ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/03/90)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 1 Fri Aug 31, 1990 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 13:15 EDT From Elizabeth Rather, Chair, ANS X3J14 Technical Committee: What is our goal? A good question, which we discuss among ourselves frequently, in order to ensure we're making progress toward it. At our meeting last week we adopted the following restatements of it which will appear in BASIS13 (language from Jim Rash, of NASA): "The purpose of this standard is to promote portability of Forth programs for use on a variety of computing systems, to facilitate communication of programs, programming techniques, and ideas among Forth programmers, and to serve as a basis for future evolution of the Forth language." It's important to note that you will never write a program on ANS FORTH, because ANS FORTH is a standard for Forth programming systems and not a system itself. You will write programs on an implementation that you select from those available on the market, or which you will write yourself. Any implementation will include capabilities beyond ANS FORTH, and you may elect to use those added capabilities or not as you see fit. One of the things we've learned is that insofar as one of the major areas of Forth use is in embedded and real-time systems, most Forth programs are intrinsically non- portable because of reliance on external hardware, optimization for performance (e.g., assembler code), etc. These are problems we can't solve. Nonetheless, a standard is useful for such systems by providing programmer portability (easing the transition of a programmer from one implementation to another). All of this is equally true of C; the notion that all C programs are portable is hogwash. I'm aware of a recent project involving over $50K to be spent converting a C program from one C compiler to another. It is even more true for C++, which is years away from any standard. Also please remember that all we're standardizing is "Forth programming systems," not the run-time nucleus. That can be as stripped as you need it to be. ----- 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) (12/24/90)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 3 Sun Dec 23, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 08:26 EST From the TC's Department of Mixed Messages: > ...the Forth police will *not* be knocking on your door in the > middle of the night to make sure you use ANS Forth. [Jack Woehr] > A standard is the only thing that has sufficient force that every > new and existing implementor cannot ignore it. [Mitch Bradley] Granted, these two statements are not incompatible. But I fear this indicates confusion on the part of TC members as to exactly what the ANSI Standard is supposed to accomplish. > If there were another effective forum for improving Forth, I would > gladly use it, in preference to all the difficulty, stress, and > expense of an ANS standard. I've heard this argument a lot, and I still don't buy it. First, there are counterexamples. Fig-Forth and Laxen & Perry's F83 (like it or not) both became de facto standards in their day, and many vended Forths have their roots in one or the other. Eaker's CASE statement has become widespread, as has ASCII. Such things _are_ possible. Second, in my experience no one has tried to construct a forum for improving Forth outside of a standards body. I believe that FORML was originally intended as such, but the two FORMLs that I have attended ('88 and '89) were not so directed. Theory A would have it that FORML tried and failed to be this forum. Theory B would have it that the advent of a Forth Standards Team killed any hope of a FORML-like forum for language improvement. There are doubtless other theories. Perhaps you can comment on the history here. > I have been publishing and promoting a "stdio-like" file system > interface for 7 years.... The result: every serious vendor now has > his own file system interface, and there is not a shred of > compatibility between them. Well, I only heard about your file system a year ago, and I promptly sent you $10 and you promptly sent me a copy. (And at FORML '89 I was one of the people frantically scribbling down the source code for CATCH and THROW.) So I must be an exception to the rule. Theory 1: your interface isn't as useful as you think it is. Theory 2 (my favorite): the vendors perceive the file interface as an area of "value-added differentiation," i.e., "you should spend X hundred bucks for MY Forth because of the file system interface." If a feature Z is one of the selling points for a particular vendor's Forth, you can bet he *won't* adopt someone else's. (This, of course, is a potential argument _for_ standardization.) >> Imagine what a world this would be if the screw base of the common >> light bulb was redesigned every four years. > The ANS situation ... is more like the addition of a third prong > to the US wall sockets. Actually, it's more like switching to European wall sockets. Your old plugs don't fit in the new sockets; you have to plug in an adapter. > It is silly that Forth programmers currently have to roll their own > file interfaces and string packages and error handling mechanisms > and memory allocators (or learn different ones for every different > Forth system). Agreed. We differ in means, Mitch, not in ends; I just don't think that imposing solutions by plutocracy is desirable or proper. - Brad "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself" -- M. K. Gandhi. ----- 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) (12/24/90)
Date: 12-18-90 (12:43) Number: 630 of 639 (Echo) To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 593 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: X3J14 GOALS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) Mitch Bradley writes: >I have been publishing a stdio-like file interface for seven years... >the result: all serious vendors have a file interface... This is a serious distortion of the facts. LMI, for example, has been selling file-system based Forths for much longer than this. Creative Solutions, Micromotion, and other progressive companies also saw the need for file-based Forth systems very early on and pursued this aggressively. NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- 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
