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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #18051 > unrolled thread

RfC: Foreword

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#18051 — RfC: Foreword

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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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].

     The Forth Standards Committee was formed in 2004 to allow the Forth
     community to contribute to a rolling document. Changes were proposed
     and discussed in the electronic media:  the comp.lang.forth news
     group; the forth200x@yahoogroups.com email list; the www.forth200x.org
     web site. An annual public meeting was held to review and vote on
     the proposed changes. The resulting document is known as the Forth
     200x Standard.

     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).

     [1] ANSI X3.215-1994 Information Systems --- Programming Language
         FORTH

     [2] ISO/IEC 15145:1997 Information technology.  Programming
         languages. FORTH

Discussion
==========

The first three paragraphs are taken directly from the old Foreword
to ANS Forth.  Paragraph 4 and 5 are a précis of sections C.4, C.5,
C.6. The final paragraph is effectively a list of dates.

Except for the last paragraph, this forward should serve both the
rolling document (200x) and the snapshot (2012).

-- 
Peter Knaggs

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18054 — Re: Foreword

"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.

>     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 ...

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 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 ...)

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.

>     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)."

>    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.

>     The Forth Standards Committee was formed in 2004 to allow
> the Forth community to contribute to a rolling document. Changes
> were proposed and discussed in the electronic media:  the
> comp.lang.forth news group; the forth200x@yahoogroups.com
> email list; the www.forth200x.org web site. An annual public
> meeting was held to review and vote on the proposed changes.
> The resulting document is known as the Forth 200x Standard.

What's a "rolling" document?  Is there a hill and valley around
here?  Why is the document rolling down it ...  ;-)

Maybe try "preliminary" or "in-progress" or "initial" or "dynamic"
or just remove "rolling", etc.

What is the purpose of the 'x' in 200x?  Shouldn't it be 20xx
since were now in double-digits, i.e., 2012 ...

>     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.

>     [1] ANSI X3.215-1994 Information Systems --- Programming
> Language
>         FORTH
>
>     [2] ISO/IEC 15145:1997 Information technology.  Programming
>         languages. FORTH

I'm not sure what these are doing here.  Are they referenced
somewhere above?  I'd expect these to be wherever all the other
referenced ISO and ANSI documents, like for ASCII and Unicode etc,
are cited.

> Discussion
> ==========
>
> The first three paragraphs are taken directly from the old
> Foreword to ANS Forth.  Paragraph 4 and 5 are a précis
> of sections C.4, C.5, C.6. The final paragraph is effectively
> a list of dates.
>
> Except for the last paragraph, this forward should serve both
> the rolling document (200x) and the snapshot (2012).

Ok.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18062 — Re: Foreword

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.


>>      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.

> 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.

>>      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.

> 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.

>>      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.

>>     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.

>>      The Forth Standards Committee was formed in 2004 to allow
>> the Forth community to contribute to a rolling document. Changes
>> were proposed and discussed in the electronic media:  the
>> comp.lang.forth news group; the forth200x@yahoogroups.com
>> email list; the www.forth200x.org web site. An annual public
>> meeting was held to review and vote on the proposed changes.
>> The resulting document is known as the Forth 200x Standard.
>
> What's a "rolling" document?  Is there a hill and valley around
> here?  Why is the document rolling down it ...  ;-)
>
> Maybe try "preliminary" or "in-progress" or "initial" or "dynamic"
> or just remove "rolling", etc.
>
> What is the purpose of the 'x' in 200x?  Shouldn't it be 20xx
> since were now in double-digits, i.e., 2012 ...
>
>>      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.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18076 — Re: Foreword

"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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18082 — Re: Foreword

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 12/17/12 12:40 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.

So why did you comment?

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

That is to some extent the point.  I propose replacing two separate
Forewords with one.  Less for you to ignore.

> 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.

The Foreword provides background to previous standardisation
efforts and this one.  It does not provide background to the language,
this would not be the place for that.  Indeed we gave removed the
old Annex C which provided such background as it is not relevant
to anyone reading this document.

> 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.

Please highlight the paragraph or sentence where you think I said
that.  I simply said that two Forwards can be replaced by one.  I
have proposed a merger of the two.

>>>>      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.

Your perspective is different to mine.  An alternative introduction
help us to understand your position and may help revise the
introduction.

> Therefore, a C programmer like me might as well write the foreword
> for the Forth specification ...  Are you sure that's what you
> want?

It is worthy of consideration.  It would provide a different perspective
on things.  I'm not saying we will use it, but it would be of interest/use
in revising the proposed foreword.

>>> 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.
> 
> 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.

The problem of interpreter has changed considerable over the years.
There are now many language interpreters that compile into an
intermediate code, which is then executed.  These are still called
interpreters.  Forth can be both interpreted and compiled with equal
ease.

