ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (07/29/90)
Date: 07-26-90 (14:17) Number: 450 (Echo) To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: JACK BROWN Read: (N/A) Subj: ACCEPTED PRACTICE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE With regard to the ANSI ANS X3/J14 Forth Standardization Effort a number of people, including some TC members have been using terms such as "common practice" and "existing practice" in their discussions regarding additions/deletions of words from the current BASIS. John Wavrik asked me to post the documents where this phrase originally appeared. It turn out that neither phrase appears and the correct phrase that should be used instead of these terms is: " accepted practice " In the next three messages is the original 1987 accepted Scope of Work for ANS X3/J14 TC and a couple of recent statements in the form of a proposal from L Forsley and a comment to the TC by D Colburn. As Dennis would say: I hope this helps! NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886 ----- 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) (07/29/90)
Date: 07-26-90 (14:25) Number: 451 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JACK BROWN Read: (N/A)
Subj: ACCEPTED PRACTICE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Resolution 87-002 Accepted
Scope of Work for X3/J14
The purpose of this resolution is to outline the scope of work for this
TC [ Technical Committee ]. It is based upon the project proposal
adopted by X3J14/005. The intent is to present an outline of the
significant steps to be followed to achieve an acceptable standard which
will result in broad compliance among all major vendors of Forth
language products, with minimum adverse impact upon transportability
from existing systems in use.
The scope of work for X3/J14 shall encompass the following:
1. Identification and evaluation of common existing practices in the
area of the Forth programming language. This shall include the
following:
a. Identification of all producers of Forth language programming systems
with a distribution in excess of 1000 users.
b. Evaluation of Forth implementation distributed by these producers
with respect to the FORTH-83 standard, to identify the primary areas of
non-compliance. Areas in which all producers are in compliance will be
considered to be "accepted practice".
c. Public solicitation from these producers as well as other sources
represented on the TC of specific problem areas within the FORTH-83
Standard, and recommendations for change.
2. Evaluate proposed modifications to the FORTH-83 Standard resulting
from Item 1c above addressing the following areas:
a. Arithmetic and logical operators
b. Flow-of-control structures
c. Input and output operators
d. Memory and mass storage operators
e. Exception handling
f. Vectored execution
g. Compiler extension operators
h. Data description operators
i. ROM-based applications
j. Any other areas that emerge from the study as representing
significant areas of non compliance
3. Propose modification to FORTH-83 shall be deemed unacceptalbe if they
result in significant variance from "accepted practice" as identified in
Item 1b above, or if the proposed definition is outside the standards of
clarity and umambiguity required of an ANS.
4. The TC will address proposed standards for language extensions.
Areas in which extension will be considered include floating point
arithmetic, data base support, and graphics. Other extensions will
doubtless emerge, and may be considered at the discretion of the TC.
5. The TC will review existing and proposed standards for other
languages.
6. The TC will consider areas in which the basis document or accepted
practice is in conflict with modern hardware characteristics.
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
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) (07/29/90)
Date: 07-26-90 (14:31) Number: 452 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JACK BROWN Read: (N/A)
Subj: ACCEPTED PRACTICE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
ANSI ASC X3/J14 Technical Proposal Page 1 of 1 90-752
Title: Compliance With Accepted Practice.
Author: Lawrence P. Forsley
Abstract: Add a rational to the scope of work.
Proposal:
Proposals measured against accepted practice fall into one of four
categories:
1. Accepted practice is clear: e.g. DUP
2. Accepted practice is conceptually clear, but there are code
differences: e.g. VOCABULARY
3. Accepted practice isn't conceptually clear and code differences
abound: e.g. vocabulary search order
4. Accepted practice in the specific is upsurped by considerations in
the general: e.g. POSTPONE, where accepted practice precluded a class of
implementations, or, CATCH/THROW, where transportability takes
precedense over lack of accepted practice.
In category 1 we accept the proposal.
In category 2. we acknowledge several accepted practices, and
a) temporize, or
b) arbitrarily choose one.
In category 3, we leave it out of the standard.
In category 4, we develop a new technique.