jwoehr@isis.cs.du.edu (Jack J. Woehr) (12/24/90)
In article <2148.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 10, Topic 39 >Message 3 Sun Dec 23, 1990 >B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 08:26 EST > >From the TC's Department of Mixed Messages: > >> ...the Forth police will *not* be knocking on your door in the > > middle of the night to make sure you use ANS Forth. [Jack Woehr] > >> A standard is the only thing that has sufficient force that every > > new and existing implementor cannot ignore it. [Mitch Bradley] > >Granted, these two statements are not incompatible. But I fear this indicates >confusion on the part of TC members as to exactly what the ANSI Standard is >supposed to accomplish. Not at all ... what we are saying is that for damned sure ANS Forth is going to be *implemented* ... you just don't have to USE it (unless you want to make big money programming Forth :-) ). Once again ... ANS-Forth is the only reasonable compromise yet proposed whereby EVERYONE IN THE WORLD can write STANDARD, PORTABLE PROGRAMS which use a PORTABLE INTERFACE to HOST OPERATING SYSTEMS. If you don't need PORTABILITY, you won't have to use ANS-Forth. If you NEED PORTABILITY but DON'T LIKE ANS-FORTH ... well, just get your own team together of 25 core members who have about 400 years of Forth experience amongst them and convince them to expend about $40,000 each to support *your* standardisation effort. We've already spent the dough and the psychic energy ... now it's up to the Forth community to help us PUT THIS OVER THE TOP!!!!. Unless you want to throw away all that effort on quibbles. [This last not aimed at Brad, just an observation about what is at stake here. Let's get real, friends! The only ideological point worth preserving here is the ease and beauty of the Forth model, which I assert is indeed preserved in ANS Forth.] -- # ..!apple!dunike!nyx!koscej!jax # "Therefore, the L-RD G-d # # ..!hplabs!hp-lsd!oldcolo!jax # sent him FORTH ..." # # {apple,hplabs,pacbell,ucb}!well!jax # - Genesis 3:23 # # JAX on GEnie SYSOP RCFB 303-278-0364 # Member ANS Forth X3J14 TC #
wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (12/24/90)
> > If there were another effective forum for improving Forth, I would > > gladly use it, in preference to all the difficulty, stress, and > > expense of an ANS standard. > I've heard this argument a lot, and I still don't buy it. > First, there are counterexamples. Fig-Forth and Laxen & Perry's F83 (like it > or not) both became de facto standards in their day, and many vended Forths > have their roots in one or the other. Eaker's CASE statement has become > widespread, as has ASCII. Such things _are_ possible. Fig-Forth became a de-facto standard when there was no other alternative. It burst on the scene as the only Forth affordable to hobbyists. It was not compatible with the only commercially-available Forth at the time. That was a long time ago, and things are very different now. F83 has been very influential (indeed, my own systems are based on F83), but it didn't "get the community back together". By and large, vendors' systems which were not directly based on F83 did not adopt compatible forms of its "improvements". (In constructing counterarguments to this statement, please be careful to distinguish between features specified by the Forth-83 standard and those F83 extensions above and beyond the Forth-83 Standard.) Regarding Eaker's case statement, widespread is not the same as "you can count on having it". Also, Eaker's CASE was published 12 years ago, and ANS Forth has just now added it to the draft standard. If it takes the Forth community 5 or 10 more years to standardize basic language extensions like a file system interface and memory allocation and error handling and floating point and search order control, then I for one will be tempted to give up on the language. If everything goes well, ANS Forth will drag the Forth community kicking and screaming into the late '70's. The "improvements" that are being discussed is good old boring, take it for granted, gotta have it to do your job, 1978 software technology. Rocket science? Nope. Just old hat production technology. > Second, in my experience no one has tried to construct a forum for > improving Forth outside of a standards body. The "Forth Vendor's Group" proposed and published a floating point standard a few years ago. It helped; I adopted it, and I hope (but do not know) that the members of said group adopted it. The fact that it has not been mentioned recently does not speak highly of its effectiveness. > I believe that FORML was originally intended as such As I have already belabored, I originally believed that FORML was the appropriate forum. However, my frustrating experiences with attempts at file interface standardization led me to a firm conviction that FORML is not effective for the purposes of developing consensus. > > I have been ... promoting a "stdio-like" file system for 7 years. > I only heard about your file system a year ago, and I promptly [bought a > copy] It wouldn't have taken 6 years for you to find out about it if it were part of a published standard. A standard is the *only* forum that carries enough weight to accomplish a sufficient level of portable "improvement", IMHO (that's a lie; my opinion is not humble :-) > Agreed. We differ in means, Mitch, not in ends; I just don't think that > imposing solutions by plutocracy is desirable or proper. I guess I'm more interested in "effective". Having tried the other methods (publications and papers, and putting out a low-cost shareware Forth system embodying my ideas) and having consistently come up short, I was led to try the standards approach. I don't have a problem with the propriety of the standards approach; the committee is open to all, composed of diverse minds with good intentions, and operates under strict principles of fairness. I think it is quite proper. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Cheers, Mitch Bradley
