UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET (01/28/91)
'Forth can't be a standard language as it is not used by most part of the "computers" community.' I don't think this way, and this is why I said that: > > 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? Forth, today, is a "niche language". It can be standard in this niche, and, if this happen, it would be a "standard language". I think that something standard is something that is used in the "same way" by all the people that use this thing. If you complain about wether this features, that are not used by most part of the Forth community, should be put in the ANS Forth, then you are right. The counter-argments for this was already posted. Surely, there is no need for everything, but we are REALLY not putting everything. In first place, we are not putting things (please, forget CASE) that can be implemented with dpANS Forth already existing words. > - Brad (8-DCS) Daniel C. Sobral UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET
ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) (01/30/91)
In article <9101282232.AA20011@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> UNBCIC%BRFAPESP.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes: > >I think that something standard is something that is used in the "same way" by >all the people that use this thing. > >Daniel C. Sobral >UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET A better term for the above would be "conventional." Anything that is used in "the same way" by all people by agreement is used in "a conventional manner" or "by convention." A "standard" implies much more than this. If you build a house, and the electrical wiring does not meet the standard code of wiring practice, the installer can be jailed, or at the very least have his license to practice revoked. We do we Forthers want our standard to be placed in this interval? Nicholas Solntseff
jerry@TALOS.UUCP (Jerry Gitomer) (01/30/91)
ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) writes: :Sender:ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca :In article <9101282232.AA20011@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU: UNBCIC%BRFAPESP.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes: ds> ds>I think that something standard is something that is used in the "same way" by ds>all the people that use this thing. ds> ds>Daniel C. Sobral ns>A better term for the above would be "conventional." Anything that is used ns>in "the same way" by all people by agreement is used in "a conventional ns>manner" or "by convention." ns>A "standard" implies much more than this. If you build a house, and the ns>electrical wiring does not meet the standard code of wiring practice, the ns>installer can be jailed, or at the very least have his license to practice ns>revoked. ns>We do we Forthers want our standard to be placed in this interval? ns>Nicholas Solntseff From a technical point of view there are two types of standards; defacto and dejure. A defacto standard is one based on usage by either the world as a whole or an 800-pound gorilla (in the computer industry we call the gorilla IBM). A dejure standard is one based on law such as any standard approved by the International Standards Organization (ISO) or, in the United States, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (Yes, an ANSI or ISO standard has legal as well as technical status.) From a pragmatic point of view, if a dejure standard exists any product which claims to be that which the standard defines must conform to the standard. -- Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself. Ma Bell (703)683-9090 (UUCP: ...{uupsi,vrdxhq}!pbs!npri6!jerry