Re: Foreword

From	Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Subject	Re: Foreword
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
References	<op.wpg7mlkhsu5d0p@david> <kao71p$q93$1@speranza.aioe.org> <heSdnTacDfX6vE3NnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <kar1br$l70$1@speranza.aioe.org> <kb4dhk$60j$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Message-ID	<yO2dnWjhcr4lR0jNnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink)
Date	2012-12-22 10:07 -0600

Show all headers | View raw

Ed <invalid@nospam.com> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message
>> news:heSdnTacDfX6vE3NnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>>  ...
>> > 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?
> 
> Not to mention the inconvenient "history" that Chuck Moore
> walked out on ANS-Forth.

I was amazed that he ever got involved.  "Forth" to Chuck is simply
his programming language du jour; he's entitled to that.

> Forth Standards may have derived from "Classic Forth" but what are
> they today? - a political concensus between remaining vendors and
> others producing something which they call "Forth". 

Well, every standard is a consensus.  I haven't seen any politicking,
just healthy -- and at times intense -- technical debates.

> What of the principles which underpinned Chuck's language - if just
> "history" then what principles have replaced them?

"Keep it simple!", "Do not speculate!", "Do it yourself!".  All still
there.

> Is the name "Forth" still appropriate - or has it lost all meaning?

Of course it's still appropriate.  The remarkable thing is how well
the core of the language has stood the test of time unchanged.

Andrew.

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