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/30/90)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 7 Sat Dec 29, 1990 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 17:35 EST Pardon me if I reply out of sequence: > [from Mitch Bradley] > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I guess so. Perhaps if I had been involved in FORMLs and such at an earlier date, I would now be sufficiently jaded to want to use the ANSI crowbar. > ...the committee is open to all, composed of diverse minds with > good intentions, and operates under strict principles of fairness. Well, open to all who can justify the expense. Diverse? I've only been to one meeting, but the "minimalists" seem to have dropped out. We all know the old line about good intentions. And I'll concede strict principles, although, having firsthand experience of the TC's subtle double standard, I think the word "fairness" is being stretched beyond its elastic limit. > The "improvements" that are being discussed is good old boring... > 1978 software technology. Sure, but this is neither a defense nor a justification. Preemptive multitaskers using semaphores are boring pre-1978 technology, and certainly many Forth programmers (myself included) have found a need for such in their Forth projects. Does this mean this technology should be in ANS Forth? > [from Jack Woehr] ... well, just get your own team together of 25 > core members who have about 400 years of Forth experience amongst > them and convince them to expend about $40,000 each... *Sigh* Are we ever going to hear the end of this kind of argument? The "appeal to superior authority" doesn't cut it with me, any more than the "argument from altruism." Either the Standard stands on its own merit, or it doesn't. BTW -- and this is an aside, not directed at anyone on the TC -- someone once told me that there are two kinds of people with "ten years of experience." One kind has had ten years of experience. The other kind has had one year of experience, ten times. :-) - Brad ----- 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) (01/02/91)
Date: 12-30-90 (17:56) Number: 730 of 732 (Echo)
To: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [BRAD] Refer#: 724
From: JACK WOEHR Read: HAS REPLIES
Subj: X3J14 GOALS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> > [from Jack Woehr] ... well, just get your own team together of 25 >
-> > core members who have about 400 years of Forth experience amongst >
-> > them and convince them to expend about $40,000 each...
-> *Sigh* Are we ever going to hear the end of this kind of argument?
-> The "appeal to superior authority" doesn't cut it with me, any more
-> than the "argument from altruism." Either the Standard stands on its
-> own merit, or it doesn't.
Yes. I contend that it stands on its merit. I Forth for a living
and will have to implement it on my tiny single board computers and sell
it and eat or starve from it. I'm happy with the prospects, with a few
minor quibbles.
Brad, it isn't a question of "superior authority". It's a
question of "the work to be done has largely been done and PAID FOR,
and the carpers-against by and large are ready neither to re-do the work
nor pay for it again. Money, time, dedication and effort talk, bullshit
walks.
I'm just a "l'il guy", virtually an observer on the committee.
Nobody appointed me to come and vote, I just show up. I've made four
meetings, I'm on my way to LA in January. After that meeting I will be
personally out of pocket the total sum of about $3,000 for my
insignificant participation in this noble undertaking. My reward is that
in the field of mixed RAM/ROM sytems, certain wise motions have been
adopted and certain unwise motions have been defeated, which will make
my job easier as a designer of embedded control Forths. (I will bring
a largely-BASIS-compliant system to LA in January to prove my point.)
Honest Brad, this is not a star-chamber proceeding, it's almost
anarchic democracy. Everybody gets heard, even if we drag it out to the
wee hours. People jump up and down and shout and everything! It's quite
a spectacle. :-)
If we wanted to get picky, we actually COULD invoke superior
authority:
Bess Rather: ~20 years professional Forth experience.
Greg Bailey: ~15 years professional Forth experience.
Don Colburn: ~15 years professional Forth experience.
John Rible: ~15 years professional Forth experience.
John Hayes: ~12 years professional Forth experience.
... and on and on. Do I bore you?
Nothing personal, but NAME A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE
CURRENT PROCEDURE that actually will result in a(n) (Inter)National
Standard. After you realize that we are three years into this thing,
and that IT HAS TO WORK or Forth will be widely discredited
commercially, get busy and:
- LEARN THE BASIS. The ancient Hindu who invented chess
certainly could not have forseen all the implications of
the moves which he assigned to the various chesspieces.
Neither can the X3J14 TC forsee everything. Help us! Prove
cases where our constructs are flawed!
- ACCEPT THE BASIS as a document which can be improved but
will not be discarded and restarted afresh. Find the genuine
flaws and save the theology for your own private, non-standard
MyVeryOwnFORTH Revision 99.99.
- IMPROVE THE BASIS by rational comment that recognizes the
current BASIS as virtually dpANS with some amendment yet to
come.
- SUPPORT THE BASIS by positive-spirited commentary rather than
opposition on political grounds.
BASIS14 IS IMPLEMENTABLE ON MY TINY FORTH SINGLE BOARDS. IT IS
IMPLEMENTABLE ON UNIX SUPERMINIS. PROGRAMS WILL BE PORTABLE BETWEEN THE
TWO.
*Sheesh* what more could you ask for from a *S*T*A*N*D*A*R*D*.
=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) (01/02/91)
Date: 12-30-90 (18:13) Number: 731 of 732 (Echo)
To: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [BRAD] Refer#: 2438
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: X3J14 GOALS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
Brad ... as for your question as to whether these people had
"ten years experience or one year's experience ten times, let me expand
upon my previous posting:
->
-> Bess Rather: ~20 years professional Forth experience.
President, FORTH Inc. Forth systems for virtually every microprocessor
have been developed during her tenure.
-> Greg Bailey: ~15 years professional Forth experience.
