that it is appropriate in some systems, what would it
mean on a Macintosh or on a PostScript printer? Can >COLROW be assumed
to point to pixel coordinates if the display is not character mapped?
I guess my real point is that I don't think device-specific things like
>COLROW belong in a Forth standard.
b0b @ Interface
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/25/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 5 Fri Mar 23, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:34 EST Re: rcstjs@eutws1.win.tue.nl (Jan Stout) > Can anyone explain to me why a definition of > : COMPILE >R DUP 3 + >R C@ C, ( store the JSR ) @ , ; > wouldn't run on subroutine threaders? I assume there should be a DUP before the C@ and a 1+ before the @. Otherwise, your question could be considered a trick. <grin> You can not assume that the destination address will only be a cell wide. It may contain a segment and the address could be 32 bits, but the system is written with a 16 bit stack. Thus, the jump (on a 80386) may be 3, 5 or 7 bytes. Since I'm working on developing a Forth forjust such a system right now, I'd be opposed to anything that made assumptions about the token sizes. Otherwise, I share most of your comments. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/29/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 13 Mon May 28, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 15:02 EDT Re: ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) > we all know what FM/MOD and SM/MOD are. We actually now have 3 operators to divide a double precision number by a single as follows: UM/MOD ( ud u1 -- u2 u3 ) for unsigned values FM/MOD ( d1 n1 -- n2 n3 ) for floored division SM/MOD ( d1 n1 -- n2 n3 ) for symmetric division From these, whatever is needed by the application can be produced. By defining the standard operators for only the positive case, the implementor is free to either of the methods as primitives. If an application specifically requires signed operations, then the "standard" application will need to include something like the following: Signed floored division operators: : /_MOD ( n1 n2 -- n3 n2) : /_ ( n1 n2 -- n3 ) /_MOD SWAP DROP ; : _MOD ( n1 n2 -- n3 ) /_MOD DROP ; : */_MOD ( n1 n2 n3 -- n3 n4 ) >R M* R> FM/MOD ; : */_ ( n1 n2 n3 -- n3 ) */_MOD SWAP DROP ; [There was some garbage in the above. I hope I removed it and only it. -dwp] This appears to be a resonable compromise and allows three methods to be used in the same application. It also allows the implementor to use whatever is the most applicable to his system. It will add some code to applications, but I really do not see any other choice without alienating the two other choices in favor of one. > I wonder if there is any possibility that the ANSI Committee has > put users of the language in a position where they really can't > comment? How would you prefer that they do to sollicit your comments John? This is not the first time I and others have asked for comments and proposals, and no one has cut anyone off. However, I hope everyone realizes that this process must come to a close eventually. The TC has already been working on this for 3 years and there is a limit to how much each of the individuals can afford to dedicate to this process. We have already seen the withdrawl of a few very valuable individuals due to the expense and frustration of this effort. How much longer would you like to see people spend on it? Very soon, the TC will issue a Press Release that details the schedule that they would like to hold to. It culminates in a final ANS Forth Standard by March, 1992. Perhaps this, more than anything, will illuminate the process and shows why we must cut off additions to the standard soon. There is a Public Comment period coming soon, but first, the BASIS document must be brought into a form that is acceptable by all. The technical discussions were supposed to be completed this last week, but there are a few details yet to be resolved. Having just gone through the grueling process for my first time, I wish I could convey how much hard work the TC is doing. These choices are not easy, and some result in long, drawn out debates. Compromises MUST be made or we will never have a standard. There are basically two camps among all Forth programmers, those who want only the minimum words standardized, and those who want to include everything they could possibly need. What we will end up with is a compromise between the two, and hopefully all the factions within each group will be satisfied that they have at least been heard. DaR BTW, I will forward your comments personally. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) (06/01/90)
Dennis Raffer writes:
$ Having just gone through the grueling process for my first time, I wish I
$ could convey how much hard work the TC is doing. These choices are not
$ easy, and some result in long, drawn out debates. Compromises MUST be made
$ or we will never have a standard. There are basically two camps among all
$ Forth programmers, those who want only the minimum words standardized, and
$ those who want to include everything they could possibly need. What we will
$ end up with is a compromise between the two, and hopefully all the factions
$ within each group will be satisfied that they have at least been heard.
There also seems to be a division between those who believe that the
only reason for having a Standard is to insure portability and those
who believe that some kind of magical respectability will flow merely
from having an ANSI-"Standard" regardless of its content.
If Forth retains is main asset, the ability of users to add major
features to the language, the dispute between "minimalists" and
"kitchen sinkists" disappears. I don't think anyone seriously objects
to having features available as portable add-ons. A great deal of
advantage would come from creating conditions which would allow "third
party" tools to run on everyone's Forth. The dispute is whether the
character of Forth should be changed. Whether it should, like other
languages, become based on an implementation dependent black box
requiring major features to be vendor supplied.
Forth is a very unusual language. A great deal of its power derives
from the user's access to the implementation -- and the implementation
is very simple. As a result it is probably easier to diddle with Forth
implementation than it is to actually do something useful with the
language. There is really no harm in people developing and using their
own dialect of a language -- the harm comes when they actively
obstruct progress toward the development of a shared language for
those who need it. It is true that compromises must be made if the
portability and power that Forth once enjoyed are to be restored.
However, some of the most insidious bugs in programs translated from
one dialect of a language to another come from cases in which the same
word has different meanings. Declaring the action of fundamental words
to be "implementation dependent" is not the kind of compromise which
will contribute to portability.
$ > I wonder if there is any possibility that the ANSI Committee has
$ > put users of the language in a position where they really can't
$ > comment?
$ How would you prefer that they do to sollicit your comments John?
$ This is not the first time I and others have asked for comments and
$ proposals, and no one has cut anyone off. However, I hope everyone
$ realizes that this process must come to a close eventually. The TC
$ has already been working on this for 3 years and there is a limit to
$ how much each of the individuals can afford to dedicate to this
$ process. We have already seen the withdrawl of a few very valuable
$ individuals due to the expense and frustration of this effort. How
$ much longer would you like to see people spend on it?
The issue isn't how comments are solicited, it is with whether the
users are in a position to be informed about what is going on. How
many users are aware of what issues are to be discussed at the
meetings? How many users are aware of what has been decided? I rather
suspect that most users have interpreted the assurances that "We're
not going to break anyone's code" and "We're following existing
practice" to mean that the new Standard will look a lot like Forth-83.
I'm sure that very few have had a chance to test a software
implementation of any of the BASIS drafts to see how it differs from
current versions of Forth.
As for input from users, the TC is not equipped to deal with the kind
of broad-based input that users are likely to provide -- and users are
not in a position to provide the kind of narrow technical input the TC
wants.
As for output: To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a
forum in which the goals and objectives of the ANSI effort have been
aired. Much of the information available on the subject of goals comes
as asides in postings to this newsgroup by members of the Team --
ranging from Mitch Bradley's indictments a month ago to the current
posting of Dennis Raffer. We receive no reports about brilliant
solutions -- just on unsatisfying compromises. Details on
specific actions are presented with an air of "I know it isn't any
good, but its the best we do given the political climate". All of
these gloomy reports come from *supporters* of the ANSI effort who
always add something about how hard the members work, how much time
has been put in, and the hardship our boys have had to endure. I'm
just waiting for someone to tell us he sees light at the end of the
tunnel! [For non-US readers and those too young to remember --
rhetoric like this was used to convince people in the US that it would
be unpatriotic of them to question the conduct of the Vietnam War --
even though all objective signs indicated that it was a total
disaster]
If the purpose of the exercise is just to have everyone's current
system blessed then I wouldn't want to see any time spent on it at
all. If the object is to restore power and portability to Forth then
it should be worked on until it is done. Let me propose a simple test
for doneness:
Suppose the programmers at FORTH, Inc or any other software shop
that uses programming teams, were equipped with different
computers running randomly selected different ANSI-Standard
implementations of Forth. Would it be possible to complete
projects just as easily as now?
Now let me give some reasons why this is a reasonable test:
Many current and potential users of Forth work under just these
conditions. In an academic setting, for example, many programming
tasks exceed what any one person can accomplish -- and a joint effort
by several individuals, perhaps at different schools using different
computers, is needed. Even for single-programmer ventures, the need
to have software running on several platforms has become common. Also
in an academic setting, a language can be made unteachable. Here is
how to do it:
1. Have no university level texts
2. Make it impossible for anyone to write a university
level text (see 3&4)
3. Make the language unstable e.g.
a. Change the language Standards every few years
b. Split the language into multiple dialects
4. Make the language non-portable
5. Have no pool of (portable) basic application packages
6. Make it impossible for such a pool to be produced (see 3&4)
7. Fail to provide support to education
If a language is made unteachable, it is not likely to be taught. If a
language is not taught, it is not likely to spread.
Friends in industry inform me that there too portability is important.
Established software houses can get by using an in-house dialect of a
language -- and there may be a few isolated opportunities for
freelance programmers like Sam Smith, who does all his work in
SmithForth. But for the majority of jobs, employers apparently would
like to believe that code can be maintained by someone else when their
chief programmer moves on to greener pastures -- and that it will not
have to be entirely rewritten to run on another machine.
The test proposed above, therefore, corresponds to what the bulk of
the user community needs from a language standard.
I believe that the ANSI effort is a one-shot deal. If we do not
restore portability to Forth on this attempt, we will not have a
second chance.
