Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #4499

Re: Interesting article

Show all headers | View raw

Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:
>On Jul 28, 8:06=A0am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> I don't know how the numbers of users of standard vs. non-standard
>> Forth systems develops, but I don't have the impression that there is
>> a significant movement away from standard to non-standard systems
>> because of the fat acquired through the standard.
...
>I think the classification of systems into two varieties, standard and
>non-standard, is not particularly useful in practice. Maybe it is in
>large software systems which are intended to be portable across many
>platforms. But, Forth is generally not applied to such problems. In
>practice, any "standard" system is going to implement features outside
>of the standard, and "non-standard" systems come in a grey scale of
>adherence to a given standard, e.g. Forth 94.

But the question is about whether the standardization effort just adds
useless fat, and in that context, such a classification can be useful.
There are systems like Gforth, SwiftForth and VFX that aim to be
standard, and there are systems like machineForth that do not.  

Sure, there are some systems that are not-standard that are relatively
close to the standard, and others that are farther away, but at least
have picked up some standardized features; and if we had any numbers,
we would have to worry about whether the two categories are sufficient
for our purpose or whether we should introduce additional categories
or maybe some continuous parameter (or several) for describing the
standards-affinity.  But since we don't have numbers, I think that a
more refined view is wasted effort, and worse, it would obscure the
point I was trying to make.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Interesting article Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 13:32 +0100
  Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-28 13:06 +0000
    Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-07-29 14:49 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-29 19:32 -0500
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:27 -0700
      Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-30 11:41 +0000
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:38 -0700
        Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 17:47 -0700
          Re: Interesting article Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2011-08-03 07:26 +0200
            Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-11 16:19 -0700
              Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-11 22:57 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-12 16:40 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:59 -0400
                Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 13:13 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-15 03:27 -0500
                Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-16 17:49 +0000
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-17 02:47 -0500
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-14 08:28 -1000
                Re: Interesting article Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 20:41 +0200
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:01 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-08-14 14:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-08-14 21:05 -0500
                Re: Interesting article BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-08-14 22:23 -0700
              Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 12:29 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 10:42 -1000
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 13:50 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-14 03:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 02:12 -0700
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 14:31 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:58 -0400
    Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 19:18 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 04:13 -0500
      Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 10:07 +0000
        Re: Interesting article mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-07-31 11:31 +0200
          Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 22:24 +0000
  Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-28 10:02 -0500

csiph-web