Greg FORTHs mainframes. Big ones, for some serious commercial customers.
He's on call virtually 24 hours a day for his corporate customers.
-> Don Colburn: ~15 years professional Forth experience.
Pioneer of HP Forthing. Pioneer of MAC Forthing. First mouth to put
money on the prospect of developing the NOVIX NC4000, his own money.
-> John Rible: ~15 years professional Forth experience.
A principal mover behind the NOVIX NC4000 and possessor of one of the
most accurate and detail-oriented minds on the committee. If there is
a short list of indispensible TC members, John is in the top 3.
-> John Hayes: ~12 years professional Forth experience.
John sends one-of-a-kind satellites into orbit for NASA programmed in
Forth on custom Forth microprocessors. Not exactly something one learns
by rote to repeat offhandedly. John is among the sharpest algorithmists
in the Forth community.
Like I said, this is a short list. Mitch Bradley has over a
hundred thousand Forth systems in circulation. Andy Kobziar maintains a
prestigious and huge commercial Forth accounting system. Larry Forsley
holds a prestigious international Forth conference every year (even if
his magazine *does* come late! :-) ), this year in Leningrad. Etc., etc
...
These core people are not bozos, not Caligulas, not usurpers.
They are a stellar cross-section of the best the Forth community has to
offer in the way of working Forthers who desire a workable Standard for
Forth which will lend credence and respectability to managers planning a
Forth project and provide confidence for the programmers entrusted with
the execution of same.
=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!dwpa684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) (01/12/91)
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]) writes: > I learned a different view in engineering school -- if it's WRONG you DISCARD > IT, never mind how much time and money you've wasted on it! I agree with that, but even if in your opinion the present ANS effort is wrong, will Forth be better off with no standard at all? > I've been to one meeting, and yes, everybody gets heard. Does everybody get > listened to? I was also at one meeting. I felt that everyone did get listened to. Just because everyone didn't agree with your arguments doesn't mean that you weren't listened to. It could be that your argument wasn't strong enough to change the minds of enough (any) members. It could also be that their argument wasn't strong enough to change your mind. Who is right and who is wrong--or are you both right and/or wrong? :-) If you feel very strongly about changing some part of the standard, dig up enough proof to support your argument, write it out in a clear, concise manner, then present it. If it's the "right" way, it should pass. Failing that, gather up enough supporters (to two consecutive conferences) to outnumber the members who are opposed to your viewpoint. :) I disagree with some of the decisions of the committee, but I still support the overall effort.
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/12/91)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 12 Thu Jan 10, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 07:33 EST *Sigh.* I rest my case -- I complain about the endless parading of credentials, and I get resumes for half the TC. > It's a question of "the work to be done has largely been done and > PAID FOR, and the carpers-against by and large are ready neither to > re-do the work nor pay for it again.... First, this is a self-serving argument which can be used to justify never backing down from any position. The Defense Dept. uses the same line to justify tremendous boondoggles -- "but we've put so much into this already, we can't throw it away!" I learned a different view in engineering school -- if it's WRONG you DISCARD IT, never mind how much time and money you've wasted on it! (More succinctly stated as "never throw good money after bad".) Second, the carpers-against by and large have been doing and paying for their share of the work all along. I, for one, have been contributing since BASIS6. There are many others who have "burned out" in the process. If this is a contest of endurance or attrition, I guess we don't have the "dedication" required. I've been to one meeting, and yes, everybody gets heard. Does everybody get listened to? LEARN THE BASIS - yes. ACCEPT THE BASIS - not without question! If it's wrong, it's wrong. IMPROVE THE BASIS - we're trying, but becoming disillusioned. SUPPORT THE BASIS - only if it deserves it. The "political" arguments I've been hearing have been of the form of Let's All Get Behind The BASIS and Present A United Front To The World and Show The Unaninimity Of The Forth Community and blah. Any time now I expect to be labelled "counterrevolutionary" and purged. > what more could you ask for from a *S*T*A*N*D*A*R*D*. I don't ask for more, I ask for less. - Brad ----- 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) (01/14/91)
Date: 01-11-91 (14:24) Number: 846 of 846 (Echo)
To: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [BRAD] Refer#: 831
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: X3J14 GOALS ... PURGED! Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> *Sigh.* I rest my case -- I complain about the endless parading of
-> credentials, and I get resumes for half the TC.
Poor fellah! Only a sampling of the best Forth programmers
in the world to help formulate the BASIS! What a rip-off :-)
-> > It's a question of "the work to be done has largely been done and >
-> PAID FOR, and the carpers-against by and large are ready neither to >
-> re-do the work nor pay for it again....
But true, isn't it? Who is willing to shell out to pay for
this effort twice?
-> First, this is a self-serving argument which can be used to justify
-> never backing down from any position. The Defense Dept. uses the
-> same line to justify tremendous boondoggles -- "but we've put so much
-> into this already, we can't throw it away!" I learned a different
-> view in engineering school -- if it's WRONG you DISCARD IT, never
-> mind how much time and money you've wasted on it! (More succinctly
-> stated as "never throw good money after bad".)