John J Wavrik
jjwavrik@ucsd.edu Dept of Math C-012
Univ of Calif - San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093 wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (06/02/90)
The ANS Forth division compromise does NOT make it impossible to write portable code. It just means that the vendor-supplied "/" operator is not the operator you use to write it. There are 3 completely-portable, precisely-defined division operators "UM/MOD", "FM/MOD", and "SM/MOD" which you can use to get exactly the behavior that you need. If you insist on using the word "/" to mean a particular kind of division, then your application can redefine "/" in terms of one of the precise operators. Example - if you want "/" to be floored, then add this line to the start of your application: : / S>D FM/MOD NIP ; So far, I know of NO decision that the committee has made that makes it impossible to portable code. Quite the contrary. In cases where the meaning of a particular (controversial) word has been declared to be implementation-defined, new words with "neutral" names have been provided to do the precise things. A similar example is "NOT" . It was impossible to get people to agree on whether it means bitwise logical inversion or negation of a flag. So, "NOT" is no longer a standard word (and in actual fact, "NOT" has not been portable since 1983). Instead, the word "INVERT" means bitwise logical inversion, no questions asked, and the word "0=" means flag negation. Again, those people who insist on using "NOT" in their application are free to define it at the start of their application, to mean whatever they insist that it should mean.
dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (06/04/90)
In <9006011818.AA29786@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes: > So far, I know of NO decision that the committee has made that makes > it impossible to portable code. Quite the contrary. In cases where > the meaning of a particular (controversial) word has been declared to > be implementation-defined, new words with "neutral" names have been > provided to do the precise things. ... > A similar example is "NOT" . It was impossible to get people to agree on > whether it means bitwise logical inversion or negation of a flag. > So, "NOT" is no longer a standard word (and in actual fact, "NOT" has not > been portable since 1983). Instead, the word "INVERT" means bitwise logical > inversion, no questions asked, and the word "0=" means flag negation. This strikes me as the only sane thing to do when faced with opposing factions that won't give in. I'm curious as to how long it took the committee to hit upon this solution? -Doug --- Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (06/04/90)
> This [de-specifying controversial words, making up new non-controversial > names] strikes me as the only sane thing to do when faced with opposing > factions that won't give in. I'm curious as to how long it took the > committee to hit upon this solution? It took nearly the whole 3 years before the committee "bit the bullet" and admitted that there was just no way either side was going to give in. Time was starting to run out, and everybody was sick to death of the same old arguments. In this frame of mind, the compromise solutions were seen as the only way out. To my mind, the "compromise" is only a matter of spelling. The technical impact is completely positive; words exist (perhaps with suboptimal spelling, but I can live with that) with the semantics favored by each of the two sides (and both sides have good reasons for wanting what they want). Mitch
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/11/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 30 Sun Jun 10, 1990 GARY-S at 07:56 EDT In an article dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) writes: >> BASIS12 will appear online. > Why not also post versions that are preformatted for various types of >printers? (Epson, IBM, Okidata, etc?) So maybe you support half a Personally, I'll take them in a brown bag with zero formatting. It is THAT much of a relief to see they will appear on-line where ALL may discuss the issues ! Gary gars@glsrk (co-SysOp GEnie Forth RT) ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/11/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 35 Sun Jun 10, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 16:11 EDT Re: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) > Why not also post versions that are preformatted for various > types of printers? (Epson, IBM, Okidata, etc?) So maybe you > support half a dozen plus "Plain ascii", or can't MicroSoft Word > [TM] format its output for a plain ascii printer? The problem here is all the special formatting that is embedded within the BASIS document. It even uses special fonts on a HP Laser Jet printer. I haven't actually tried it yet, but I doubt it will even print on an Epson printer. I am willing to try a couple printer formats, but then we start getting into the other problems with the amount of effort required to support these other formats. This is a very large document that is updated 4 times per year. A lot of effort is already invested in updating it, and much more is not justifiable. We have agreed to post it in Microsoft Word format and I suspect that many people can handle it that way. Those that can't probably know someone who can translate it for them. I have seen the electronic format myself and know how overwhelming it is. I suggest that you take a look at it yourself before suggesting alternatives. Let's try one format first. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (06/12/90)
In <1132.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, GARY-S (Gary Smith) writes: > In an article dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) writes: > >> BASIS12 will appear online. > > Why not also post versions that are preformatted for various types of > >printers? (Epson, IBM, Okidata, etc?) So maybe you support half a > > Personally, I'll take them in a brown bag with zero formatting. It is > THAT much of a relief to see they will appear on-line where ALL may > discuss the issues ! Sigh. Having them online doesn't help if you can't read them. In <1133.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, D.RUFFER [Dennis] writes: > > Re: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) > > Why not also post versions that are preformatted for various > > types of printers? (Epson, IBM, Okidata, etc?) So maybe you > > support half a dozen plus "Plain ascii", or can't MicroSoft Word > > [TM] format its output for a plain ascii printer? > > The problem here is all the special formatting that is embedded within the > BASIS document. It even uses special fonts on a HP Laser Jet printer. > [Dennis basically says: Too hard, too much work.] > myself and know how overwhelming it is. I suggest that you take a look at it > yourself before suggesting alternatives. > > Let's try one format first. DaR Ok, How about PostScript (Embedded?)? Ok, Ok, One format is fine, it's better than nothing... :-) I realize that the TC wasn't looking to do electronic distribution when they started formatting the BASIS. What happens if/when the BASIS is adopted as a Draft? Will electronic publishing still be allowed? Is the formatting you're using now dictated by ANSI, X3 or ??? What about the Draft standard? Will it have the same formating/formatter restrictions? Is the draft just a BASIS with a title change? I hope you have room in the next issue of F.D. to go into some of the non-technical aspects of the standard so that those of us on the outside can try to understand why somethings are the way they are. -Doug --- Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/14/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 38 Tue Jun 12, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:53 EDT Re: dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) > What happens if/when the BASIS is adopted as a Draft? Will > electronic publishing still be allowed? Since ANSI makes its income from publishing standards, there is a big question about what happens after the BASIS is adopted. Right now we are doing it under the guise of promoting proposals, but once it becomes a standard, the rules will change. > Is the formatting you're using now dictated by ANSI, X3 or ??? I don't believe so Doug, but I'm really not very familar with what is going to happen once they get past the proposal stage. We will just have to wait and see. Presently, the format is convenient for the editing process on PCs or Macs, that is all. > I hope you have room in the next issue of F.D. to go into some of > the non-technical aspects of the standard so that those of us on > the outside can try to understand why somethings are the way they > are. I'm sure we will find the room if someone would write the article. I am not very well versed in the process, nor am I a very good writer, but maybe some one else will do it. My feeling is that most of us are just feeling our way through this process. Elizabeth seems to have a good feeling for how to do it, and she makes frequent calls to someone at CBEMA to answer questions. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/17/90)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 89 Sat Jun 16, 1990 W.BADEN1 [Wil] at 20:09 PDT For years I've jested about profane languages -- languages "outside the temple" of Forth. Forth is not Basic, is not Pascal, is not C, is not Fortran, is not Cobol, is not Ada. Each of these, even Basic and Ada, has applications it can do better than Forth. And there are applications that Forth can do better than any of these. The applications are not the same as what they were six to twelve years ago. Profane languages have gotten better -- there are more applications that a given profane language can do better than Forth. Even profane languages that haven't changed are better because the systems they run on are better. Adopting goodies from a profane language isn't going to make Forth better than that language (for applications that the profane language does better). Adopting goodies not relevant to applications that Forth is best in isn't going to make Forth better. Indeed, the overhead of such goodies will make Forth less attractive for the things that it is good for. The greatest virtue that Forth has and has always had is its economy. With at least 400 word definitions for a practical system and its unconventional approach, Forth is not simple and not easy. Its economy -- less code and fewer required resources -- is what makes it best for the things it's best for. Forth is the best language for the 6800, 6502, 8080, 8088, 68HC11, and the 128K Macintosh. It's not the best language for 386 systems and my 4 megabyte Macintosh with a 60K meg harddisk using MultiFinder. It's not the best language for applications on the SPARC 1 workstation I use. With Forth, I can't take full advantage of these systems. And I'm not going to ignore their power just to build a toaster out of them. Forth has very primitive data structure definitions. This is because that's all that typical Forth applications need. Sophisticated data structures can be created when needed, and I don't want to carry such baggage around with me when I've no use for it. If an application "needs" local variables, it's because Forth isn't the best language for the application. E.g., Forth isn't the best language for the determination of the date of Easter by ten quotients and remainders. SKIP, SCAN, etc., are useful for text processing but that's not Forth's main area of application. They have no place in my embedded system unless my embedded system is a text processor. Error restart other than through QUIT, ABORT, and ABORTquote isn't common existing practice, and no error recovery method that doesn't empty the entire return stack can have a portable specification. Other innovations proposed for ANS Forth are obsolescent, e.g., >COLROW and file handling. >COLROW presumes antiquated methods of processing text; file handling is an awkward form of virtual storage -- should it matter whether data are in memory or on disk? Forth's deficiency in these areas isn't weakness, but evidence of power and economy. Where Forth is the best language for the job is in applications where profane features aren't the important consideration, or there's a system dependent solution. I don't want a bastard new language. I want classic Forth. Procedamus in pace. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/27/90)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 93 Tue Jun 26, 1990 W.BADEN1 [Wil] at 21:25 PDT The domain for Forth is absolutely expanding. (Dare I say it again?) Forth's forte is its economy. No matter how rich you get there is a place for economy. Forth is losing its amateur rating. Forth was THE best language for amateurs (called "hackers" in those days, but that name has gotten a bad new meaning). Now it's a language for pro-pro's (professional programmers). Not all pro- pro's though. It's for pro-pro's who WANT to or HAVE to dive into the muck and mire of nitty-gritty programming. But they don't want to do it completely bare-skin. Forth is a prophylactic against the disease of raw machine code. Space exploration, production-line control, airport security -- these are big jobs. Forth is no longer a glamorous language. It doesn't appeal for long to the idly curious. 50,000 bookstores can't all be wrong. Forth is an unglamorous language that is essential to certain BIG glamorous jobs. Procedamus in pace. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/27/90)
