Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.theremailer.net!frell.theremailer.net!anonymous From: Fritz Wuehler Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . Identifying the real sender is technically impossible. Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Which standard? References: <2012Mar27.121019@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Message-ID: <5728e35bcbc191329b99bc1937e55091@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> Precedence: anon Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:08:28 +0200 Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@frell.theremailer.net Organization: Frell Anonymous Remailer Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:10583 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Nomen Nescio writes: > >Andrew Haley wrote: > >> The current Forth Standard is ISO/IEC 15145:1997. You can pay 238 > >> Swiss Francs for it (!) > ... > >I didn't understand what "Standard Forth" means though. Is it dpans? I > >understood dpans is Forth 1994? Thanks. > > You have to know Andrew to interpret that. He believes in stamps from > governmant-approved agencies, that take our hard work away from us and > charge a lot of money for their service of stamping it. So when he > writes "Standard Forth" or somesuch, he means ANS Forth, which has > some funny ANSI number), which has also been provided with a new cover > and stamped by ISO (referenced above). Some of us who know that this > is just one standard in a series of standards call it "Forth-94", > especially since we are working on an update. Ok. I don't think standards are automatically good or bad. I know some that are good and that did a lot of good at least in the first few versions like Ada and I could probably come up with some bad ones and then there are others that had no practical effect at all. My question was really aimed at finding out if there is a consensus among Forthers what a Forth should be. After reading more I see how Forth is probably less of standards prospect than other languages because it's designed to be extensible and standards are usually not very good at dealing with arbitrary extensions. I guess you could probably come up with a language that is very Forth-like and not be standards compliant and most people would agree it's still "Forth". In the beginning it would be easier for me if I could point at one document and have everybody say "yeah, that's Forth" because what I have in mind is going to have plenty of extensions that wouldn't make sense to any Forther except one who worked on the same platform. At least I want to start with Forth and go from there, if I do this project.