But it *isn't* wrong Brad. And there is no Pope of Forth.
Nobody even listens to Chuck anymore if they don't wanna! So you
are free to formulate your own standard. Go ahead, name your team.
-> Second, the carpers-against by and large have been doing and paying
-> for their share of the work all along. I, for one, have been
-> contributing since BASIS6. There are many others who have "burned
-> out" in the process. If this is a contest of endurance or attrition,
-> I guess we don't have the "dedication" required.
I think that is exactly it. All of us feel cheated when
something we want leaves the BASIS or some Rube Goldberg machine
gets inserted. What I see is that the BASIS is a very good compromise.
->
-> I've been to one meeting, and yes, everybody gets heard. Does
-> everybody get listened to?
Yes ... and occasionally laughed at :-) Look, you were
there. You *know* we vote on everything AND THE DROPPERS-IN HAVE
AN EQUAL VOTE.
-> LEARN THE BASIS - yes.
Have you seen BASIS14? It's very good. With two changes, I'd
accept the CORE and CORE EXT verbatim.
-> ACCEPT THE BASIS - not without question! If it's wrong, it's wrong.
Mostly, now, it's not wrong. Read BASIS14.
-> IMPROVE THE BASIS - we're trying, but becoming disillusioned.
Good. Shed your illusions. This is a practical, not an imaginary
task.
-> SUPPORT THE BASIS - only if it deserves it.
jaxthinx it does.
-> The "political" arguments I've been hearing have been of the form of
-> Let's All Get Behind The BASIS and Present A United Front To The
-> World and Show The Unaninimity Of The Forth Community and blah. Any
-> time now I expect to be labelled "counterrevolutionary" and purged.
Kumrad Rodriguez, report to Ziberia for re-education!!!!
->
-> > what more could you ask for from a *S*T*A*N*D*A*R*D*.
->
-> I don't ask for more, I ask for less.
->
Look, Brad, I converted my 83-STANDARD 80196 Single Board
Computer Forth to comply with the CORE and CORE EXT in eight hours
work. The whole system, including Assembler, Debugger, Decompiler,
etc. etc. etc. fits in 32K of EPROM on the Vesta SBC196. It's
small enough for Vesta ROM Forth, yet big enough (if you support
for instance the File extensions) to make it to a Mainframe with
PPPOOORRRTTTAAABBBIIILLLIIITTTYY Portability. Chant with me, my
son:
Portable Micro,
Portable Mainframe,
Micro Mainframe,
Portable Portable.
Hairless Forth Code
Hairless Source Code
Portable Portable,
Portable Portable.
Now you are reaching ANS-lightenment!
=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) (01/20/91)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 16 Fri Jan 18, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:08 EST I'm beginning to wonder how much of this material I should save up for my upcoming RTC....but I should keep the discussion flowing: a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes: > I was also at one meeting.... Just because everyone didn't agree > with your arguments doesn't mean that you weren't listened to. Much of what didn't get listened to were proposals from others which I hand- carried to Detroit, but which I couldn't argue for. Comments of the type "oh, another proposal from so-and-so" (spoken with disdain), or "we don't need to raise this again" (before reading the arguments) do not encourage me. My one shame from the Detroit meeting is that I tacitly allowed this treatment of these proposals to proceed. I am deeply ashamed that I did not protest this at the time -- I feel I have done a disservice to my fellow Ontario Forthers, who went to a lot of trouble to send those proposals with me. As for my own proposals, on at least two occasions an attempt was made to kill a proposal without any consideration at all, based on matters of form or legalistic technicalities. This seems to be an acceptable "tactic" during TC deliberations. To give credit where credit is due, a few TC members protested this action, and my proposals were heard. But it frightens me to contemplate what takes place when I (and other submitters) aren't there to watch. It's a moot question whether anyone agrees with the arguments, when the TC evades listening to the arguments. > If you feel very strongly about changing some part of the standard, > dig up enough proof to support your argument... One of my major discoveries from attending a TC meeting is that there are NO objective standards of "proof." The BASIS is totally, 100%, SUBJECTIVE, a reflection of the likes and dislikes of the TC members. How can I "prove" to you (or anyone) that liver tastes good and tomatoes taste bad? - Brad ----- 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 (09:44) Number: 878 of 891 (Echo)
To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 856
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: CHARGE OF 79-BRIGADE Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> To the jaws of ANSI,
-> Into the mouth of hell
Well, it's not quite *that* bad --- have you read BASIS14?
More like "into the mouth of heck".
=jax=
NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
<<<>>>
note: this is _really_ a reply to D. Petty.