Date: 06-25-90 (23:33) Number: 3420 (Echo) To: W.BADEN1 [WIL] Refer#: 3410 From: JERRY SHIFRIN Read: NO Subj: BASIS FEEDBACK Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE WW>If I had to go back to that primitive environment I would want to make WW>it as powerful as I could. I'd use Forth to do it. WW>Forth is not the way for me to get the most out of my present environment. Did I miss something here? Have you abandoned Forth altogether? What is your current development environment? --- ~ EZ 1.30 ~ ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (06/28/90)
In <1229.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, W.BADEN1 [Wil] I'm still confused, but I think I understand what is confusing me a little bit better, so lets try again... > The domain for Forth is absolutely expanding. (Dare I say it again?) Forth's > forte is its economy. No matter how rich you get there is a place for > economy. Where is the value in economy when you yourself don't want to retreat to a system 100's of times slower and smaller in order to justify it? You claimed that you weren't going to turn your Mega-Mac into a Toaster so that you could use Forth. This is what I see as incongruous. On the one hand Forth is powerful, simple and applicable to BIG systems, but you don't want to use it on your BIG Mega-Mac system? I'm confused. If you won't use Forth on your MegaMac, why? Because your Mega-Mac isn't small enough? I agree that simplicity is a virtue. I agree that the impoverished systems are on the decline and that therefore the profane languages are making in-roads into what was once Forth's/Assembler's sole domains. Is a response in the vein of F-PC and BBL/Abundance appropriate, or is there some other more appropriate response? Such as your "extensions" or "layers" or what-ever-they-are-called or something else? (I see the 'vein' of F-PC and BBL/Abundance as do you, being in violation of Forth's simplicity, but I can also see the other side of the coin, which is that they "could" be done as "extensions" to a core Forth). > Forth is losing its amateur rating. Forth was THE best language for amateurs > (called "hackers" in those days, but that name has gotten a bad new meaning). Why is this happening? To many BASIC interpreters shipped free with machines? A dwindling number of amateurs (absolute or percentage)? Merely the absorption of Windows/Interactivity/etc. from Forth into the profane languages? > Now it's a language for pro-pro's (professional programmers). Not all pro- > pro's though. It's for pro-pro's who WANT to or HAVE to dive into the muck > and mire of nitty-gritty programming. But they don't want to do it > completely bare-skin. Forth is a prophylactic against the disease of raw > machine code. I'm not sure I understand this point. Forth seems to me to be simultaneously a high-level language and a low-level language. Are you saying here that Forth can not be used merely as a high-level language, or perhaps just that it will not be used merely as a high-level language, or did I misread you totally? -Doug --- Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/29/90)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 95 Wed Jun 27, 1990 W.BADEN1 [Wil] at 19:05 PDT Jerry, I have not abandoned Forth. I use Zen 1.1 on my IBM clone. I use PocketForth and MacForth to explore the Mac Toolbox. I mostly use C on my Mac and on Sun SPARC 1 workstations for applications to be exercised by others. Forth code that I have written in the past two years is being used in commercial products. All programmers are multi-lingual. They also multi-process. Procedamus in pace. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/29/90)
Category 10, Topic 35
Message 96 Thu Jun 28, 1990
F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 02:02 CDT
DP>It just seems strange to me that one the one hand the proponents
DP>of Forth nearly *rant* about its suitability-limited-only-
DP>by-programmer-ability/imagination (aka you can do *anything* in
DP>Forth), and one the other decry that it is *only* suitable for
DP>tiny systems. Does this strike anyone else as odd too?
I've been following Doug's & Wil's exchanges on this subject. 1st, with
regard to the above quote, I don't think the same people are making both
types of statements. "Forth is good for everything but at least it is good
for embedded systems." "I didn't do it. Besides, it wasn't my fault."
I thought Doug had a good point in asking if Forth was good enough for
Arabian airports why wasn't it good enough for Wil's Mac. A possible
reconciliation occurred to me: The parallel to the airport system on the Mac
is probably not the language a person uses who runs the Mac, but the language
used in ROMs that tie the various hardware parts of the Mac together. (Just
as a video game player doesn't program in Forth just because the game he is
playing was programmed in Forth.) (Just as Sun workstation users don't even
see their ROM'd Forth.) (I'm not saying there is any embedded Forth in a Mac
- just suggesting the application on the Mac that seems to me comparable to
the airport system.)
I am not convinced that Forth is not or cannot be superior as a general
development language on a large 'personal' computer system. I'm still
searching for the answer to that and will continue to listen to arguments on
both sides.
(Is this really a BASIS feedback topic? - You bet!) If Forth really is
a little bitty language do we need a great big standard for it? Doug Adams
said something about only people who didn't want the job could qualify for
President of the Universe. Once someone said more or less: "Lot's of people
talk about how to breathe - lot's of rules & techniques - forget it. I don't
care how you breathe - do it wrong! - just do more of it." Have any of you
ever attended a seminar and seen a monkey dressed up in a suit? They are
usually from the Sales dept. They are dressed like humans, but that alone
doesn't make them human. What a relief when the engineers or technical
people take the floor. (Is there really a common thread in this paragraph
and is it related, even remotely, to the BASIS?) (And, please, I am not
suggesting members of X3J14 are monkeys. I have the highest regard for their
technical skills and for their good will.)
-- Frank
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/29/90)
Date: 06-26-90 (09:18) Number: 427 (Echo)
To: W.BADEN1 [WIL] Refer#: 426
From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO
Subj: WHAT IF NOBODY CARED? Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
>what if they made a standard and nobody cared
What if they made a standard, it was not based on existing practice and
was not upward compatible with existing systems, and it got delayed in
ANSI and X3 for years and years because of well-justified criticisms and
complaints and appeals during the public review process? What then?
NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduwmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (06/30/90)
I wish we could get out of this mode of squabbling over picky little details. How you spell various words (NOT vs INVERT, WORDSET vs VOCABULARY, / vs. whatever) is SMALL POTATOES. I mean it just ISN'T WORTH COMPLAINING ABOUT. The big issue is, do we want Forth to die, or not? If Forth stays the way it is, I guarantee that it is going to dwindle away to obscurity. United we stand, divided we fall. We are currently badly divided, and we are falling like a rock. With the current Forth standard, it is not feasible to write very many useful portable programs to operate in today's computing environments. Proof: count the counterexamples (you can put one of your hands in your pocket; you won't need it.) Here is a realistic view of "current practice": There is a small core of words that people mostly agree upon. This core set, by itself, is barely sufficient to write toy programs, and hopelessly inadequate for anything "real". There are some additional concepts that people sort of agree on, (e.g. division, vocabularies and search order), but whose precise semantics differ WIDELY among extant Forth implementations. There are a bunch of things that EVERY COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL Forth system has, but for which there has been no standardization (not counting the attempts of ANS Forth). Those things exist because customers DEMAND (and I mean that in the strongest possible sense) them. The obvious example is file system interfaces and memory allocation. Like it or not, a substantial percentage of the Forth community is not using Forth 83 (MacForth, MVP Forth, MMS Forth, FIG Forth). The net result is that "current practice" is leading to the demise of Forth. I can't write many useful programs in standard Forth, and I can't share programs written in one of the various incompatible extended Forths. ANS Forth is and attempt to correct this situation - a) By stating the "portable boundaries" of core words (i.e. the range of usage over which the word is indeed portable). "/" is a good example. b) By defining new "neutral" names for needed functions, in cases where "common practice" has causeed the "common" names to be hopelessly non-portable. This was done in preference to "just picking (e.g.) floored division or bitwise NOT" in an attempt to reunite the Forth-83 and Forth-79 camps. c) By adding EXTENSION packages to extend the utility of Forth in directions that are needed by MANY users (but not all users; that's why they are extensions and not required words) So, please let's stop bickering about trivia and let's start moving forward as a team. The ANS Forth BASIS may have some aesthetic problems (depending on who you ask), but I firmly believe that the language defined therein WORKS and furthermore, that it CAN BE IMPLEMENTED based on nearly all existing Forth systems, with very little backwards compatibility cost in terms of breaking existing code (i.e. you don't have to change the way your system's NOT and / and VOCABULARY work; leave them in your system without change). And please, if you don't need a particular extension wordset, just ignore it, okay? Don't yell and scream about its existence, because there are a lot of us out here who very much need files and memory allocation and controllable error handling and floating point. Forth is a tool, not a Holy Grail. Utility of tools is greatly enhanced by standardization, and standardization involves compromise. Mitch
dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (06/30/90)
In <1238.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>, F.SERGEANT [Frank] writes: > I've been following Doug's & Wil's exchanges on this subject. 1st, with > regard to the above quote, I don't think the same people are making both > types of statements. "Forth is good for everything but at least it is good > for embedded systems." "I didn't do it. Besides, it wasn't my fault." It may be that they are different people, but I'm not convinced that that should matter. > The parallel to the airport system on the Mac > is probably not the language a person uses who runs the Mac, but the language > used in ROMs that tie the various hardware parts of the Mac together. I'm not quite sure how this fits in to things. The top-level interpreter is just one form of interaction between the machine and the user. It isn't necessarily the most superiour or desirable form. It may be the issue of task-at-hand rather than interface though. I'm not sure. > I am not convinced that Forth is not or cannot be superior as a general > development language on a large 'personal' computer system. Personally, I hope that it *can* be a general developement language. I have built up my expectations about Forth from my reading and from my conversations on ForthNet. My expectations are that one may have to start with some low-level words, but the application is finally written having "layers" of code(words), each one more removed from low-level words, growing towards a solution. I don't mind having to do some low-level stuff. I mind that may be all Forth can do. (Or so its seems to me that Wil is saying, part of the time). > (Is this really a BASIS feedback topic? - You bet!) If Forth really is > a little bitty language do we need a great big standard for it? I'm not sure that argument applies. There are standards for the strangest tiniest stuff (my memory went blank, but I'm sure someone can recall one). A standard can serve many purposes. One purpose may be to manage and elucidate complexity. Another, and I think at least as important, purpose is to define the lexicon so that portability can take place. Even assuming for a moment that Forth were too little to need a standard for the first reason, it may well need one for the second. It really doesn't matter to me much all the flap about divide. I care that the behaviour is specified and named, but really don't much care what the name is so long as it isn't actively deceptive ( * >IN + FOR ). Of course, I don't have any code to worry about backwards-compatibility with either. -Doug --- Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/01/90)
Date: 06-28-90 (09:13) Number: 680 (Echo)
To: R.BERKEY [ROBERT] Refer#: 676
From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO
Subj: LMI FORTH(S) Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
>meanwhile, code will not port to LMI systems.
