jax@well.sf.ca.us (Jack J. Woehr) (06/27/90)
>wil baden, linguist, author, and creator of F83X/S for the Apple >and the PC, writes: >What if they made a standard and nobody cared? Wil, that's a pretty good description of the Forth community in general in regards the process. But there are several hundred very active participants that do care. >The purpose of a standards committee is to standardize, not invent. Creative >impulses should only be used to resolve existing conflicts. Only something >that already exists can be standardized. That seems to make sense, but then again, so does representative democracy, at least on paper ... :-) >Forth doesn't have to become a new and different language every time Forth >programmers get together. The available empirical evidence does not support your contention, I fear. >If ANS Forth is a new language, should anyone bother with it? Yes, if it convinces the boneheads who make up the other 97% of computer science that Forth is now a *real* language with this ANSI seal of Good Housekeeping. Haven't you ever heard of marketing? :-) <jax@well.{UUCP,sf.ca.us} >< Member, > /// ///\\\ \\\ /// <well!jax@lll-winken.arpa >< X3J14 TC > /// /// \\\ \\\/// <JAX on GENIE >< for ANS > \\\ /// ///====\\\ ///\\\ <SYSOP RCFB (303) 278-0364>< Forth > \\\/// /// \\\ /// \\\
ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (06/29/90)
Category 10, Topic 38 Message 2 Thu Jun 28, 1990 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 02:02 CDT WB>The purpose of a standards committee is to standardize, not invent. WB>Creative impulses should only be used to resolve existing WB>conflicts. I'm afraid they can use "to resolve existing conflicts" to justify anything. I think it has already been used to excuse INVERT and dropping VOCABULARY and adding the funny new division words and adding CATCH & THROW, etc. -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu
ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) (07/04/90)
Jack Woehr writes: | >If ANS Forth is a new language, should anyone bother with it? | Yes, if it convinces the boneheads who make up the other 97% | of computer science that Forth is now a *real* language with this | ANSI seal of Good Housekeeping. Haven't you ever heard of marketing? :-) ANSI does not approve or disapprove of languages. It primarily publishes Standards documents. It also establishes procedures which attempt to assure that the document it publishes is the definitive version of the language. ANSI does not approve languages, it merely makes available the instrument others need to make that judgement. An ANSI Standard is not a diploma --it is much more like a final exam. Some languages go through a development pattern from infancy through the terrible teens to maturity. An ANSI Standard serves to define a mature language to achieve portability. It also has the side effect of announcing to the world that the language is now grown up and has arrived at a stable state. An ANSI Standard will not buy respectability -- but it will buy scrutiny. Many of the people that Mr. Woehr refers to as "boneheads" are people who make their living studying, developing, and using computer languages. He is correct in identifying their opinion as important in "marketing" a language. Forth made an impression in the "bonehead" community about 10 years ago when it appeared on the scene as one of the most portable languages in existence -- and proved itself capable of exploiting the characteristics of the (then) newly available small microcomputers. My impression is that Forth was not rejected by the "boneheads", but that it appeared to be an infant prodigy: something that would require a great deal of nurture and development if it were to live up to its potential. The bonehead community's immediate needs were for a language more fully developed and highly supported than Forth was at the time. I suspect that there are not a few "boneheads" who learned Forth 10 years ago and have always wondered "What ever became of Forth?" -- they'll probably be curious enough to acquire the ANSI document to find out (and share their impression with others). Some, for a modest consultant fee, will even share their impressions with industry clients -- now that an official definition of the language is at hand. My customers need evidence that Forth has finally become portable and powerful without losing the simplicity and flexibility that makes it uniquely suited for certain types of work. I suspect that a generic statement is that industry clients are looking for evidence that the language to be used on their job is portable, stable, and respected. A good strong ANSI Standard could go a long way toward providing the evidence. BUT It is dangerous to believe that an ANSI-Standard, *regardless of content*, will win approval. It is safer to assume that the ANSI document will be read, as a definition of the language, by people who know a great deal about computers, computer languages, mathematics, etc. and could cause a definitive rejection of the language just as well as tentative acceptance. John J Wavrik jjwavrik@ucsd.edu Dept of Math C-012 Univ of Calif - San Diego "We will release no Standard La Jolla, CA 92093 before its time" --Charles "Chuck" Taylor
a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) (07/04/90)
An ANSI approved standard also means that there are enough people serious enough about a language to go to all the time, trouble and expense of developing it. Now is the time for a push on marketing. If the various computer and programming publications were flooded (minor flood?) with articles praising FORTH, showing how well it handles problems, how it reduces programming time, how the new ANSI standard ensures portability (use creative exaggeration (-: ), etc, FORTH could gain a lot of new users. Positive reinforcement would come into effect: the more articles written, the more interest there is in FORTH, and therefore more people writing. It worked for C. Now is also a good time to add to bookstore "shelf-inches" for FORTH. There's certainly going to be at least one book (ANSI Standard FORTH); adding a few more titles soon after might give the impression, "Hey, there's something happening with this language. Maybe I should take a look." The ANSI standard is a great opportunity for renewing interest in FORTH; it would be sad to see it wasted. :(
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 38 Message 10 Sun Jan 27, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 14:59 EST From Phil Koopman: > Those who don't make an effort to actually use the new (proposed) > standard for real work will not have earned the right to complain > when the final version is issued. By the same reasoning, those who haven't tried cocaine have no right to condemn it. :-) Speaking as a user, I'm not about to migrate all of my existing, in- progress, and about-to-be-written code to a new "standard" until I'm convinced that the standard is stable. Even then, I'm more inclined to let attrition do the work (I've still got some fig-Forth code around here). Sure, I'll try out a sample implementation of the dpANS, but I won't be doing "real work" with it (even if someone DID bring out a sample dpANS for the Super8). - 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) (01/28/91)
Category 10, Topic 38 Message 11 Sun Jan 27, 1991 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 15:04 CST Phil Koopman writes: >Presumably, there will be enough time for this process to happen (a >few months). Those who don't make an effort to actually use they new >(proposed) standard for real work will not have earned the right to >complain when the final version is issued. I'd just like to state my objection to the above and announce that I will not be bound by it. I do not think the "right to complain" needs to be "earned." I believe it inheres in each human being. In fact, if we use the guideline of 'existing practice', anyone has the right to complain about anything he wishes. Naturally, others retain the right to *say* someone else has no right to complain, as that, in essence, is just another complaint. You can even tell clients "test this program before you put it into production or don't complain to me about it not working right!" and it doesn't do any good. If a bug appears while it's in production, they'll complain whether they tested as they "should have" or not. -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/11/91)
Date: 02-06-91 (17:50) Number: 1034 of 1069 (Echo) To: JACK WOEHR Refer#: 1031 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: WHAT SHOULD THE STANDARD Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) >Ray... you should take another look at BASIS and think long and >hard about lending your name to pushing this thing thru... In the first place, I doubt if my name would cut any ice with the FORML types who seem to be driving the X3J14 process these days. In the second place, the BASIS will have to stand or fall on its own merits. 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