-----
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) (01/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 26 Sat Jan 26, 1991 L.ZETTEL at 19:25 EST JAX, you know better, so watch the sloppy language that can give a false impression, please? True there are are committee votes that are 12-10 or some other close number. When there is a vote like that, NOTHING HAPPENS except that the issue goes back to the technical subcommittee for another round of debate and modification. It gets past the TC (and BASIS is changed) ONLY when the margin is overwhelming. That's why this is taking so long! ----- 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) (01/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 27 Sun Jan 27, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 15:00 EST from Mitch Bradley: > ...you don't throw useful things away unless you have or can afford > a replacement. You've got that backwards, Mitch: I'm talking about throwing the _replacement_ away. And besides, I don't object to most of the BASIS. I've cheerfully accepted things which I never use, but which I'm convinced are common practice -- and I let others argue those issues. And you and John Hayes have changed my mind on a few issues, by thorough and patient reasoning (which earns the two of you my highest respect). No, I just want to "throw away" certain parts of the BASIS -- and even those I only want to postpone until an adequate evaluation has taken place. Let's scrap the blemishes in an otherwise reasonably-good thing. from David Petty: > I agree that it is difficult (impossible?) to come up with such a > ``list of criteria.'' I have never been able to come up with one > that I feel is absolutely correct. I think we have confusion here between "necessary" and "sufficient" criteria. I agree with you in that I could not come up with a set of "sufficient" criteria that exactly delineated which proposals got into the standard. But I maintain that it IS possible to come up with a set of "necessary" conditions, i.e., minimum requirements which all proposals must meet. As I have noted elsewhere, the TC rejects even this. The one and only criterion recognized by the TC is "do I like it", applied iteratively across the members who are present. From Nick Janow: > ...you can tell me if it's a bad analogy. Tell me, which came first: high-performance alloys, or the standards to describe them? From Daniel Sorbal: > You cannot say that a feature is not standard because it isn't used > by most part of the Forth community. Are you kidding? What does "standard" mean to you? And, finally, from Jack Woehr: > Like democracy, it pleases no one and satisfies, in the long run, > everyone. "Democracy is simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." - Oscar Wilde. - Brad ----- 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
esj@harvee.UUCP (Eric S Johansson) (01/29/91)
In article <2288.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us > [ edited to salient point ] > > From Daniel Sorbal: > > You cannot say that a feature is not standard because it isn't used > > by most part of the Forth community. > > Are you kidding? What does "standard" mean to you? > ( I think this attitude is what irks me most about the "forth" community. I don't mean to pick on you Brad, I guess you just got to be the lucky one. I am not sure this is clear 'cause it is late and I am tired. I will try to clear up any confusion in my arguments in future posts. Thanks for your understanding. ) In this context I figure Daniel's definition of standard is based on expectations of the user. For example, I consider a keyboard where the caps lock key is next to the 'a' key a non-standard keyboard. I know that 99.999% of all PC keyboards are non-standard by that definition but in this case the definition of standard is set my my *expection*. Likewise in the rest of the computer field (as well as the "REAL WORLD" tm). When people buy a C/C++ compiler they *expect* a minimum set of language features and routines in the run-time library as "standard". These expections carry over into other languages, environments, or situations. I guess I am trying to say is that we should not judge an ANSI forth addition with the eyes of forth hackers but with the eyes ( amd nore specificly their expectations) of a non forth user/consumer. Look at forth with the eyes of a manager who is going to commit $500,000+ dollars ( 4 programmers for 1 year ) and has to answer to their boss for every delay and dollar. This manager (and tums consumer) has expectations about what a programming environment will do to/for their project. Forth will not meet those expectations if this manager is accustomed to a C/Pascal/C++ type environment. Look at forth with the eyes of a technojunkie who is well versed in the theory and practice of programming environments. how well does forth compare to the rest of the programming world? Non-forth consumers judge forth harshly. Forth is not hanging on to design wins. This past summer I learned that the laser fusion lab in rochester is dumping forth. This week I helped a contractor who sought my advice in converting a game written in forth to C. In cases where I encountered forth being dumped, the reasons were based on forth failing to meet expectations. But in most cases the failed expectations were expressed as forth falling short in the area of "standard capabilities". Not meeting "standard capabilities" was usually expressed as an inability to use forth with pre-existing tools (favorite editor, debugger, and/or profiler) or libraries (comm, GUI, and file i/o) As long as forth continues to lack "standard capabilities", I believe it will continue to loose when compared to langages like C. I don't for one minute expect that forth has to become C to keep old customers and win new ones but I do expect forth to provide *similar* capabilities to that found in C and its run-time environs. > And, finally, from Jack Woehr: > > Like democracy, it pleases no one and satisfies, in the long run, > > everyone. > > "Democracy is simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, > for the people." - Oscar Wilde. > hmmmm. >klunk<! I figure that "standard" is a code word people use when things don't got their own way, they don't get what they want, or they want to put an idea down. > - Brad > ----- --- eric ( the sleepy poster ) -- ... ^^^ eric johansson UUCP ...!uunet!wang!harvee!esj esj@harvee.uucp * * a juggling fool AT&T (617) 577-4068 (w) o HAM ka1eec \_/ CSNET johansson%hydra@polaroid.com or hydra!johansson@polaroid.com source of the public's fear of the unknown since 1956
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/30/91)
Date: 01-27-91 (17:05) Number: 1000 of 1000 (Echo)
To: L.ZETTEL Refer#: 980
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: AU CONTRAIRE, CHER LEN! Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> JAX, you know better, so watch the sloppy language that can give a
-> false impression, please? True there are are committee votes that
-> are 12-10 or some other close number. When there is a vote like
-> that, NOTHING HAPPENS except that the issue goes back to the
-> technical subcommittee for another round of debate and modification.