This is silly. I have no particular interest or concern in whether you
can port some contrived piece of code to our system. I have literally
megabytes of source code written in LMI Forth which wouldn't port to
polyFORTH or F-PC without massive changes, but that doesn't mean that
polyFORTH and F-PC are not useful, valid systems in their own right.
You need to think carefully about the image you are presenting here,
Robert, since you seem to have annointed yourself spokesman and guru for
ANSI X3J14. The charter of X3J14 is to standardize existing practice,
not invent a new language and not to serve as a forum for Forth
dilettantes.
NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/02/90)
Category 10, Topic 35
Message 99 Sun Jul 01, 1990
GARY-S at 06:46 EDT
PORTED FROM Wetware =>
-------
Item 4 by Gary Smith (gars), on Sat, Dec 31, 1988 (13:29)
X3/J14 ANS Standard Forth - should you even care ?
1 new of 2 responses total.
#4.2 (2) by Luther Huffman (luther), on Sat Jun 16 08:39:38 1990:
I must admit that I'm really suspicious of this whole ANS Forth thing.
First of all, there are a lot of very large vendors out there that never
supported the Forth-83 standard. Forth'ers are notorious to defend their
own dialects with a religious fervor. I get copies of the Forth committee
documents and I haven't seen much sign that things have changed. They are
already up to BASIS 12 and don't seem to really be converging on a single
standard yet!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.eduForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/03/90)
Category 10, Topic 35
Message 100 Mon Jul 02, 1990
GARY-S at 06:55 EDT
PORTED FROM Wetware =>
-------
#4.4 (4) by Luther Huffman (luther), on Sat Jun 30 07:09:47 1990:
I agree about the government clauses. I wouldn't mind selling software to
the government (to a limited extent I do!). I wouldn't even mind selling
them Forth.
I get a feeling though that lots of Forth'ers seem to feel it's a
dying language and actually feel guilty about "propping" it up. As an
outsider I feel that if they play their cards right and get a standard in
place rather quickly, the best is yet to come! I develop cross-compilers and
cross-assemblers for real-time applications. I had been looking for
something beyond C but not quite Ada ($10,000 a pop to validate it!) well-
suited for real-time stuff. Quite frankly, I had been looking at Scheme, a
nice, compact Lisp with lots of info in the public domain. Starting about
a year ago though, lots of the "serious types" began to pay more attention
to Forth. "Embedded Systems" magazine gives a tremendous amount of coverage
to Forth (most of it positive). Sun has made it their semi-official device
driver language and even implements their bus controllers in Forth. Their
toolkit for the SPARC machines even includes a Forth compiler.
Sun giving their seal of approval, in particular, gives me a lot of con-
fidence about the future of Forth.
Response by Gary Smith:
>One of the reasons you see that Forth kernel buried in SPARC is because
>one of SUN's gurus, Mitch Bradley, also haappens to be well recognized
>for his contributions to the Forth community. Mitch knew going in what
>sort of tools Forth would grant him.
>
>Much to my personal dismay some of the standards people seem to want to
>equip the ANS Standard with scheme and C type look and feel. I feel
>this flies in the face of one of ANS's dictums.. ie: To conform as nearly
>as possible to common practice.
>There is also the matter of adding to and subtracting from the existing
>language items to asuage a few - in other words creating a new similar
>language as opposed to refining and standardizing the current usage.
>
>A case in point is the effort to reintroduce 1's compliment arithmetic
>algorithms. When was the last time you saw a computer of -ANY- type
>rolled out with 1's compliment as part of its architecture ?
>
>The one that really galls me is NOT. For twenty years 'NOT' has been a
>simple boolean 'NOT'. No more. That's right, Luther. Not's not NOT any
>more. A-R-R-R-G-H !
> gars
>.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edudwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (07/03/90)
wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley), in <9007020306.AA02327@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, writes: > I wish we could get out of this mode of squabbling over picky little > details. How you spell various words (NOT vs INVERT, WORDSET vs VOCABULARY, > / vs. whatever) is SMALL POTATOES. I mean it just ISN'T WORTH COMPLAINING > ABOUT. Yes! Yes! Yes! > a) By stating the "portable boundaries" of core words (i.e. the > range of usage over which the word is indeed portable). > "/" is a good example. Yes. This happened in X3J11 too. Failing to point out that something is already NOT portable won't make it portable, yet that seemed to be a common response. > Forth is a tool, not a Holy Grail. Utility of tools is greatly enhanced > by standardization, and standardization involves compromise. And change. I think that is the biggest problem. Everyone would like the standard to support their definition of "common/existing practice". I guess it would be tough not to judge someone's level of maturity by how willing or unwilling they are to look beyound their own parochial boundaries. It occurs to me that although the standards process is set up by ANSI to achieve certain goals, I suspect that those are technically specified. I also suspect that ANSI provides solely technical support. What I heard with X3J11 and now again with X3J14 is not that there are difficult technical problems, but difficult political problems. As I've seen it relayed so far, ANSI says what goal you have to reach (that ol' bugaboo: CONSENSUS) but doesn't provide much help with the political process of getting to it. Let me ask a more concrete question: Does the TC for X3J14 have explicit written criteria for deciding how "common" common practice is? How many vendors or delivered products must there be with conflicting definitions to indicate a lack of "common practice"? Express your answer in the terms most suitable (%, absolute number, etc.). Inversely, how many of what units of usage are "enough" to constitute "common practice". It seems to me that the answers to these questions strike at the heart of the political disagreements over NOT / etc... -Doug --- Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/10/90)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 102 Wed Aug 08, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:35 EDT Jack, I just uploaded it last night. Sorry to everyone for forgetting to include it with the file, but I honestly didn't think it would be needed. The text looked perfectly fine on my PC. Although it was not formatted exactly as it was printed, I knew that would happen anyways. The style sheet is really only half the battle to getting it to look like the printed form. You also need the printer file that I included in the file PREBASIS.ARC, but then it only works on some HP LaserJet printers. Even all that is still not enough to get it to look right on the screen. For that, you need a Mac or maybe Word for Windows on a PC. For both, the style sheet was essential and I apologize for not remembering. It was Wil Baden who told me of the problem after he tried to load it on a Mac. Thanks Wil! However, please remember WHY the BASIS has been made available in any format. It has only been done so that proposals could be made against the current document. It is not intended so that you can reproduce your own printed copies, nor is it in any way intended as a guide for the production of compliant systems. The information, in many cases, is incomplete and/or inaccurate and it may change at any time, without notice. It will be replaced in its entirety after the next TC meeting and you will need to download the new one as soon as we make it available. Just so there are no misunderstandings. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/10/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 62 Wed Aug 08, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:36 EDT Re: mccarrol@emerald.rutgers.edu (Mark C. Carroll <MC>) > I'm in the process of muddling through the Works file, converting > it into a TeX document so that I can print it. ... > Anyway, what I'm wondering is: How would the Basis folks feel > about my posting my TeX'ed version, provided I include all Ansi > copyrights, and a prominent disclaimer that this is NOT official, > and that it is likely to contain slight errors. Mark, I will pass on your question to Elizabeth so that it can be discussed at the next meeting. If you are willing to do the work, I certainly have no problem carrying the multiple versions, but I certainly can not speak for the TC. Considering your efforts has reminded me of a feature that I have in Microsoft Word that might be useful. I can produce a Rich Text Format file with almost no effort. Would the document be more useful in that format? Would more people be able to use it? Since Word can read in RTF files, it might even replace the Word format entirely. What do you all think? DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/14/90)
Date: 08-11-90 (00:19) Number: 3627 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: BOB LEE Read: (N/A)
Subj: BASIS 12 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
I just received BASIS12 in the mail today, and found parts of it to be
rather disjointed. In particular, in one place the page number sequence
goes 14 18 15 19 (pages 16 and 17 are apparently missing).
I don't mean to criticize the dedicated volunteers who put this document
together - It's a tough job, I know. But one gets the impression that
the committee is "running out of steam". The apparent stalemate over
LOCALs, which seems to me to be a pretty simple concept, is disturbing
as well.
I wonder how soon we can expect to see this project "wrapped up". It
sure would be nice to have a standard for Forth. The 83 standard seems
to have collapsed because in was inadequate in many areas. Today we see
systems that are true to 83 in spirit, but with differences like file
access, 32-bit stacks, etc.
The lack of a standard Forth to work with has delayed a pet hobby
project of my own, because I want to write something that will port
easily. ANS Forth seems to address my concerns. How long must we wait
for it to become a reality?
