Re: Foreword

From	"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Foreword
Date	2012-12-18 19:22 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<kar1br$l70$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<op.wpg7mlkhsu5d0p@david> <kao71p$q93$1@speranza.aioe.org> <heSdnTacDfX6vE3NnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message
news:heSdnTacDfX6vE3NnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On 12/17/12 12:40 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:op.wpg7mlkhsu5d0p@david...
> >> Problem
> >> =======
> >>
> >> A number of people have commented on the two Forewords,
> >> asking why we have retained the Foreword to ANS Forth.  As
> >> this is a derived work, keeping the original foreword seemed
> >> like a good idea. I also liked introduction.  However, I
> >> accept this can lead to confusion.
> >>
> >> Solution
> >> ========
> >>
> >> Replace both Forewords with one new Foreword, given below.
> >>
> >> Proposal
> >> ========
> >>
> >> 1) Remove the Foreword (to Forth 200x/2012)
> >>
> >> 2) Remove the Foreword to ANS Forth
> >>
> >> 3) Add the following Foreword.
> >
> > No offense to the people here, but I really don't care about
> > what is or isn't in a foreword of a specification.
> >
> > I will make comments though.
> >
>
> I'm not sure how many language standards you're familiar with.
> When we started working on Forth94 (in 1986) we studied
> several. They all begin with some background on the language.
>

I didn't say don't include a foreword.  I said I don't care what
they say.

At best, forewords usually non-informative, as is this one.  Given
that perspective, why should someone invest their time reading
them?

However, this foreword has NO "background on the language".
Perhaps, you accept a different meaning for what "background on
the language" should represent.  If trivial info, useless dates
and times, document references, is what constitutes "background",
then I'm wrong and it's a complete success ...  About the only
thing informative in it was the mention of Charles Moore, but only
to those who're uninformed about Forth, which should be the
primary audience.

As for studying several forewords back around 1986, apparently
that's why Peter started this thread: the foreword is seriously
out-of-date or stale.  I'll take it you like it the way it is.

> >>      Foreword
> >>      ========
> >>
> >>      Forth is a language for direct communication between
> >> human beings and machines. Using natural-language diction
> >> and machine-oriented syntax, Forth provides an economical,
> >> productive environment for interactive compilation and
> >> execution of programs.  Forth also provides low-level access
> >> to computer-controlled hardware, and the ability to extend
> >> the language itself. This extensibility allows the language
> >> to be quickly expanded and adapted to special needs and
> >> different hardware systems.
> >
> > Apparently, this is to provide a reader of the ideology or
> > philosophy behind Forth.  However, the description seems to be
> > limiting the idea of where Forth is actually useable to places
> > where Forth has had success historically, such as machine
> > control.
> >
> > I.e., I wouldn't guess that Forth is as useful as C, or more
> > so as those here claim it is, by reading that paragraph ...
>
> I would encourage you to propose an alternative, or edited
> version.
>

I'm not sure how I should take that request.

As a C programmer, whose Forth everyone here criticizes, I find
the request odd and hard to take seriously.  If I take it
seriously, I must conclude it's either:

 1) dryly sarcastic and rhetorical to you, or
 2) ironic and moronic to me, or
 3) a setup for a verbal assault, or
 4) it's a complete waste of time since no one reads forewords.
Therefore, a C programmer like me might as well write the foreword
for the Forth specification ...  Are you sure that's what you
want?

> > Also, by stating Forth is for "interactive compilation" and
> > "execution of programs".  The description seems to dissuade
> > the reader from the history of Forth being an interpreted
> > language, or beginning as one.
>
> Forth has always compiled something more immediately executable
> than the tokens characteristic of early Basic, Pascal, or Lisp,
> so this distinction is relevant. 70's Forths dramatically
> outperformed then-conventional interpreters, as most compiled
> absolute addresses that could be executed with a NEXT of ~2
> (sometimes only 1) machine instruction.