-> It gets past the TC (and BASIS is changed) ONLY when the margin is
-> overwhelming. That's why this is taking so long!
Well, you know that after it's clear which way the wind is
blowing we all tend to "submit to party discipline" and vote in a way
that assures that *some* action will be taken at a meeting! If we voted
our feelings consistently, ALL votes would be 11-11!!!
=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) (02/04/91)
Date: 02-03-91 (00:07) Number: 1027 of 1027 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: JACK WOEHR Read: (N/A)
Subj: DPANS BALLOT Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
In its last action before ajournment, X3J14 voted a letter
ballot of technical committee members on whether BASIS15 should become
dpANS.
More details to follow.
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) (02/27/91)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 33 Mon Feb 25, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:14 EST Re: Doug Philips From: Elizabeth Rather, Chair X3J14 > The difficulty here is that those of us that have not participated > have no way of knowing which issues have been beat to death (or > at this point which ones haven't) and what the arguments pro/con > were. The best way is to discuss your issue with any TC member. Our names are published at the front of BASIS. If you then wish to submit a proposal or comment, you'll be well prepared to do it effectively. > I wonder how different the standard would be if transcripts of all > the meetings were made and required to be available? I doubt it would be any different. I also wonder how many people would read a transcript of even one 40 hour meeting, even if someone were masochistic enough to transcribe it? Instead, we're trying to write rationales for most controversial items. ----- 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
dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) (03/01/91)
In article <2426.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, D.RUFFER [Dennis] for Elizabeth Rather, Chair X3J14 writes: > > I wonder how different the standard would be if transcripts of all > > the meetings were made and required to be available? > >I doubt it would be any different. I also wonder how many people would read a >transcript of even one 40 hour meeting, even if someone were masochistic >enough to transcribe it? Instead, we're trying to write rationales for most >controversial items. Indeed. My point was, albeit obscure, that I suspect the TC discussions would go differently if the participants knew there would/could be outside knowledge of what they were doing. The rationale misses all of the political elements. Now for recordings! 1/2 :-) -Doug --- Preferred: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us Ok: {pitt,sei,uunet}!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 39
Message 59 Fri Apr 26, 1991
JAX at 21:25 PDT
JAX4TH, a BASIS-compliant Forth for the Amiga is up and running. I am
currently revising it in order to
a) complete (ha-ha) the debug cycle;
b) implement more features;
c) verify total compliance with the current BASIS.
After this cycle is done, hopefully by mid-summer, I will release JAX4TH
binaries to all ForthNet BBSes for the amusement of Amiga and Forth fans.
In light of the above, and in light of the verbal warfare currently taking
place on the 'net and elsewhere in re: X3J14, I would like to make a few
observations about BASIS 15, which is poised to become dpANS.
1> BASIS 15 works.
BASIS 15 by and large represents a well-factored, *easy-to-implement*,
powerful and extremely transportable Forth. It is transportable to a degree
never seen before in the Forth community, from mainframes to microcontrollers,
largely due to two concepts:
- Data space is separated from dictionary space;
- Formal word definitions are divorced from architectural
dependency as much as was possible within the consensus
of the participants in the process.
Transportable mechanisms have been established for:
- file i/o
- host memory allocation
- floating point
and many other compatability bugaboos that have plagued Forth programmers and
Forth systems throughout the history of Forth.
2> BASIS 15 is a valid development for Forth.
Some complain that BASIS 15 does not represent their view of Forth. Well, that
is why the Forth community has had to live with the joke, "If you have seen
one Forth, you have seen ... one Forth" for years. BASIS 15 is the logical
outgrowth of the demand for transportable Forth programs.
There are complaints that Forth is not Forth-83, 79-STANDARD, FIG, what have
you. Of course it is not. Don't be ridiculous. If this is a major problem for
anyone, they should go crawl into a cave with a battery-powered laptop and
program in 16 bits until the next ice age.
3> BASIS 15 is pretty much what you get.
If anything is horribly wrong in BASIS 15 I have yet to find it. Furthermore,
the X3J14 team is very exhausted. We have labored mightily and are on the
verge of "giving birth" to a new era in Forth. Certain members of the
community are gathered outside the birthing room casting aspersions on the
legitimacy of the child to be born.
- Bob Berkey has called our proceedings "fraudulent" in a wild ForthNet
posting encouraging people to write to Congress and to write to the President
of the United States to have the Justice Department investigate. I leave it as
an exercise for the reader to judge the validity of such rhetorical excess.
- John Wavrik has suggested we wait a while and let everyone have a chance to
absorb all these new concepts. John is a university professor and can afford
to sit and think: he's paid for it! :-) Let the reader remember that ANS Forth
is actually Forth-87 and is long overdue. Working Forth programmers need this
powerful new standard!