b0b @ Interface
707-823-3052 8pm-8am Pacific Time, 2400 bps
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.uswmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (08/15/90)
> But one gets the impression that the committee is "running out of steam". Probably true. > I just received BASIS12 in the mail today, and found parts of it to be > rather disjointed. In particular, in one place the page number sequence > goes 14 18 15 19 (pages 16 and 17 are apparently missing). 2 meetings ago, the (volunteer) BASIS editor resigned. The assistant editor replaced him, lasted for one meeting, and then moved to Africa. The BASIS 12 editor was doing the job for the very first time, so its not surprising that a few mistakes crept in. The standardization process takes a long time, and it is quite a feat to stay with it for the duration, especially considering the relatively weak economic support that Forth has (i.e. it is difficult to get most companies to pay for attendance at a Forth meeting, and most Forth vendors aren't exactly rolling in dough). > The apparent stalemate over LOCALs, which seems to me to be a pretty > simple concept, is disturbing as well. LOCALs is anything but simple. It requires the addition of at least three entirely new capabilities to Forth: 1) Temporary naming 2) Local storage frames 3) Declaration syntax There is a widespread demand for their inclusion, but there is little common practice to allow the committee to decide how they should work. (i.e. how to pick from among the many competing schemes). > I wonder how soon we can expect to see this project "wrapped up". The goal is to have the standard "wrapped up" by early 1991. Then it has to go through the public review process, which is bound to be drawn-out, since Forth programmers are highly opinionated. Mitch
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/18/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 72 Thu Aug 16, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:50 EDT Re: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM > > I just received BASIS12 in the mail today, and found parts of > > it to be rather disjointed. In particular, in one place the > > page number sequence goes 14 18 15 19 (pages 16 and 17 are > > apparently missing). > > 2 meetings ago, the (volunteer) BASIS editor resigned. The > assistant editor replaced him, lasted for one meeting, and then > moved to Africa. The BASIS 12 editor was doing the job for the > very first time, so its not surprising that a few mistakes crept > in. I did a little research into this problem today, and it definitely CAN NOT be blamed in the editor. Len did a marvelous job, considering all you mentioned and the short time he had to do it in (he actually had to go out and find a computer to do it on :-). No, he wasn't at fault, and I can report that only a few copies went out with missing pages. Mine is ok, and I believe the electronic version is also fine. If you are missing pages, give Heidi a call at (213) 372-8493 and she will send you the missing pages (boy is she going to hate me :-). She has already done this for others and I'm sure she will be glad (?) to fix yours up also. Just don't tell her I told you to call. <grin> Re: skip@rafos.UUCP (Skip Carter) > Maybe the committee should reconsider the format for the OFFICIAL > posting of such an important document ! Surely you jest! 1.) The electronic version, or the paper version, is NOT an "official" publication of the X3J14 Technical Committee, but they are merely providing access to the draft document "soley for the purpose of review and comment" (quoted from first page of the document). For a mere $10 you can receive a properly formatted, hard-copy version that can serve the same purpose as the electronic is intended to serve. Mail your check to: ANS ASC X3/X3J14 Technical Committee 111 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 300 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 2.) You want them to switch word processors at this late date? Name me one other word processor that has the capabilities and user accessability of Microsoft Word? Every IBM or Macintosh computer owner can either convert or use the file directly. Can you name a larger group of people who do not at least have access to someone from this group? 3.) Even if you can answer the above questions, are you volunteering to serve as editor? The volunteers who have stepped forward have choosen MS Word. If you think you can do a better job, show up at the meetings and volunteer to take care of it for us. BTW, to be an editor, you must attend the meetings and if you do not use MS Word or can not convert to it then you must figure out some way to convert the document for your use and figure out how to print it each time. FYI DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/24/90)
Category 18, Topic 54
Message 73 Thu Aug 23, 1990
D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 16:07 EDT
To: mccarrol@emerald.rutgers.edu (Mark C. Carrol <MC>)
From: Elizabeth Rather, chair of X3J14 Technical Committee
Subject: Basis Document Question
> what I'm wondering is: How would the Basis folks feel about my
> posting my TeX'ed version...
The committee has considered this at great length, and tried this experiment
with Basis 12 with the understanding that it would only be available to those
with WORD and appropriate printer. The reason is that the formatting carries
critical information, and the document is meaningless without it. PLEASE save
yourself the effort and agony and order a printed copy from us. You have
probably spent far in excess of the $10 trying to convert this file!
We appreciate your concern, but fear that a file with mistakes and lacking
critical distinctions between editors' comments, rational notes, deleted text,
and descriptive material will cause you and anyone else who attempts to read
it unnecessary and harmful confusion and concern.
The $10 that we charge barely covers our cost of reproduction and mailing
Basis. We keep it low because we want everyone who is interested to have a
copy, and to have a useful, readable one.
The next versions will become even longer and more complex as we add
explanitory material. We will welcome you on our mailing list, but urge you
not to attempt to convert this file to another form.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry for the delay in forwarding this message. This has been the first day
on my vacation that I have been able to "relax". :-)
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.usForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/30/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 91 Wed Aug 29, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 01:24 EDT Re: DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET > Any chance we can convince the TC that an RTF version of the > BASIS is still Word format? Where were you when I asked if an RTF formated file would be more acceptable. I can create one of those with almost no difficulty, and in some cases, it is more portable in that format. If there is widespread agreement that RTF is preferable to the Word format, I am willing to take the request to the TC. However, I think the basic argument comes down to having one format for distribution, not a whole bunch of different ones. If everyone can "live" with RTF, I will suggest that they allow me to distribute it that way instead of the Word format, but if RTF is going to have just as many complaints as the Word format (possibly even more), I won't bother. You have until the next meeting to decide. BASIS13 will still go out in Word format because that is the TC's choice. At the next meeting, if there is a consensus here, I will suggest an alternative. That is all I can do. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) (08/30/90)
In article <1640.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 18, Topic 54 >Message 91 Wed Aug 29, 1990 >D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 01:24 EDT > >Re: DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET > > > Any chance we can convince the TC that an RTF version of the > > BASIS is still Word format? > > ... If there is widespread agreement that RTF is >preferable to the Word format, I am willing to take the request to the TC. >However, I think the basic argument comes down to having one format for >distribution, not a whole bunch of different ones. Whatever the format that is finally chosen, PLEASE BREAK THE DOCUMENT INTO MANAGEABLE SECTIONS. Use chapters and includes with MS WORD [TM] or similar ploys to make document management possible on a computer without extra memory beyond 640 K conventional memory!
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/31/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 99 Thu Aug 30, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 00:28 EDT Re: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) > X3J14 has broke with ANS tradition by making a machine readable > copy of the BASIS documents available. Perhaps it would behoove > them to set up an email address for the submission of proposals? I have been, and will continue to serve this function Doug. Any message that looks reasonably interesting, I save and print for Elizabeth Rather. I'm sometimes slow in getting them printed out for her, but since I run out of disk space regularly now, I tend to do it more frequently. I would be glad to pass on proposals also, but I do encourage everyone to mail in an "official" hard copy just in case I mess up. For those on GEnie, my address is D.RUFFER and for the rest of you, I read the Bulletin Board messages daily. If you specifically want something passed on, please mark it with something that will catch my eyes. Otherwise, I use my best judgement about what to save. I can also assure you that Elizabeth has been reading the stuff I pass on to her. Sometimes, the stack has been quite large, so I have been impressed by her taking the time. She has even come back to me with personal replys on occasion. I try my best to turn those around as quickly as possible. At your service. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/31/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 100 Thu Aug 30, 1990 R.BERKEY [Robert] at 03:16 PDT Subject: Standardization vs. disorder In <1633.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) writes: > In <12413@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes: ... > > I should make clear (as I have done several times in the past) that I > > firmly believe that a good Standard is essential for the survival of > > Forth. What I am now trying to discover (by asking questions) is > > whether the proposed ANSI Standard in its current form has arrived at > > that state. Is it really directed at making sure that significant > > programs can be written portably? Is it really directed at defining > > the Forth language as well as our current understanding allows it to > > be defined? Have words names and actions been chosen to facilitate > > programming -- or are we being stuck with clumsy compromises? etc. > > I would think you wouldn't even need to ask that question. As has been > stated several times in the past, the ANS standard is NOT supposed to > break new ground. It is supposed to condense and solidify what has already > been proven. I think you need to be asking instead: Is the ANS charter > compatable with what I want out of a standards process? If you are > interested in making a brave new Forth, the ANS process is not for you. Standardization occurs because of the absence of order. Were the object of a standard already in a state of order, then what would be the purpose of a standard? As for the concept that the ANS Forth standard is "NOT supposed to break new ground" this may represent individual preference or an appropriate tendency. The jurisdiction of standardization is a superset of existing knowledge. POSTPONE is an example of a new idea that has come out of the current standardization process. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/31/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 101 Thu Aug 30, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 22:03 EDT Re: R.BERKEY [Robert] > POSTPONE is an example of a new idea that has come out of the > current standardization process. POSTPONE is not a new concept Robert. It is a replacement for the two words COMPILE and [COMPILE]. Both of those words appear in the 83 Standard but it has become increasingly difficult to determine which one is supposed to be used. Also, as mentioned in the rationale box for POSTPONE, "COMPILE can not be implemented on some implementations -- notably subroutine threaded systems." POSTPONE is merely a simplification of an existing concept. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/03/90)
Category 10, Topic 35
Message 104 Fri Aug 31, 1990
D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 13:16 EDT
From Elizabeth Rather, Chair, ANS X3J14 Technical Committee:
This is addressed to those who have been commenting extensively on our work on
UseNet and related boards.
We very much appreciate your interest. I have circulated copies of many of
your comments in the TC. I'd like to take the opportunity to try to clarify a
few things.
We fully appreciate the need for glossary descriptions to be clear and
unambiguous. A great deal of our effort nowadays is devoted to that end. You
can be a big help to us by pointing out descriptions that are unclear to you,
and (better still) proposing clearer wording. It's very hard for the
author(s) of any document to judge its clarity.
We're not trying to convince anyone, Missourians or others, that what we have
is great. What we now call BASIS is *not* a "proposed Standard." It is the
TC's working draft. We are aware that it has many deficiencies, and are
working very hard to remedy them. When we believe we're done, we'll
immediately publish it as a dpANS ("draft proposed ANS"). We know we're not
done, and are looking for as much constructive feedback as we can get. We are
three years, 13 meetings, downstream, however, and there are few issues we've
not addressed technically. We are now working mainly on clarifications and
rationales, looking for unforeseen side effects, etc.
The following items are on our list of "burning issues" (areas with important
unresolved issues remaining): input stream, files interface, arithmetic
(still!), appendices (several remain to be written, including Guidelines for
Implementors, a detailed Rationale and comparisons with FORTH83 and FORTH79),
multiprogramming, wordlists, and misc. cleanups and clarifications. We have a
large number of pending proposals on all of these issues.
The most useful contribution is in the form of a proposed explicit change to
BASIS, accompanied by a publishable rationale that explains to us and the
world why that change was worth making. We almost never pass proposals to add
lots of new words, because that's beyond our scope of work, and it's pretty
hard to act on general opinions not accompanied by a specific recommendation
(although we do circulate such comments, and read them carefully).