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

I really don't understand the persistent rejection of the term
"interpreter" by this Forth community.  It's far better term than
the obtuse phrase " ... compiled something more immediately
executable than ..."  The term "interpreter" has been defined by
Computer Science.  Address lists aren't compiled code.  ITC and
DTC of early Forths are interpreted code.  Compiled code doesn't
need an interpreter.  STC and compiled Forth aren't interpreted.

If it's somehow relevant that the interpreter's used by early
Forth's were different from other interpreters of the era, then
the use of "special" interpreters should be mentioned, but still
done so by using the term "interpreter".

> >>      Forth was invented by Mr. Charles Moore to increase
> >> programmer productivity without sacrificing machine
> >> efficiency. Forth is a layered environment containing the
> >> elements of a computer language as well as those of an
> >> operating system and a machine monitor. This extensible,
> >> layered environment provides for highly interactive program
> >> development and testing.
> >
> > How many Forth's today actually include an operating system
> > and machine monitor?  (Zero.  Or, near zero ...)
>
> Virtually all in embedded systems. Desk- and laptop computers
> run OSs, and although embedded systems can, with Forth they
> don't have to.

Correct.  Near zero ... Or, alternately, far far away from
millions of OSes for the major OSes and on the small side of far
far away too.

But, I'm not sure you got the point.  In one breath (below) you
claim that Forth is the most flexible, adaptive, useful,
programming language ever, but in another (here), you claim it's
mostly good for embedded and real-time systems.  You've done this
numerous times, not just this post.  One is an unlimited
open-ended euphoria-like viewpoint of Forth and the other is
highly constrained, restricted, and of marginal use.  I don't
understand how you can logically reconcile both viewpoints as
non-contradictory.

> > When I read "invented ... to increase programmer
> > productivity", I naturally wonder if it was proven
> > productivity increases with Forth.  I.e., it's written
> > as if the claim is valid or accepted.  That's probably
> > only true within the Forth community.  Perhaps,
> > "Forth was invented by Mr. Charles Moore in an
> > attempt to increase his productivity without sacrificing
> > machine efficiency." is more appropriate.
>
> For many years I offered to support anyone who wanted to
> undertake an academic study of this, but I got no takers. Still,
> there are so many instances within my immediate personal
> experience that I am perfectly comfortable with that assertion,
> and everyone else on the TC has similar direct experience to
> back it up. Estimates of "months" by experienced C programmers
> turned into the same number of weeks with Forth programmers.
> Time after time. Without exception.

If it's true that there are no academic results on this, shouldn't
the statement be of a more personal nature, i.e., Charles Moore's
experience or intent, than that of a blanket, presumptive
statement of truth covering everyone else?

> >>      In the interests of transportability of application
> >> software written in Forth, standardization efforts began
> >> in the mid-1970s by an international group of users and
> >> implementors who adopted the name "Forth Standards Team".
> >> This effort resulted in the Forth-77 Standard.  As the
> >> language continued to evolve, an interim Forth-78 Standard
> >> was published by the Forth Standards Team. Following Forth
> >> Standards Team meetings in 1979, the Forth-79 Standard
> >> was published in 1980.  Major changes were made by the
> >> Forth Standards Team in the Forth-83 Standard, which was
> >> published in 1983.
> >
> > History.  Basically, IIRC, this is the same as the citations
> > or references or bibliography at the end of the document.  At
> > a minimum, the publishing dates don't need to be written out.
> > E.g., "Forth-79 Standard (1980)."
>
> History is relevant to a standard.

Yes, but how much of it and what should be in the foreword?

> >>     The ANS Forth committee was formed in 1987 to address the
> >> fragmentation within the Forth community caused not only by
> >> the difference between Forth 79 and Forth 83 but the
> >> exploitation of technical developments. Undertaking a
> >> comprehensive review of existing implementations they moved
> >> away from prescribing stringent requirements, preferring to
> >> describe the operation of the virtual machine, without
> >> reference to an implementation. The ANS Forth Standard was
> >> published in 1994 [1] and was adopted as an international
> >> standard in 1997 [2].
> >
> > More history.  Summary: "We abstracted Forth."  Is any of this
> > important?  Most of these paragraphs seem suitable to a
> > "history" section, not a foreword which should describe what
> > the document is and introduce the language.
>
> Ok, you're not interested in history. Some people are. It is
> appropriate for a standard to supply a brief history.

No, I think the history is fine, but I question why all of it's in
the foreword.  The foreword is there to introduce the
specification.  And, if the history is reduced to useless dates
and times, because it's been shoehorned into the small section
called the foreword, what good is it?  Isn't Forth history richer
than a page of dates and times?  Shouldn't the history have at
least a few pages in it's own section?

> >>      This document is a snapshot of that rolling document,
> >> representing the outcome of the public review meetings first
> >> held on October 21-22, 2005 in Santander and subsequently on
> >> September 14-15, 2006 (Cambridge), September 13-14, 2007
> >> (Dagstuhl), September 25--26, 2008 (Vienna), March 25-27,
> >> 2009 (Neuenkirchen, Rheine), September 2-4, 2009 (Exeter),
> >> March 24-26, 2010 (Rostock), September 22-24, 2010
> >> (Hamburg), September 21-23, 2011 (Vienna), September 12-14,
> >> 2012 (Oxford).
> >
> > Why does this detail need to be present in a foreword?
> > Shouldn't this be near the appendices? Actually, why does
> > anyone really want to know this AT ALL ... ?  The only
> > information it provides to me is the fact I didn't attend
> > any of the review meetings.  It doesn't state who was there
> > or what was decided.  Even if it did, it's not of any
> > importance to the specification.
>
> Because it's traditional in language standards. Likewise the
> rest of the stuff you think is unnecessary. Look, a Standard is
> a formal document, quite different from a manual, a tutorial,
> or other kind of document. There are certain expectations in
> the Standards Community (yes, there is one) just as there are
> expectations of things to be included in an academic paper
> or other formal document. If you're going to make the effort
> to produce a standard, you need to acknowledge these
> expectations.
>

If I actually wanted to watch commercials or view low-value
content, then I'll go to Youtube or dig through my trash ...

Yes, it's a formal document.

1) Formal documents are usually tailored for the intended
audience.  I'm not sure what a Forth programmer can do with that
information.  I.e., it's clearly irrelevant to the target
audience.

2) Formal documents, especially programming language standards use
terms from Computer Science, not the numerous made up and
non-standard terms used by the Forth community and present in
earlier Forth standards including ANS 94.

Rod Pemberton

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

Thread

RfC: Foreword "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-12-17 19:40 +0000
  Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-17 17:40 -0500
    Re: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-17 21:55 -1000
      Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-18 19:22 -0500
        Re: Foreword Peter Knaggs <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-12-19 10:03 +0000
          Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:39 -0500
          Re: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-20 22:16 -1000
        Re: Foreword rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-12-19 16:09 -0500
          Re: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:20 -0500
        Re: Foreword "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-23 00:43 +1100
          Re: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-22 16:44 +0100
            Re: Foreword "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-27 19:54 +1100
              Re: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-27 05:36 -0800
                Re: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-27 05:40 -0800
          Re: Foreword Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-12-22 10:07 -0600
  Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-18 08:27 +0100
    Re: RfC: Foreword Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-17 22:24 -1000
      Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-18 20:38 +0100
        Re: RfC: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-18 09:54 -1000
          Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-18 22:00 +0100
            Re: RfC: Foreword "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-12-18 11:21 -1000
              Re: RfC: Foreword "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-12-20 07:56 +0100
                Re: RfC: Foreword Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-12-20 03:38 -0600
                Re: RfC: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:20 -0500
                Re: RfC: Foreword Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-12-21 04:02 -0600
          Re: RfC: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-18 19:24 -0500
            Re: RfC: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-18 22:46 -0800
              Re: RfC: Foreword "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-21 02:21 -0500
                Re: RfC: Foreword Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-21 15:24 -0800

csiph-web