> 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".

Put forward some text and we will consider it.  We can't consider
text that has not been written.

>>>>      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.

If you consider it in terms of all computer systems, then yes it is a
very small number.  But then so are Forth systems by that count.
If you consider it as a percentage of Forth systems, then it is
significantly higher.  If you look at the sales figures from Forth, Inc.
and MPE you will see that they regularly sell embedded OSs.

>>> 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?

Again, put forward some text for consideration.

>>>>      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 foreword is an introduction to a standard, it should discuss
previous standardisation efforts.  This is a summary of the
discussion given in Annex C.

>>>>     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?

Again, it is an introduction to a standard.  A summary of previous
standardisation efforts to place this standard into context is suitable.

Although I agree that the sentence "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" is rather
clunky "We abstracted Forth" simply does not cut it. 

[cut]

> 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.

There are two distinct audiences for this document.  The Forth
Community and the Standards Community.  The standards
community are very unhappy with the uses of the word "word"
to describe a definition.  However, a Forth standard that does
not define "words" would not be acceptable to the Forth
Community.  This is a balancing act which the TC managed
to walk very well.

> 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.

Such as?

--
Peter Knaggs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18159 — Re: Foreword

"Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1369567383377597358.431447pjk-bcs.org.uk@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote:
> > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/17/12 12:40 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >>> "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
>
> So why did you comment?

Why did you ask for comments, if you're actually uninterested?
That's rude and tasteless.

> > 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.
>
> The Foreword provides background to previous standardisation
> efforts and this one.  It does not provide background to the
> language, this would not be the place for that.

I disagree, as stated previously to Ms. Rather.

> Indeed we gave removed the old Annex C which provided such
> background as it is not relevant to anyone reading this
> document.

And yet, you recognize no such need to do the same with the
foreword(s).  Odd.

> > 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.
>
> Please highlight the paragraph or sentence where you think I
> said that.

Well, it's a logical outcome of your request for comments on
something so simple to fix (see below) that it borders on the
utterly absurd that you'd ask us what to do about it.

> I simply said that two Forwards can be replaced by one.  I
> have proposed a merger of the two.

That can be done simply by deleting the second "Foreword" or
whatever title is present and moving some paragraphs onto the
prior foreword page.  I can't imagine why anyone would need to
provide you with comments on how to do that.  Can you?  Neither
can I.  Do you need permission from those here to do so?  No.  So,
your real motive was something else.

> >>>>      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.
>
> If you consider it in terms of all computer systems, then yes it
> is a very small number.  But then so are Forth systems by that
> count.  If you consider it as a percentage of Forth systems,
> then it is significantly higher.  If you look at the sales
> figures from Forth, Inc. and MPE you will see that they
> regularly sell embedded OSs.
>

So?  A small company I worked for many years ago "regularly sold"
500 units per month.  It would've taken them over a century and a
half to sell a significant quantity, like a million units ...

> [...]
> Again, put forward some text for consideration.
>

I put forward once sentence.  That's all I'm interested in at the
moment.

*You* asked for comments.  I presented my perspective.  I openly
stated I'm not a Forth programmer too.  So, why are taking offense
when it was you who asked for them?  It's blatantly rude, perhaps
even offensive.  If you weren't sincere, you never should've
asked.  This is an open newsgroup, not a closed group of cronies.
So, it includes people with other perspectives including those
radically different from your own.  If you weren't accepting input
from everyone and only wanted a few "choice" people here to
respond, you should've requested responses from them directly.
Or, you could've said: "Let's take a vote!  We've got two
forewords in the new specification.  We only need one.  Who wants
the two forewords merged into one?"  One everyone said yes, then
you could've posted an RFC or proposal or another vote asking if
the merges and changes were acceptable.

> There are two distinct audiences for this document.  The Forth
> Community and the Standards Community.  The standards
> community are very unhappy with the uses of the word "word"
> to describe a definition.

Finally, there is some sanity in the world!

> > 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.
>
> Such as?

word
cell
block
definition
fetch
store
...


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18160 — Re: Foreword

On 12/19/12 12:03 AM, Peter Knaggs wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote:
...
>> 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.
>
> There are two distinct audiences for this document.  The Forth
> Community and the Standards Community.  The standards
> community are very unhappy with the uses of the word "word"
> to describe a definition.  However, a Forth standard that does
> not define "words" would not be acceptable to the Forth
> Community.  This is a balancing act which the TC managed
> to walk very well.

Yes. Both groups will use this document, but have different needs and 
expectations: Forth programmers use it as an authoritative definition of 
what a Forth system will provide and what a Forth applications 
programmer may depend upon, whereas a non-Forth person needs some 
basics, including some background and definitions of terms. The Foreword 
is for the non-Forth reader.