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.usForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/03/90)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 105 Fri Aug 31, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 13:32 EDT From Elizabeth Rather, Chair, ANS X3J14 Technical Committee: This is addressed to those who have been commenting extensively on our work on UseNet and related boards. We very much appreciate your interest. I have circulated copies of many of your comments in the TC. I'd like to take the opportunity to try to clarify a few things. Regarding publication of BASIS in machine-readable form, please remember that the primary purpose of BASIS is for the TC, to act as our current working text against which we can make or evaluate proposals for changes. We selected WORD because it is an advanced word processor that runs with only moderate conversion hassles on both Macs and PCs. After each meeting we have roughly 40 proposals that may affect BASIS, many of which cause edits in many places. The document editor, currently Leonard Zettel, of Ford Motor Co., has to take care to do them all, in the right order, checking for side effects. This can take 60-80 hours. The changes are then reviewed, and the 130+ pages printed and sent to our members and subscribers (about 100 people in all). We use special formatting extensively, to show changes from the last edition (additions underlined, deletions struck-through), unofficial editors' boxes (single-line outline boxes), official but non- normative rationale notes (double-line boxes), etc. It's hard to see how one could make these vital distinctions (e.g. between deleted and inserted text) from a plain text file. Last January Dennis and I posted about 10 pages of excerpts converted to plain text. The conversion process took over half a day. My mind boggles at the complexity of doing it to the whole document, ensuring its accuracy, and leaving the result moderately readable. Even though a number of people have kindly volunteered to take on this massive task, we feel very uncomfortable authorizing someone to do it, because of the possible misunderstandings that may result if it's not done accurately. Very few of the TC members (two or three) get it in machine-readable form; we find the printed, bound version easier to handle. We are experimenting with RTF; if that works out we'll offer an RTF version. We will post BASIS13 on the BBSs when it is ready (early October, we hope) with an advisory saying we do not authorize any conversions. The Forth Vendors Group (which has acted as a publishing house for BASIS) is willing to ship Mac or PC disks for $25 each to save you the trouble of downloading this massive file. Send your checks to FVG, 111 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #300, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266. Remember, bound printed copies are still only $10. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/03/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 103 Fri Aug 31, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:25 EDT Re: ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) > Whatever the format that is finally chosen, PLEASE BREAK THE > DOCUMENT INTO MANAGEABLE SECTIONS. Use chapters and includes > with MS WORD [TM] or similar ploys to make document management > possible on a computer without extra memory beyond 640 K > conventional memory! Nick, were you the one who complained about not being able to load it into Word for Windows? My update is in the mail, so I will be able to confirm it as soon as it arrives. I am surprised to hear that Word has those kind of problems. I'm pretty sure the DOS version does not, but I will check that out also. Obviously, we will have to do something about it if the problem exists, but I just need to confirm it before agreeing to anything. I'll get back to you on it. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/03/90)
Category 18, Topic 54
Message 109 Sat Sep 01, 1990
D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:19 EDT
Re: JAJZ801@CALSTATE.BITNET ("Jeff Sicherman,CSU Long Beach")
This is just too good of an arguement (er discussion) to pass up. :-)
Sorry for the length, but Aladdin added this "neat" feature that won't allow
me to break it up anymore.
> - they can be motivated to compromise to maintain self-interest
> and existing practice, not improve the language, its environment
> and consistency.
The goal of any ANSI Standard is to "codify existing practice". Thus, they are
prevented by their charter from attempting to "improve" the language no matter
if or how much they want to.
>> Sheesh, what a terribly pessimistic viewpoint. :-(
>>
> Often also known as realistic.
Is your cup half full or half empty?
> Most languges require some commenting, but as exceptions not as
> the RULE for most every statement.
Every language can be made unreadable. The only language that I know of where
documentation is built in is ADA. All the others are left to the programmer's
state of mind. I'm sure we all have seen pages of code that contained no
documentation, that the programmer thinks is perfectly readable. The question
is if anyone else can read and understand it. Both qualities require an
understanding of the language and programming concepts. Lacking either will
make even the best code seem unreadable.
>> I like FORTH and am optimistic about its prospects, even for
>> large applications. I think the ANS standard will help.
>
> Want to invest some money on that premise ? Or would you prefer
> to be 'realistic'
Many of us have invested our entire careers in Forth. I also am very
optimistic about the oportunities that exist for Forth. An ANSI standard can
do nothing but increase its acceptability.
> In any case, portability of the document obviously wasn't a
> priority along with the consequences of that choice.
I beg to differ with you. MS Word was choosen because it DID have the highest
degree of portability among the more advanced word processors. I have asked
the question before, but maybe you can do better. Do you know of any word
processor with similar capabilities that supports a wider distribution of its
file format?
> Anyone who can (claim to) read FORTH should obviously be able to
> handle an ASCII file, with some study and intelligence.
I don't know why this arguement has to be repeated so often but maybe you just
are unaware of the problems with an ASCII version of BASIS. There are many
formatting features of MS Word that are being used to convey important
information in each version of BASIS. They are strike-out, editor boxes,
rational boxes, subscripts, automatic table of contents generation, word
concordance (available seperately), etc. These features are not easily
supportable in a plain ASCII file. If you disagree, please supply us with
examples and support tools to support your opinion.
> Does that mean that vendors will remove non-ANSI compliant
> features from their products. Will they produce both ANSI and
> non-ANSI ones (to support old applications and stubborn
> customers) and which ones will sell and last ? I don't think
> happiness is the question, implementaion is.
Implementation IS the prime issue here. Speaking from the point of view of
one vendor, FORTH, Inc. is committed to producing ANSI compliant systems.
Whether these systems replace our existing systems will depend on market
acceptance. Within the ANSI systems, all non-compliant words will be brought
into compliance where they conflict with ANSI words. However, features which
we have within our systems that do not conflict with the standard will be
maintained as "enhancements".
Our hope is that the ANSI compliant systems will be prefered by our customers,
and very likely all work on the non-compliant systems will be stopped due to
lack of resources. However, I think it is too early to say what the market
response will be. The most we can probably say for sure is that, in the past,
customers have turned us down because we did not have an ANSI Standard
language.
> it took about five years to get that, another five to iron out
> all the objections and clear all the bureaucratic obstructions to
> adoption, another one or two to get everyone compliant.
12 years might be about right. I don't think any ANSI standard has taken less
than 5. They have actually only been at it for 3 years so far, and they are
hoping it will only take a couple more to get the dpANS finished. The hope is
that everyone is getting their objections aired now, and that the review
process can go smoothly. That is why they are being more open than is typical
during this phase. Of course, there will be those who only desire to deride
and delay the work they are doing, but none of us fit in that category. Do we.
> The best thing that could have been done for FORTH as LANGUAGE
> would have been to decide to fix everything that needed fixing
> regardless of whose toes were stepped upon.
Again, that is not within the X3J14 charter. Also, I'm sure I could find
people who would contend that Forth does not need to be "fixed".
>> Any and all comments or proposals you submit will be discussed
>> and considered.
>
> Show me the formal, announced, supported procedure for doing
> this. Until then it's merely a nice idea which may be honored. It
> may even be done occassionaly.
If you do not have an "official" proposal form, I'm sure we can send you one.
It is even in pure ASCII format. The form has been in existance since the
beginning and was even publish in Forth Dimensions (I forget which issue). In
fact, you don't even need the form to get your comments to the TC. I have
personally been forwarding any comments I considered interesting, and I will
deliver your comments to Elizabeth Rather, Chair of the Technical Committee,
next week.
BTW, about the ONLY thing done at TC meetings is to discuss and vote on
proposals sent in for their consideration. Typically, they deal with over 100
proposals per session.
> Let's face reality: it's an elite language which will be
> comfortable for a limited part of the pool of potential
> programmers.
Thank you very much! You have confirmed I have made the correct career
choice.
>> I routinely read other people's Forth code, with no problems,
> and other people read my code.
>
> That's great, wonderful. And Of course you're Mr Typical
> Programmer. Give me names and numbers. We're talking about
> potential for popularity here.
Call FORTH, Inc. at (213) 372-8493 any time to talk to many programmers who
can read Forth fluently. In fact, we can even read "bad" Forth code and
typically have to when we are called in to modify packages done by sloppy
programmers. I'm sure the same is true for almost all the succesful Forth
consultants and most experienced Forth programmers.
> As long as we're talking about engineering here, what's the level
> of productivity for FORTH as compared to high-level languages. My
> guess is its better than assembly and quite lower than HLL's,
> especially if you include debugging time.
I believe the most widely agree on figures are at least a 3 to 1 improvement
in development time when using Forth as compared to ANY other language.
Especially considering the debug time, I have seen cases in excess of a 10 to
1 improvement. You might consider this hogwash, but I have personally
experienced it.
> I also imagine Case and quality control are more difficult and
> time consuming for it.
While I have to admit that most of the available CASE tools are difficult to
work with in Forth, I consider that a tool problem rather than a problem with
Forth. I have developed CASE tools for Forth and I use some sort of CASE for
every project that I work on. Quality Control is also no more difficult in
Forth than it is in any other language, but again, the tools that are on the
market have been customized for other languages so you must know how and be
willing to enforce the techniques yourself.
> Seven programmers is NOT a big team by any contemporary standard.
Is 20 enough? That is how many people are now working in Forth at the company
I worked at before joining FORTH, Inc. While it is true that most Forth
programmers are lone-wolfs, I think that has a lot to do with the "elitist"
status that you mentioned. While it is very true that one Forth programmer
can accomplish what a whole company of programmers working in other languages,
I have worked in large programming evironments both in Forth and in other
languages. Personally, I prefer the Forth environment, but I have to admit
that managing them is a lot tougher.