Thus,
We choose to do what is known, or
we temporize those things we can't decide, or,
we arbitrarily choose one of two or more existing practices, or,
we develop a new technique to resolve and inconsistancy.
Discussion:
There is confusion regarding the seriousness of the commitment to the
following accepted practice. This rationale attempts to clarify the 4
possibilities open to us in considering accepted practice. That is,
there are cases when we must diverge from accepted practice: when more
than one practice is accepted, when an accepted practice is inconsistant
with another accepted practices, or when other issues, such as
transportability, take precedence over accepted practice.
[ This proposal has not yet been passed by the TC ]
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
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) (07/29/90)
Date: 07-26-90 (14:34) Number: 453 (Echo) To: ALL Refer#: NONE From: JACK BROWN Read: (N/A) Subj: ACCEPTED PRACTICE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE A Commentary on the X3/J14 Scope of Work by Don Colburn, Creative Solutions Inc and member of the X3/J14 TC. Presented to the TC May 26, 1990. Our Mission Statement from our X3 accepted statement of work: The goal: "broad compliance among all major vendors of Forth language products" -This is a clear statement. Is there any question that this is the goal? -Should anyone suggest a change to this, it would require re-evaluation of all prior actions taken by the committee? -Does this goal represent our past and present deliberations? -Does the commitee represent "all major vendors"? -Are metrics available to test "broad compliance"? -Perhaps a more quantitative measure, or more specific desired effect would allow better measurement of progress toward this goal and/or help to determine the productivity of our efforts once a proposed ANS Draft document has been accepted. The method to obtain the goal: "achieve" an "acceptable standard" - "achieve" suggests work toward the goal of broad compliance by vendors by either standardizing only strictly "accepted practice" words ( as later defined in the Statement of Work ouline), or through efforts by users to supply vendors with compelling arguments to accept otherwise unpalatable and possibly unnatural practices) -"acceptable" with respect to the goal quantifies the effectiveness of the term "accepted practice" and/or the willingness of vendors to commit to compliance with incompatable practices. With a hint toward a definition of "acceptable": Minimum adverse impact upon transportability from existing systems in use - This encourages us to focus on the essential problem, and a barrier to acceptance of divergent ideas from existing vendors. It also suggests a path to acceptance: "Less is Moore" NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886 ----- 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
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) (07/29/90)
> From: JACK BROWN Read: (N/A) > Subj: ACCEPTED PRACTICE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE > - This encourages us to focus on the essential problem, and a barrier to > acceptance of divergent ideas from existing vendors. It also suggests a > path to acceptance: "Less is Moore" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did you know that Chuck's wife's name is Min? Phil Koopman koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu Arpanet 2525A Wexford Run Rd. Wexford, PA 15090 Senior scientist at Harris Semiconductor, and adjunct professor at CMU. I don't speak for them, and they don't speak for me.
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (08/27/90)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 33 Sun Aug 26, 1990 R.BERKEY [Robert] at 19:52 PDT Just back from the Vancouver ANS meeting. Tedious is the word that comes to mind, as work days stretched to 14 hours. For example, an amendment was made, seconded, and passed to change "located" to "specified" in a proposal for the text of a BASIS definition. That proposal then failed to pass, and it was time to repeat the "specified" amendment in a closely related proposal. Dave Harralson opined that it was a "labor of love". Facilities were excellent thanks to Jack Brown's coordination and the BCIT hospitality. (And I thought the cookies were outstanding!) Division proposals were acted upon. FM/MOD , SM/MOD and M*/ remain, while M/ and M/MOD are gone. In the single-length set, / /MOD MOD */ */MOD and 2/ have reverted to the pre-BASIS11 versions, with a proviso that programs cannot use these words with negative parameters if the "form of the result matters". In the floating-point area, implementations can place the values on either the parameter stack or a floating-point stack, as programs can be organized so as to not care which is used. The committee's scope of work has been reduced to primarily consider one's and two's complement ALU's; and clarifies "extensions", which cannot be considered before there is a finished ANS Forth. Remaining burning issues are led by cleanup and rationale. BASIS13 will be out sooner than last time, as the new editor is ready to go this time around. But note that the next meeting is Nov. 6, so that if BASIS13 arrives by the first week in Oct, there may be only a couple of weeks to get proposals in before the two-week mailing. BASIS will again be posted online, but the committee has made a clear decision that it is "forbidden" to redistribute BASIS in other than the original (Word) format. Saw the BCFB up close and personal! I found it amusing to see this ordinary computer that takes on larger than life dimensions from thousands of miles away. It was also a personal pleasure to meet some of the Forth experts from the Vancouver area, including several of the frequent ForthNet contributors. Robert <To paraphrase from other postings: I don't speak for ANS X3.J14, and they don't speak for me. My phone number is (415) 659-1334 x352.> ----- 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) (12/28/90)
Category 10, Topic 12
Message 34 Thu Dec 27, 1990
GARY-S at 06:41 EST
If you are interested in attending a meeting of the ANSI X3J14
Technical Committee the 1991 meetings are as follows:
Dates Location Host
----- -------- ----
Jan 29-Feb 2 Manhattan Beach, CA FORTH,Inc.