- I have heard prominent members of the Forth community suggest that the
entire proceeding was entirely to FORTH, Inc.'s benefit to the detriment of
the interests of the rest of the community. This is ridiculous and borders on
idiocy. BASIS 15 "spiritually" resembles 83-STANDARD as used under MSDOS, in
the embedded control field, and most particularly, it resembles 83-STANDARD as
"stretched" for UNIX, AmigaDOS and MacFinder, much more than it resembles
polyFORTH.
It is in the interest of every serious Forther to bring these proceedings to
the state of a "terminating computation". Fix what is wrong with the BASIS and
learn to live like adults with workable compromises.
Enough horsefeathers, already. The enemy ain't X3J14. The enemy is the
ingrained tendency of the Forth programmer to take his/her ball and bat and go
home.
"The time to hesitate is through ..." - Jim Morrison
IMPLEMENT AND DEBUG OR SHUT UP AND MOVE OVER!
-----
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) (04/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 39
Message 60 Sat Apr 27, 1991
GARY-S at 06:39 EDT
Jax -
There is a time and place for everything. When ANSForth is in its
embryonic state _is_ the right time. That is why it is titled
draft proposed, not draft accepted.
In written form before the Technical Committee is the legitimate
place, but here before our peers in the electronic cottage you
yourself have boisterously championed is also a legitimate place
for opposing views.
That is precisely why Brad Rodriguez is the May 16 GEnie conference
guest. The loyal opposition also has a messsage, and I happen to
disagree with your attempts to shout them down with your 'IMPLIMENT
OR SHUTUP' decree.
Once all arguments have been heard and a final draft has been
finalized, then it is time to get on with our respective knitting.
This is not that time. This _IS_ the time and this _IS_ the place
to reflect on and discuss the merits of dpANSForth. dp, Jax.
Gary
__ _ Gary Smith * ... uunet!ddi1!lrark!glsrk!gars *
/ _' _ _ (_' P. O. Drawer 7680 * GEnie Forth RT & Unix RT SysOp *
/__/ (_|_/ '._) Little Rock,AR 72217 * voice phone : 501-227-7817 *
--------------- - U. S. A. - * group 3 fax : 501-228-9374 *
-----
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) (04/29/91)
Category 10, Topic 39 Message 61 Sun Apr 28, 1991 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 00:29 CDT GS>The loyal opposition also has a messsage, and I happen to disagree with GS>your attempts to shout them down with your 'IMPLIMENT OR SHUTUP' GS>decree. Gary, I'm shocked to see you express such a strong opinion! I agree with you. I might even go farther and suggest that dissent is never out of order, and that criticisms of the final ANS Forth standard (if there ever is such a thing) should still be welcome. We have recently seen several postings from members of X3J14 that suggest to me that the strain of their work is adversely affecting their good humor, and perhaps their judgement as well. I can understand how they must feel after putting so much work, money, time, and argument into the project. How dare anyone criticize them! After investing all that how can they stay impartial? I'm more impressed by Mitch's calm reasoning and some of JAX's former calm reasoning (where he basically said Why ANSI? For the money!) than by the recent use of "Shut up!" as an argument. I haven't been "attacking the standard" lately for several reasons. One is that I figure no matter who is on the committee, no matter what they decide, the result will not completely suit me. Two is that whatever they decide it can't hurt me much. Three is that JAX is probably right that, regardless of the technical quality or lack, there might be occasions to wave the magic ANSI wand to bless a bid. Four is that if Jim Rash votes for it the result can't be all bad. Fifth is that I feel sure there is no way my absolute preferred outcome can happen: the committee agree not to have a standard at all. So, I look at it all sort of like the tide or gravity -- no point in wasting any energy regretting it. Some one posted a complaint about the standards controversy and wondered if this meant he should develop in another language. He should keep all this controversy in perspective. Even when JAX uses "shut up!" as an argument he is still posting very helpful and polite answers to technical questions that beginners etc post. A religious war over which end of the egg to open, but then unfailing assistance to anyone asking for help. ----- 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) (05/04/91)
Date: 01-04-80 (15:08) Number: 2063 of 2065 (Echo)
To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 2055
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: X3J14 GOALS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> Once all arguments have been heard and a final draft has been
-> finalized, then it is time to get on with our respective knitting.
-> This is not that time. This _IS_ the time and this _IS_ the place to
-> reflect on and discuss the merits of dpANSForth. dp, Jax.
Yes, but the METHOD of doing so should be to implement it
and see how it works. Some of the anti-dpANS carping I have heard
is worthy of Zippy the Pinhead. Are we serving standards in another
solar system? Are we having ANS yet? YOW!
=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) (05/04/91)
Date: 01-04-80 (15:10) Number: 2064 of 2065 (Echo)
To: FRANK SERGEANT Refer#: 2056
From: JACK WOEHR Read: NO
Subj: X3J14 GOALS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> impartial? I'm more impressed by Mitch's calm reasoning and some of
-> JAX's former calm reasoning (where he basically said Why ANSI? For
-> the money!) than by the recent use of "Shut up!" as an argument.
The quote was not "Shut up!" but rather the slogan:
IMPLEMENT and DEBUG or SHUT UP and MOVE OVER
... which at this point, considering the time, money and
psychic energy that has been expended on ANS Forth, should be
the "people's slogan" :-)
=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!dwp