JAFO DaR
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.usForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/03/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 113 Sun Sep 02, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 16:56 EDT Re: DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET > Posting it in RTF would mean everybody who read it would get the > formatting information. So, I am certainly one vote to recommend > to the TC that BASIS 14 be posted in RTF. Anybody else? Thanks for the vote David. It just so happens that we may need to use RTF internally also. Word does not support the transfer of the style sheet information between the Mac and the PC and Microsoft has recommended we use RTF when we transfer between the machines. Right now, we have a PC style sheet and a Mac one and the two are not exactly the same. We will be experimenting with the transfer next week and I am quite hopeful that it will solve the few formatting problems we do have. It would also be very nice if the RTF format could be the one that get distributed. It would save me a lot of headaches. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) (09/04/90)
In <1646.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, R.BERKEY [Robert] writes: > Standardization occurs because of the absence of order. Were the object of a > standard already in a state of order, then what would be the purpose of a > standard? ... > The jurisdiction of standardization is a superset of existing > knowledge. I think you point out an interesting tension. Were there an existing, defacto standard, all ANSI would have to do, if it had to do anything, would be to formalize that standard. Given that there is no such defacto standard, or perhaps that there are several defacto standards (assuming that that makes sense), the process is stuck about where Elizabeth Rather has pointed out. The question is whether or not an ANSI standard will help or hinder the spread of Forth, but that question itself assumes that the spread of Forth is a good thing. The flip side to the question is how much, if any, harm will a bad standard do to the spread of Forth. (Substitute "legitimacy" or any other favorite attribute of programming languages for "the spread" of Forth in the above. I'm still curious as to the answers.) -Doug --- Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us OR ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp ) Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) (09/04/90)
In article <1668.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 18, Topic 54 >Message 103 Fri Aug 31, 1990 >D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:25 EDT > >Re: ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) > > > Whatever the format that is finally chosen, PLEASE BREAK THE > > DOCUMENT INTO MANAGEABLE SECTIONS. Use chapters and includes > > with MS WORD [TM] or similar ploys to make document management > > possible on a computer without extra memory beyond 640 K > > conventional memory! > >Nick, were you the one who complained about not being able to load it into >Word for Windows? My update is in the mail, so I will be able to confirm it >as soon as it arrives. I am surprised to hear that Word has those kind of >problems. I'm pretty sure the DOS version does not, but I will check that out >also. Obviously, we will have to do something about it if the problem exists, >but I just need to confirm it before agreeing to anything. > >I'll get back to you on it. DaR >----- >This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. >Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us The problem is that MS Word5 TM (not MS Word for Windows TM which I have not tried) insists on storing a backup copy whenever ANY change is made to a document -- even attaching a styler sheet. So a 650 K document needs at least 1.3 MB of disk space which makes repagination, etc., extremely slow unless one uses RAM DISK to contain the document. I see that I have not stated the problem clearly enough in my original posting. Please accept my apologies. Nick Solntseff
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/08/90)
Category 18, Topic 54 Message 116 Fri Sep 07, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 00:28 EDT Re: ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) > So a 650 K document needs at least 1.3 MB of disk space which > makes repagination, etc., extremely slow unless one uses RAM DISK > to contain the document. I see what you mean Nick. I will see if I can convince them to break it up into smaller pieces. I certainly agree that it is slow when it comes to repagination and stuff. I've also now confirmed that the Word5 document can not be loaded into Word for Windows. I ran out of memory before it got half way through the conversion. For those struggling with that one, I found that Word5's RTF conversion could be used first, and then it loads into WINWORD fine (well almost). WINWORD has decided that words marked for the index don't appear in the normal document so you have to turn on View Field Codes to see all the text. I'm still going to try doing some other conversions before being convinced that it can't handle it but WINWORD is not looking too compatable. Trying to work out the details before BASIS13. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/21/90)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 108 Thu Sep 20, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 21:27 EDT Re: a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) > If Wil's control flow rational is the same one I have hardcopy > of, it requires graphics, which means that ASCII can't handle it. If there were supposed to be graphics in that file, then they didn't show up on my Word for Windows. I've been told that graphics are one of the things that absolutely WILL NOT transfer between the Mac and PC versions of Word. If that is indeed what it's supposed to be then they will have to reconsider. To use graphics would mean loosing the little bit of transportability we do have now. Wil, is this "Control Flow" stuff indeed the flow chart drawings that I've seen on your conference papers? There is no way for us to port those to a PC. DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/10/90)
Category 10, Topic 35
Message 114 Sun Dec 09, 1990
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 09:45 EST
> I sincerely believe that the language desperately needs improvment.
I agree. I just don't think a "Standards" body is the place for it. (ANSI
guidelines notwithstanding.) I wish we could give it a more honest name, and
less bureaucratic muscle.
Imagine what a world this would be if the screw base of the common light bulb
was redesigned every four years.
- Brad
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/13/90)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 117 Tue Dec 11, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:39 EST > My mind boggles at the amount of trouble people seem to be willing > to go to in order to save $10 on a copy of Basis. That's not the reason, Mitch. We're willing to go to all this trouble to save _six weeks_ in getting a copy of Basis. X3J14 members get their copies promptly, but the rest of the world sometimes has to wait. And wait... It costs me $10 just to download Basis -- and just as much to print it -- but after BASIS12 I decided it was worth the investment. > The "searching" problem is greatly alleviated by the excellent > concordance that comes with each Basis (kudos to Greg Bailey). Kudos to Greg indeed, but it does NOT come with each Basis. I've never received one, and I've bought the printed Basis up through #13. Another perk for the X3J14 members, I believe. The sad fact is, Mitch, that the rest of the world is not as well treated as you are by the TC. Which may explain a few grumbles... - Brad ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/13/90)
Date: 12-10-90 (07:37) Number: 484 of 498 To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 411 From: CHRIS WATERS Read: NO Subj: Basis Feedback Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) to Usenet ReplyTo: john@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (John Hayes) Subject: Re: BASIS 14... comments Message-ID: <1990Dec4.100730.10629@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> >I assert that POSTPONE is the fundamental operator. POSTPONE is used >for more often than COMPILE, (compile-comma) and [COMPILE] Huh? More fundamental? Used far more often? How come I've never seen or heard of it in 12 years of Forth experience? Moreover, from your description, it sounds as if it searches the dictionary at run-time. While this could be a useful function under certain circumstances, it is entirely different from the functions of COMPILE and [COMPILE], which must, by definition, search the dictionary at compile-time. In fact, there may be no dictionary at run-time, there may be no header. Systems with separated headers that can be discarded are quite common. Under such a system, POSTPONE would not only be NOT more fundamental, but actually useless! Unless I misunderstood you completely. Which is quite possible, since you never mentioned exactly what POSTPONE is, what it does, or how it does it. I had to infer from your examples what it was, and I confess I found your post more than a little confusing. anyway...... --- MM 2.1a *Dawn - when people of reason go to bed --- * SFUTI 3.01 / Now accepting UNIX files! PCRelay:THECAVE -> #559 RelayNet (tm) 4.10 The Cave (408)259-8098 12/24/96/19.2 HST/DS <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
john@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (John Hayes) (12/14/90)
>>I assert that POSTPONE is the fundamental operator. POSTPONE is used >>for more often than COMPILE, (compile-comma) and [COMPILE] >Huh? More fundamental? Used far more often? How come I've never >seen or heard of it in 12 years of Forth experience? Moreover, from >your description, it sounds as if it searches the dictionary at >run-time. While this could be a useful function under certain >circumstances, it is entirely different from the functions of COMPILE >and [COMPILE], which must, by definition, search the dictionary at >compile-time. Allow me to rephrase. At the application program level, postponing the compile time behavior of a word (whether you call this POSTPONE, COMPILE, or something else) is done far more frequently than appending the execution behavior embodied in an execution token to a new definition (whether you call this COMPILE, (compile-comma), COMPILE-TOKEN, or , (comma)). John R. Hayes john@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins University
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/07/91)
Date: 01-04-91 (23:35) Number: 771 of 771
To: JAMES MEYER Refer#: NONE
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: BASIS 14 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> Jack,
-> I downloaded the BASIS 13 document from the GRAPEVINE BBS and was
-> shocked to find the files in some .RTF format. For me .RTF means
-> Real Tough File. I have no way of using the file. Is there another
-> format for the file anywhere? Please.... I am very intrested in
-> participating in ANS Fotyh's definition, but I'm locked out of the
-> information I need. leave me a message via the net. I call the GRAPE
-> almost every day. Jim Meyer
RTF == Real Tough Format :-)
You got *that* right!
It's WORD format, available on Mac and IBM. (Microsoft WORD).
I wanted TROFF format, which produces output viewable on an ASCII
viewer, but that was not practical given the effort that has been put
into WORD processing.
Your alternative is to buy a printed copy. Send $15.00 to:
ANS/ASC X3/X3J14 Technical Committee
Suite 300
111 N. Sepulveda Blvd.
Manhattan Beach, CA. 90266
Lots of other people are asking similar questions, so I hope you
don't mind me copying this message to the networked FORTH Conference.
=jax=
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/10/91)
Date: 01-07-91 (10:53) Number: 802 of 802 (Echo)
To: JAMES MEYER Refer#: 784
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: BASIS 14 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> I did 'hand dissasemble' about half of part A from BASIS-13. It
-> sure does look like a committee wrote it. I'd be intrested to learn
-> just who is responsible for the more understandable (well written)
-> parts.
BASIS13 introduced a new editor, the redoubtable Len Zettel.
BASIS14 is an order of magnitude more clear a document. I am proud
of BASIS14. It (of course, always, forever) needs some work, but it
is an implementable prototype standard. I know, I have implemented it.
-> Thanks for the quick reply. BTW Embedded Systems has now replaced
-> Dr. Dobbs as my most 'looked forward to' mail.