Apr 23-Apr 27 Atlanta, GA Don Schrader, Atlanta FIG
Jul 30-Aug 3 Denver, CO Jack Woehr, Vesta Technology
Oct 15-Oct 19 Boston, MA Gary Chanson, Boston FIG
-----
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) (12/31/90)
Date: 12-29-90 (00:23) Number: 705 of 705 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JACK WOEHR Read: (N/A)
Subj: BASIS14 NOW ON RCFB Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
BASIS14 is now downloadable from the RealTime Control & Forth Board.
We're closing fast on dpANS, fans! Now's the time to boost ANS Forth!
=jax=
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
[ I also have BASIS14 available for email only access. If you would
like a copy, please drop me a note at one of the addresses at the
end of this message. In order for me to answer your request, you must:
Include the line 'SEND BASIS14.ARC', so I know what you want.
Include your email address in the body of the message. You must
include an address *relative to* the InterNet or well known
UseNet site. (i.e. BITNET is ok, but you must tell me the
address as USER%HOST.BITNET@InterNet.Relay.Site).
BTW: BASIS14.ARC is UUENCODED and split into 7 60K parts for mailing.
-dwp]
-----
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) (02/18/91)
Category 10, Topic 12
Message 38 Sat Feb 16, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 16:22 EST
In my defense, let me say that I have _never_ used the word "democracy" to
describe TC deliberations. In fact, I usually object to its use by TC
members.
I believe the only appearances of the "d" word in my messages have been in
quotations. These were intended mainly to deflate the pretensions of those
who would defend the TC's actions by wrapping it in the flag of "democracy".
BTW, my source for these is Crown's Book of Political Quotations, by Michael
Jackman, published by Crown Publishers Inc. of New York. It includes that
quote from Winston Churchill.
"Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed
no better than we deserve." - George Bernard Shaw
Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing)
B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
"Shoes for industry!" | 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!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/19/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 39 Sun Mar 17, 1991 ATFURMAN [Alan F.] at 21:00 PST My understanding is that in American political circles of 200 years ago, "democrat" was a term of abuse (meaning: mob-rule advocate). Someone once pointed out that a 1920's edition of a U.S. Army indoctrination manual maintained that America was "a republic, not a democracy". The 1950's edition simply stated that the American political system was "democracy". History had gotten a New Deal. He who controls the present controls the past. Given John Wavrik's much different usage of the term, it is clear that the word "democracy" is wide open in its ambiguity. How lucky for those who seek the Total State: just sell people on "democracy" as meaning INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, use it in slogans for a while, then pull some Orwellian doublethink by switching its meaning to absolute rule by a "representative" two-party oligarchy. Rule by the Divine Right of Kings has been replaced by the Divine Right of Collectives (i.e. by a 51% majority in idealized Radical Democracy). Victims of our Trabant-Motorwerke State-owned educational system may not be able to read, but they have been taught well to love Big Brother. A failure? You forgot to ask, "Who profits?" The real American system has been pretty much flushed away to oblivion by the New Deal and the War on Drugs, but it is still interesting to remember what it used to be. The REAL government was Self-Government: the individual's sovereignty over his/her own mind, body, property, life. (As Jefferson wrote, "may it be to man to enjoy the blessings of self-government".) The State's job was limited to protecting individual liberty, and oversight of this limited State was by *democratically elected* representatives. But the system as a whole was not "democracy". ========================================================================= And now to settle the argument over X3J14's system of governance. It is Constitutionalist. Those who have the constitution to endure one meeting after another, rule. ----- 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) (04/16/91)
Date: 04-13-91 (14:52) Number: 1877 of 1877 (Echo)
To: CHRIS WRIGHT Refer#: NONE
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: X3J14 HOLDING PATTERN HER Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> Where's the moderate view..the middle ground..or are you really just
-> a bunch of religious zealots, like my friends have been trying to
-> tell me. I hope you're not, 'cos I like Forth, and I like some of the
-> people I've met on this group
The sociological truth is that any small in-group, especially
a "persecuted minority" like the Forth community, is going to have
particularly nasty squabbles.
When there is plenty of hay, the horsie eat hay. In the winter
when fodder is short, they nip at each other's flanks.
The reasons why Forth is good for your next control project have
more to do with Charles Moore's appreciation of what he could do with
limited resources back in 1970 than they have to do with the ANS
standardization proceedings.
Nonetheless, we will have an ANS Forth before too long. While I
appreciate Bob Berkey's concerns regarding the mathematical compromises
(not very compromising, really!) on MOD, Brother Bob's flame is more of
a flame-out and tantamount to his withdrawal from any constructive
participation in the further work on ANS Forth.
The members of X3J14 are not particularly corrupt or boobish,
not any more so than an equally representative sampling of the Forth
community at large, or any other programming community for that matter!
=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 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) (04/19/91)
Date: 04-15-91 (12:36) Number: 1899 of 1904 To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 1814 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: X3J14 HOLDING PATTERN HER Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) To Chris Wright, Melbourne Univ. RE Forth zealots - I am also just a user of Forth and I'd suggest you can just ignore all the heated discussions. You can always find someone to give you pointers or help w/ problems. Many of the current arguments are over my head since I am not usually concerned with those topics; I am into single board machine controllers, and I find Forth great for that, regardless of what version or flavour. PCRelay:PROPC -> #288 RelayNet (tm) 4.10 Pittsburgh ProPC BBS (412) 321-6645 <<<>>> ----- 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) (04/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 58 Sat Apr 27, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:24 EDT I have to declare my sympathies with John Wavrik here. I, too, have found sections of the BASIS to be vague and "fuzzy." From JAX: > BASIS 15 works, John. I've got it running. Sure you do, Jax. The problem is, you've got it running under a number of your personal assumptions -- some of which you may not even be aware of. The problem with fuzzy language is that people can see their expectations confirmed in it, and conclude that the language is precise, because they "know" what it means. I'm worried that several years down the road we'll find that several major systems have implemented major sections of ANS Forth in incompatible ways. (We've seen this before, gang.) Then the recriminations will fly and everyone will accuse everyone else of violating the standard. Also from JAX: > Implement or shut up. Gee, I'd love to, Jax, but as a working Forth *applications* programmer, I don't have the time. It must be nice to get paid for implementing BASIS15, but please realize that others are not as fortunate as you. - Brad Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing) B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca "Shoes for industry!" | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic) ----- 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) (05/06/91)
Category 10, Topic 12
Message 61 Sun May 05, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 10:09 EDT
> So tell us which sections are vague and fuzzy so we can fix them!
I did, Mitch, and I got yelled at for my efforts. In Detroit I stated quite
clearly that I did not understand the meaning of the Locals section; both the
intent and the implementation were unclear to me. This led to a somewhat
emotional outburst on the part of the author of that section (an intelligent
guy whose work I greatly respect, but who didn't help matters in this
instance).
The only positive response I got was from you personally, Mitch, when you
offered to send me a copy of your Locals implementation. I declined because
to me it is more important to establish if compatible implementations can be
developed based _just_on_the_ _information_in_the_BASIS_. Reading your
implementation would be very helpful, but I'd have no way of separating your
assumptions from the actual requirements of BASIS.
I have been as specific as I can be in my complaints and suggestions. I would
like to think that if several reasonably- experienced Forthers are saying that
they're confused by the standard, the TC would view this as symptomatic of a
problem in the BASIS, and not a problem in the objectors.
Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing)
B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
"Shoes for industry!" | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic)
-----
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) (05/08/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 64 Tue May 07, 1991 R.BERKEY [Robert] at 03:43 PDT To: Elizabeth Rather I've been on record (in one of the FIGgies) that I think your conduct of the TC Chair is "commendable". I see you during meetings as steady and untiring in this difficult function. I see you being concerned and careful in separating your role as Chair from your opinion as a member of the committee. In your decision to revolunteer as Chair of X3.J14, I encourage you to make every reasonable effort to continue. Sincerely, Robert Berkey ----- 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) (05/13/91)
Category 10, Topic 12
Message 65 Sun May 12, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 11:33 EDT
Don't forget to mention, Nick, that we have only four months (as I recall) to
"test-drive" this "full-scale model." Not a lot of time to test it to the
limits...especially considering the lack of a real implementation. (How long
after BASIS'n' will it take for ZENForth'n' to become available? What other
vehicles are there to "test-drive"?)
And while it is true that "all comments are considered" (however briefly),
there are a number of handy evasions which are used to avoid dealing with a
comment...and one of these evasions is to demand a specific replacement.
Asking the TC _not_ to do something is rarely acceptable to the TC.
"Let's go out and kill a bunch of people."
"I don't think we should do that."
"Why, what do you propose we do instead?"
"I don't think we should do _anything_!"
"Sorry, that's not a constructive comment. If you have a problem
with the weapons we're using, we're open to suggestions."
- Brad
Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing)
B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
| bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic)
"I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused" --?
-----
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) (05/13/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 66 Sun May 12, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 20:56 EDT Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > (How long after BASIS'n' will it take for ZENForth'n' to become > available? Well, Martin did real good this last time. I uploaded ZEN15A was uploaded 5 days after BASIS15. I'd call that pretty remarkable performance. I don't know how many others are following Martin's example, but even assuming only a few people spend the time to implement it, I would hope 4 months is plenty of time to test them out. In fact, if you're really concerned about it, how about working on a test suite now? That way you would be prepared to beat the systems up when they do come out. In fact, I am personally _very_ interested in working up a test suite for ANS Forth, and am working on a paper on the subject. Part of the reason for the paper is to find out how many others would be interested in contributing to this effort. I certainly can't do it alone, and I don't think any one vendor should have to foot the bill for something that will benifit us all. So, how many people out there are concerned about the testability of Forth and are willing to help define a test suite for the coming versions of ANS Forth? Can we have a show of hands? 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
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/13/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 67 Sun May 12, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:58 EDT Yah. In my Copious Free Time, Dennis. The problem with writing a test suite is that it's rather hard to hit a moving target. (Yet another argument for a "maturing" period.) Martin certainly deserves applause for getting ZEN15A out so promptly. (Please convey my regards and appreciation to him.) And I understand that Jax is in an implementing fever right now. No others that I've heard of. But how long did this take after BASIS15 was _adopted_? (The BASIS uploads usually lag this by several weeks.) And can we expect the same of BASIS16? BTW, there was some interest in testability around our local FIG chapter, and I'll see if I can round up some volunteers for you. This is the kind of task Nick Solntseff is always trying to unload on this graduate students -- usually without success. - 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) (05/15/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 68 Tue May 14, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 00:32 EDT Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > Yah. In my Copious Free Time, Dennis. Mine too Brad. :( but we will need moral support too! :) > The problem with writing a test suite is that it's rather hard to > hit a moving target. I've been holding off on my paper for that very reason. However, the effort needs to get started soon. Most of BASIS is pretty mature, and many of the tests could be written now. > (Yet another argument for a "maturing" period.) How long? If we let it lay in the "review" period, people will loose interest. Already, the members of the TC are showing signs of fatigue (and empty pocketbooks). How much more time and money is this going to cost before we can start trying to make money off the efforts? How much longer