Re: single-xt approach in the standard

Date	2024-09-25 10:35 +1000
Subject	Re: single-xt approach in the standard
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
References	(4 earlier) <vcmbf2$1ifml$1@dont-email.me> <66ef7dc7$1@news.ausics.net> <2024Sep22.095431@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <66f0e1bf$1@news.ausics.net> <vcrutd$2o92g$1@dont-email.me>
From	dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
Message-ID	<66f35aea$1@news.ausics.net> (permalink)
Organization	Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net

Show all headers | View raw

On 24/09/2024 12:45 am, Anthony Howe wrote:
> On 2024-09-22 23:34, dxf wrote:
>> The only guidance a standard can give is on duplicating the past.  I see
>> no value in creating a new forth simply to do that.  As an individual one
>> has the opportunity to bring something new that's not merely repetition.
>> At the very least one can avoid repeating the same mistakes.
> 
> A standard does provide guidance and knowledge of the past, but also provides a jump off point for new work, new designs, new blood.
> 
> In the 1980's there were a plethora C compilers (tiny c, small c, sozobon c, bsd c, turbo c, watcom c, gnu c, sysv c, solaris, ...) just different enough to make portability of source code a PITA.  Similarly all the *nix variants drove a need for POSIX and X/Open (now SUS) to improve portability of software (especially if they wanted government contracts).
> 
> Linux came about and aimed for standards compliance in most aspects and then built new and/or improved tools that extend beyond the standards.  Now clang has come on scene looking to dethrone the megalith gcc that is a bit of portability nightmare within itself as it tries to support numerous CPUs and OSes.
> 
> Having an *agreed on* standard is a good thing, it helps new people learn what is portable, see/hear of pitfalls, and _then_ improve (speed, size, supported hardware) and extend.  A standard should not get in the way of that, but help.

There's no comparison between C and Forth.  Good luck taking a credible application
written in SwiftForth and compiling it on VFX.  Literally every app I write involves
a command-tail and a way to save it as a turnkey.  There's not even a standard way
to do these basic things.  So obviously lacking in pretentiousness has been the
standard one must ask whether there was ever a serious intent.  At best it's a sparse
set of words that TC's have agreed you should have and even these have proven divisive
spawning decades of argument.

Maybe - just maybe - one could write a library routine with them but would one?  Not
me.  Why would I use anything as restricted as CASE or as broken as REPRESENT ?
There's a myriad of tiny useful tools lurking in every forth no standards committee
appears to have considered: /CHAR >DIGIT >CHAR MU* MU/MOD (.) /SIGN +STRING etc on the
grounds these can be defined portably.  Sorry, I've no intention of going through the
nonsense of defining words I already have simply to give others the impression the
standard is useful.

If there's anything the standard has helped me learn is that I don't need it and
indeed better off without it.

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

Thread

single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-17 14:54 +0400
  Re: single-xt approach in the standard minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-09-17 11:20 +0000
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-17 15:59 +0400
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> - 2024-09-17 14:58 -0400
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 13:39 +1000
          Standardization process (was: single-xt approach in the standard) Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 11:07 +0400
            Re: Standardization process dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 20:16 +1000
              Re: Standardization process Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 14:51 +0400
                Re: Standardization process dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 23:39 +1000
                Re: Standardization process Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 18:41 +0400
              Re: Standardization process Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 15:59 +0400
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 12:44 +0400
          Re: single-xt approach in the standard Gerry Jackson <do-not-use@swldwa.uk> - 2024-09-18 21:59 +0100
            Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-19 10:17 +0200
            Standard testsuite (was: single-xt approach in the standard) Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-19 12:24 +0400
              Re: Standard testsuite (was: single-xt approach in the standard) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-19 10:54 +0200
  Re: single-xt approach in the standard mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2024-09-17 12:15 +0000
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-17 17:04 +0400
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-09-17 13:58 +0000
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-17 18:55 +0400
          Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-17 17:22 +0200
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 12:51 +1000
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 15:42 +0400
          Re: single-xt approach in the standard dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:15 +1000
            Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-22 07:54 +0000
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-22 12:05 +0200
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 13:34 +1000
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> - 2024-09-23 10:45 -0400
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:50 +1000
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 10:35 +1000
            Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 20:57 +0400
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-22 17:13 +0000
                Semantics as observable behavior (was: single-xt approach in the standard) Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 23:53 +0400
                Re: Semantics as observable behavior (was: single-xt approach in the standard) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-22 21:04 +0000
                Re: Semantics as observable behavior Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 02:01 +0400
                Re: Semantics as observable behavior Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 11:36 +0400
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-22 21:34 +0200
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 00:02 +0400
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-23 09:40 +0200
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-09-23 08:42 +0000
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:28 +1000
                Standard compliance for systems (was: single-xt approach in the standard) Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 10:56 +0400
                Re: Standard compliance for systems dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-11-22 16:49 +1100
                Re: Standard compliance for systems minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-11-22 10:11 +0000
                Re: Standard compliance for systems mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2024-11-22 11:35 +0000
                Re: Standard compliance for systems minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2024-11-22 13:11 +0000
                Re: Standard compliance for systems mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2024-11-22 15:26 +0000
                Re: Standard compliance for systems dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-11-23 11:54 +1100
                Re: Standard compliance for systems albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-11-23 14:09 +0100
                Re: Standard compliance for systems dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2024-11-24 12:02 +1100
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard Stephen Pelc <stephen@vfxforth.com> - 2024-09-21 14:47 +0000
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 23:18 +0400
          Re: single-xt approach in the standard Stephen Pelc <stephen@vfxforth.com> - 2024-09-22 12:09 +0000
            Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-22 14:28 +0000
            Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-22 21:20 +0200
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-22 11:53 +0200
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 01:15 +0400
          Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-23 10:36 +0200
            Re: single-xt approach in the standard mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2024-09-23 09:32 +0000
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-23 13:57 +0200
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-23 17:02 +0000
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2024-09-23 19:20 +0000
            Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:16 +0400
              Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-23 16:52 +0000
                Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 11:27 +0400
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-17 17:18 +0200
  Re: single-xt approach in the standard Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> - 2024-09-17 15:12 -0400
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-17 19:25 +0000
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> - 2024-09-24 07:08 -0400
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard Stephen Pelc <stephen@vfxforth.com> - 2024-09-17 23:04 +0000
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 10:10 +0400
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2024-09-18 06:38 +0000
          Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-19 12:26 +0400
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 14:34 +0400
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 16:41 +0400
      Re: single-xt approach in the standard Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 18:43 +0200
        Re: single-xt approach in the standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2024-09-19 10:36 +0200
          Re: single-xt approach in the standard Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 14:58 +0200
  Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-17 21:15 +0000
  Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-18 12:15 +0400
  Re: single-xt approach in the standard peter.m.falth@gmail.com (PMF) - 2024-09-21 21:28 +0000
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-22 07:23 +0000
    Re: single-xt approach in the standard Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 21:34 +0400

csiph-web