Me too! Of course, mine usually comes with a check :-)
=jax=
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/14/91)
Date: 01-11-91 (17:40) Number: 847 of 864 To: JACK WOEHR Refer#: NONE From: CHRIS WATERS Read: NO Subj: Basis 14 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) JW. BASIS13 introduced a new editor, the redoubtable Len JW.Zettel. BASIS14 is an order of magnitude more clear a document. I JW.am proud of BASIS14. It (of course, always, forever) needs some JW.work, but it is an implementable prototype standard. I know, I JW.have implemented it. However, this brings up the question of: is it possible, in any way, shape or form, to obtain any of the BASIS docs in simple Ascii format. For those of us who don't have a copy of editor X or word-processor Y or Z-roff or whatever? --- MM 2.1a *Why buy shampoo when real poo is still free? --- * SFUTI 3.01 / Yet another obnoxiously proud Spitfire Sysop! PCRelay:THECAVE -> #559 RelayNet (tm) 4.10 The Cave (408)259-8098 12/24/96/19.2 HST/DS <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/20/91)
Date: 01-13-91 (09:39) Number: 877 of 891 (Echo)
To: CHRIS WATERS Refer#: 847
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: BASIS 14 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> However, this brings up the question of: is it possible, in any way,
-> shape or form, to obtain any of the BASIS docs in simple Ascii
-> format. For those of us who don't have a copy of editor X or
-> word-processor Y or Z-roff or whatever?
There is no simple ascii format that would represent the
boxes and strikeouts which convey important information. So the answer
is no.
A printed copy of the BASIS is available for $15.00 from:
X3J14 Technical Committee
111 N. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 300
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/11/91)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 130 Sat Feb 09, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 13:51 EST > ...We will have a chance to make comments etc. when it gets to the > dpANS stage. Actually, that's not quite right. When it gets to dpANS we are reduced to a binary yes/no decision. The only time we get to have directed and specific input is during the evolution of BASIS, i.e., right now. Yes, you can make comments to ANSI, but these will only serve to influence their accept/reject decision. If enough negative comments are received, ANSI will send it back for more work. There's no "line item veto" of dpANS. Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing) B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic) ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/27/91)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 134 Mon Feb 25, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:15 EST Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] From: Elizabeth Rather, Chair X3J14 >> ...We will have a chance to make comments etc. when it gets to >> the dpANS stage. > > Actually, that's not quite right. Whe it gets to dpANS we are > reduced to a binary yes/no decision. The only time we get to > have directed and specific input is during the evolution of > BASIS, i.e., right now. > > Yes, you can make comments to ANSI, but these will only serve to > influence their accept/reject decision. If enough negative > comments are received, ANSI will send it back for more work. > There's no "line item veto" of dpANS. To Brad and anyone else sharing this misconception: During the 4 month public review period of a dpANS, ANSI accepts and forwards to us all technical comments, and requires us to respond to each one, either by making a change (if someone has pointed out a flaw which we agree needs mending) or by explaining, satisfactorily what we've done and why. They not only monitor our responses for adequacy, they ask the commentor to comment on the response. A dpANS is very much subject to line-item *scrutiny* by the public and ANSI is perfectly capable of requiring us to fix any item they feel is inadequate or bad. There's no difference in the things you can respond to in a dpANS vs. BASIS - the difference is that ANSI monitors your comments and our responses. So go ahead and be just as "directed and specific" as you want to. You're guarenteed an audience. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/26/91)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 47 Wed Apr 24, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 02:07 EDT Re: ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (David Ritchie) Subject: What style sheet to use when printing BASIS... > Being somewhat of a novice to Microsoft Word, I was wondering > what style sheet was being used with the basis document. I > formatted it with NORMAL.STY and it looks funny in a few places > on my DeskJet. Ah, you are now facing the "rub" Dave. Basis is now being edited exclusively with Microsoft's Word for Windows. Style sheets have gone away and have been replaced with Document Template files. However, I don't have the DOT file with it, so even I will have trouble viewing some of the sections. Templates aren't not the same as style sheets. Most of the styles within the document are embeded RTF commands, but NORMAL.STY can't handle it all. I seem to remember reading somewhere, when I was using Word for the PC, that you could alter the mapping that the conversion program did, but I don't remember it any more. The point is, that the electronic copy is not there for printing. You can buy a printed copy if that is what you need. The electronic version is for electronic scanning, and cut/paste operations into proposals. I've never been able to print any of the electronic copies yet. BTW folks, from what I understand, BASIS15.ARC may be the last electronic version you ever get. Once the document goes back to X3, it becomes another document that they make money from selling. So far, arrangements have not been made for any type of electronic publication at all. If someone has the time and ability to get negotiations going with them, I would sure appreceate it, but I sure have not done anything about it. Those of you who are using the electronic version, may want to get moving. FYI {B-{)> DaR ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
msucats@att1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (msucats) (05/03/91)
> Being somewhat of a novice to Microsoft Word, I was wondering > what style sheet was being used with the basis document. I > formatted it with NORMAL.STY and it looks funny in a few places > on my DeskJet. Printed just fine from Word 4.0 on the Macintosh, although this will be little consolation if you don't have access to Word for the Mac.
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/13/91)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 55 Sat May 11, 1991 R.BERKEY [Robert] at 10:57 PDT Mitch Bradley writes 91-05-06, in reference to Jan Stout's message of 91-05- 06: > > 8.2.0742 AT-XY > > Ok, now we can set the cursor, but how do we read it? > > You can't. A lot of terminals don't allow you to read the cursor > position, and to entitle a program to read the cursor position would > force the Forth implementation to interpose a software layer in the > output stream that would model exactly what the terminal is doing. > Hopelessly complicated, and of questionable value. Being able to save and restore the cursor position enables the coding of modular subroutines, for example, one that updates a time-of-day display, or a generic routine that displays "Press <Enter> to continue". Code to track the cursor position I consider to be a routine implementation task, and a fairly easy one as drivers go. Say, for PRINTER-CR , a physical-level driver is: : (EPSON-CR) ( -- ) #CR (EPSON-EMIT) #LF (EPSON-EMIT) ; DEFER (PRINTER-CR) ' (EPSON-CR) IS (PRINTER-CR) A logical-level driver: VARIABLE COLUMN# VARIABLE LINE# VARIABLE PAGE# 66 CONSTANT #LINES/PAGE : PRINTER-CR ( -- ) 1 LINE# +! 0 COLUMN# ! LINE# @ #LINES/PAGE = IF 1 PAGE# +! 0 LINE# ! THEN (PRINTER-CR) ; Even with terminals that allow the cursor position to be read, I've found that complications in reading the terminal make the software approach preferable. Robert ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/15/91)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 56 Tue May 14, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 20:22 EDT TO: X3J14-watchers FROM: Elizabeth D. Rather, Chair To those of you attempting to make printed copies of BASIS documents: X3J14 does not authorize any printed documents that are not a direct result of the RTF formatting information incorporated in the file. This is because there is critical technical information carried by the formatting. For example, some paragraphs contain rationale information which is not binding. You can only spot these because of the formatting. I confess I'm utterly baffled by someone's comment that he managed to convert and print it in "only" 5 hrs! Is your time worth so little ($3/hr in this case, not counting 200 sheets of paper), or are you so starved for entertainment, that you'd do this in preference to simply sending a check for $15 (to the Forth Vendors Group, 111 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 300, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266)? ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) (05/16/91)
In article <2769.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 10, Topic 35 >Message 56 Tue May 14, 1991 >D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 20:22 EDT > >TO: X3J14-watchers > >FROM: Elizabeth D. Rather, Chair > [...]> >I confess I'm utterly baffled by someone's comment that he managed to convert >and print it in "only" 5 hrs! Is your time worth so little ($3/hr in this >case, not counting 200 sheets of paper), or are you so starved for >entertainment, that you'd do this in preference to simply sending a check for >$15 (to the Forth Vendors Group, 111 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 300, Manhattan >Beach, CA 90266)? >----- The computer is paid for, the power needed was less than 1kW, the paper cost about $3.00, my time was nil (the computer needs no sleep) as I printed over night! Nicholas Solntseff ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/17/91)
Category 10, Topic 35 Message 58 Wed May 15, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:29 EDT To Elizabeth Rather c/o Dennis: 1. I believe Nick Solntseff's comment was that it took five hours of printer time, not five hours of labor on his part. 2. The electronic BASIS seems to become available before printed copies, and some of us think these extra days are worth a little effort. (Once burned, forever shy, or something like that.) 3. At any rate, you've obviously not had much experience with Canada Post, and the synergistic delays they can create with the U.S. Postal Service. Two weeks is not unheard of for mail; we've experienced delays of up to five weeks within Canada, and three months for packages from the U.S. (You may recall that I once arranged to pick up a copy in person at Forth Inc.) - Brad ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/17/91)
Date: 05-15-91 (09:17) Number: 2189 of 2189 (Echo)
To: DENNIS RUFFER Refer#: 2162
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: BASIS FEEDBACK Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> TO: X3J14-watchers
->
-> FROM: Elizabeth D. Rather, Chair
->
-> To those of you attempting to make printed copies of BASIS documents:
-> X3J14 does not authorize any printed documents that are not a direct
-> result of the RTF formatting information incorporated in the file.
-> This is because there is critical technical information carried by
-> the formatting. For example, some paragraphs contain rationale
-> information which is not binding. You can only pot these because of
-> the formatting.
->
-> I confess I'm utterly baffled by someone's comment that he managed to
-> convert and print it in "only" 5 hrs! Is your time worth so little
-> ($3/hr in this case, not counting 200 sheets of paper), or are you so
-> starved for entertainment, that you'd do this in preference to simply
-> sending a check for $15 (to the Forth Vendors Group, 111 N. Sepulveda
-> Blvd. Suite 300, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266)?
Bess ...
When the original debate came up about putting BASIS online,
(in those days before I was on the TC) I tried to explain what the
phenomenon was that you are describing.
Many of us have moved so deeply into the electronic office that
it is very tedious to conduct paper correspondence, even to mail off a
letter and a check. It is really simpler to just conduct correspondence
online.
Also, some of the people wrestling with the electronic BASIS are
those living in Europe and Australia who do not want to wait for the
mail (post) to come through.
Really, I have found that the majority of persons one meets are
fairly rational and have perfectly good reasons (to them) for the odd
things they do! :-)
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/01/91)
Date: 06-28-91 (22:47) Number: 289 of 289 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JACK WOEHR Read: (N/A)
Subj: BASIS 17 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
BASIS 17 in RTF Format is now available for download on the
RealTime Control & Forth Board.
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp