cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (06/13/90)
In light of standardizing FORTH and the goal of popularizing its use: How come I feel FORTH is an implementation Language that will mainly be used by end users using some developers application extensions? Do we have a system that is truly like jelly and that only takes shape and hardens "around" an application? Are the majority of the "successful" applications going to be so braod based and useful that only FORTH can be used to get there (like POSTSCRIPT & NEWS) in good time? Perhaps I feel this way because this has been my experience. I ask all these questions because I think they are relevant and haven't seen them addressed anywhere. While posting I'll water the plants: Good job so far on the standard. Arbitration to give all type the basis for what they want and need is indeed the job of a standard team. Plaugher writing about C's standard had a very simular experiece. ( Computer Language V7N3 ) I may use other FORTHS but the standard will bear fruit, not from this watering but from it's very existance. Back to the pondering: What conclusions can be drawn from the "proprietary advantage" that makes FORTH invisible and it's extensions major players? - Will we see a whole system and it's OS succeed in FORTH? Where mortals may still use BASIC or ABC or even Visual Code Generator and we get good OS/TOOLS jobs in abundance? - Will FORTH be the glue used to hold future PC's together like it does for SUN workstations? ( S-Bus/ NEWS / Device Drivers / Bringup Testing ) - Will this standard have any relevance to multiple FORTHS nesting "remote calls" to other FORTH coprocessors? - With POSTSCRIPT Code generators the NORM could a Kithchen sink EXTENSION on 16/32 bit system be the target of commercial FORTH + Extension Code Generators? ENQ minds want to know YOUR opinion!