can the momentum be sustained? > Martin certainly deserves applause for getting ZEN15A out so > promptly. (Please convey my regards and appreciation to him.) > And I understand that Jax is in an implementing fever right now. > No others that I've heard of. I think Mitch and Greg also have internal versions running. No one is going to do or say much more than they have already until the end gets a little closer. I've talked with Martin about it, and the reason he gave me for not releasing each one is that he doesn't want to build a user base until he is pretty certain that the standard has stabalized. He did 15 because it was supposed to become the dpAns. It didn't, so now I suspect he will wait until they get close again. They've already had a meet 16 and number 17 is scheduled for a few days before Rochester (in Rochester obviously). The Boston FIG is complaining that they want to have the October meeting, but maybe they can say what they need to say in Rochester. It's hard to say when they will be "ready" again. > BTW, there was some interest in testability around our local FIG > chapter, and I'll see if I can round up some volunteers for you. > This is the kind of task Nick Solntseff is always trying to > unload on this graduate students -- usually without success. I've talked with Nick about it in the past, but the idea sort of fizzeled. I think it is time to renew the effort. If you can find some volunteers up there, it sure would be appreceated. No matter if I give the paper at Rochester or not, I want to get the brain juices flowing again. I'm kind of hoping to do it electronically (I could even offer some "services" here on GEnie to manage it), but I'll take whatever kind of support I can get. It would even be interesting to see if we could get some grant money to attract some students to it. However, managers are needed as well as programmers. Anything someone can offer is appreceated. 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
ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) (05/16/91)
In article <2767.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 10, Topic 12 >Message 68 Tue May 14, 1991 >D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 00:32 EDT > >Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > [ ...]> > > > BTW, there was some interest in testability around our local FIG > > chapter, and I'll see if I can round up some volunteers for you. > > This is the kind of task Nick Solntseff is always trying to > > unload on this graduate students -- usually without success. > >I've talked with Nick about it in the past, but the idea sort of fizzeled. I >think it is time to renew the effort. If you can find some volunteers up >there, it sure would be appreceated. No matter if I give the paper at >Rochester or not, I want to get the brain juices flowing again. I'm kind of >hoping to do it electronically (I could even offer some "services" here on >GEnie to manage it), but I'll take whatever kind of support I can get. It >would even be interesting to see if we could get some grant money to attract >some students to it. However, managers are needed as well as programmers. >Anything someone can offer is appreceated. > >DaR >----- > There are students here who are having difficulties getting jobs! Given a modest amount of money ($5000 for two months' work), the effort at producing a test suite could be started without too much delay. Nicholas Solntseff ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/17/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 72 Wed May 15, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:29 EDT > How long? If we let it lay in the "review" period, people will > lose interest. I submit that this was because of bad management of the X3J14 effort. (No offense intended.) Had it been accepted from the beginning that an "implementation period" would be required, then a lid could have been put on major changes perhaps a year ago, and the final year of the standards effort could have been devoted to a) building sample implementations, b) taking care of the finicky details, and c) filling in the rationale notes and the rest of the BASIS document. (Incidental note: the TC did put a cut-off on major changes in submissions. But within the TC, anything goes.) The TC is remiss in not budgeting time for this as part of the effort. Instead, they're in the position of a programmer who is frantically coding up to the last minute, and who hasn't budgeted time for proper testing or documentation. BTW, the test suite idea may still fizzle with Nick. He'd like to have a student work on this, but somehow all his students manage to come up with alternate projects when this is suggested. - Brad Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing) B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca "Shoes for industry!" | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic) ----- 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)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 73 Thu May 16, 1991 R.BERKEY [Robert] at 02:57 PDT re: Jack J. Woehr, 91-05-07 Message-ID: <1991May7.174009.24072@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> I have also posited that objections with a current standard are one of the motivations for participating in a subsequent standard's process. I have also stated that a corollary problem for those now involved is to damp the waves of change between standards. Good decisions, that take into consideration both the needs of implementations and the needs of programs, are not necessarily easy to obtain. Ever since I began to study the division available in Forth-79 and Forth-83 I've wondered why the ( d n -- n n ) signed division word was not included. Only now that such are proposed for inclusion (and I was one of those who voted for their inclusion), have I come to understand why. They are not primitives that can be used in building higher precision operations. Additionally, their internal inconsistencies create difficulties for programmers (notably in the coding of rounded-to- nearest algorithms) even when used in their single precision form. As such, their placement in the required word set is dubious. Intel with their 8088/8086 and Motorola with their 68000 have each demonstrated the complexities. Intel's difficulties in implementing -32768 as a dividend have been reported in Forth dimensions as well as are recorded in the Intel 80286 Programmer's Reference Manual. Motorola's signed opcode is sufficiently inefficient that an ordinary implementation of floored division based on unsigned division will divide positive numbers such as 8 by 3 more efficiently than will the Motorola signed opcode (1 to 2% difference). 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
Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) (05/18/91)
Brad RODRIGUEZ2) writes: > Don't forget to mention, Nick, that we have only four months (as I recall) to > "test-drive" this "full-scale model." Not a lot of time to test it to the > limits...especially considering the lack of a real implementation. True, four months is not very long for running a full test. However, if I've read the dpANS process properly, that's four months to the first public review. If there are any changes, they are made and we go through another two months of testing, then another public review. This continues until the problems are worked out. This should take care of significant problems: things that ANS Forth is unable to do, or things that make compilers difficult to write or inefficient to run. > And while it is true that "all comments are considered" (however briefly), > there are a number of handy evasions which are used to avoid dealing with a > comment...and one of these evasions is to demand a specific replacement. > Asking the TC _not_ to do something is rarely acceptable to the TC. You have to offer "not doing something" as a specific replacement for something _and_ provide a solid argument for why it would be to the benefit of Forth. The TC has heard arguments _for_ the items in Basis; you have to produce an argument to counter those previous arguments. I don't think the TC is ignoring solid arguments because of some personal agenda. I've only attended the Vancouver (90) meetings, but that was enough to convince me of the depth of the arguments that led to the present compromises. If you've presented proposals to "not do something", I have to assume that you didn't provide a good enough argument to counter the other arguments. I don't believe the TC will vote against a superior argument. If you think that the TC has voted down a superior argument, why not post your argument here and let us judge? :-)
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/19/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 75 Sat May 18, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 14:17 EDT Re: ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) > There are students here who are having difficulties getting jobs! > Given a modest amount of money ($5000 for two months' work), the > effort at producing a test suite could be started without too > much delay. Ok thanks for the estimate Nick. Now, it's time to start seeing if anyone wants to invest is this effort. Are there any philanthropists out there? 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
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 12 Message 79 Sat May 25, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 13:24 EDT To Nick Janow: My understanding is that there is a four-month "window" for comments. Then, no further comments are accepted unless the dpANS is sent back to the TC for revision. And this is not a sure thing; the TC is obligated to _respond_ to all comments, but only ANSI decides -- who knows how? -- if the document has to be sent back for changes. In short, we can't count on having more than four months to review the dpANS. BTW, one of my gripes is that there is no way to establish a "superior" argument. I've heard the same arguments rejected by the TC one minute, and then used by TC members themselves the next. By their own definition, a "superior" argument is one which appeals to the whims of a majority of the TC - - and nothing else. To Mitch Bradley: Sorry, Mitch, I thought this was the GEnie topic "Forth Standards / Silly Overstated Analogies." :-) But in fact, you've illustrated my point better than I did. If 3 people say they need something, and 1000 people voice no such need, then the 3 people carry the day. This is a sure-fire formula for domination by special interests. (Perhaps ANSI stands for Appease Numerous Special Interests.) This is the argument you voice when you say > The new optional features in ANS Forth add considerable value for > the people that need such features, and detract hardly at all from > those who do not need them. One of the hard lessons I learned in product development is that you never hear from the satisfied customers. Those who are vocal are those with an axe to grind. Unfortunately, our marketing group treated _any_ input as "representative," with the inevitable result that the product became bogged down with all kinds of special, limited-interest features. (We used to call this "weathervane management" -- point in the direction of the latest breeze.) I don't want to see this happen to Forth. - Brad Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing) B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca "Shoes for industry!" | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic) ----- 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