>> 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.

That is why there is a "Definitions" section to define what these words 
mean to Forth programmers, for the benefit of non-Forth programmers who 
may read this document. Towards the end of its development, the Forth94 
team received a number of helpful comments and suggestions from other 
Standards tolks in this regard.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18087 — Re: Foreword

On 12/18/2012 7:22 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> 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 think Peter explained it pretty well.  He said,

*****************************************************************
Problem
=======

...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.
*****************************************************************

How does that translate into "the foreward [sic] is seriously stale"?

No, I retract that question.  I don't think I will get a response of 
much value.  My point is that this is a discussion of people who have a 
stake in the Forth reference document.  You don't seem to have any real 
interest in the document, so why bother with the discussion?  Many of 
your comments seem to be off the point and not adding anything.  Mostly 
they seem to be argumentative.  But maybe that is just me, but I'm 
pretty sure your response to Elizabeth's request that you propose an 
alternative paragraph was a bit out of line.

I'm not trying to rag on you, please don't take it that way.  But I've 
been accused of being a troll before and I know that was not my intent. 
  A little feedback short of "TROLL!" would have been useful to me.  So 
that is what I am trying to provide.

One troll to another... lol

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18156 — Re: Foreword

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kataeh$qan$1@dont-email.me...
> On 12/18/2012 7:22 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

> My point is that this is a discussion of people
> who have a stake in the Forth reference document.

If you consider that if you exclude posts by me or in response to
me that there are ZERO responses to from everyone else here to Mr.
Knaggs' question for comments, where is the "discussion [by]
people who have a stake in the Forth reference document"?  There
is NO discussion by such people in this thread.  I.e., your point
is invalid.

> You don't seem to have any real
> interest in the document, so why bother
> with the discussion?

1) He asked for comments.  Gavino's posts are the only other
recent posts to respond too.  Are you saying I can respond to Gav
without you being troll-ish in response too ... ?

2) NOT ONE OF THE FORTH DEVOTEES HERE RESPONDED

You guys only responded in order to argue with me.  It's utterly
pathetic and pitiful.  What a bunch of losers.  It's "your" Forth
document.  Don't you care about it enough to comment?  Doesn't any
one of you care enough to write a decent foreword?  Ms. Rather
doesn't.  Mr. Knaggs doesn't.  Mr. Pelc doesn't.  They're some of
the oldest or most experienced Forth users here.  There weren't
even any simple "yea, I agree" or "nay, I don't like it" from the
rest of this group.  Besides me, there were zero comments from
this group on the foreword.  Sad, truly so.  When everyone here
says Forth is the greatest language ever, they fail to realize
that I consider abysmal responses like this as part of my
judgements about Forth.

> Many of your comments seem to be off the point
> and not adding anything.

Mr. Knaggs asked for comments.  What make you think you have
some right to judge my statements in response to his question?
You need to kill that sense of entitlement fast before it gets you
into real trouble with others in life.

Feel free to add a comment of substance, someday ... if you
ever actually have an opinion on the foreword(s).

> Mostly they seem to be argumentative.

How is presenting my perspective argumentative when comments
were explicitly asked for?  What am I arguing against ... ?

> But maybe that is just me, but I'm pretty sure your response to
> Elizabeth's request that you propose an alternative paragraph
> was a bit out of line.

In what way?

I presented what I thought about her inappropriate comments in
exacting and brutally honest detail.  Too harsh?  Maybe, she
should consider being more tactful too.  She has no right to
demand anything of me.  It's extremely rude.  That goes for Mr.
Knaggs asking for me to write a foreword too!  He asked for
comments.  I generously obliged.  If he didn't genuinely want real
comments, he never should've asked.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18192 — Re: Foreword

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.

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".  What of
the principles which underpinned Chuck's language - if just "history"
then what principles have replaced them?  Is the name "Forth" still
appropriate - or has it lost all meaning?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18193 — Re: Foreword

On 22.12.2012 14:43, Ed 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.
>
> 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".  What of
> the principles which underpinned Chuck's language - if just "history"
> then what principles have replaced them?  Is the name "Forth" still
> appropriate - or has it lost all meaning?
>

One can of course blame the fundamental discrepancy between 
standardization and progress. Although IMO in the history of Forth the 
standardization was progressive in its own, by ruling some diverging 
inconsistencies out.

As you know Forth is transparent and flexible enough to rather easily 
implement new programming strategies. However you'll probablay not find 
sufficient consense to standardize what you have 'invented'. But don't 
blame the language for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18298 — Re: Foreword

A. K. wrote:
> On 22.12.2012 14:43, Ed 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.
> >
> > 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".  What of
> > the principles which underpinned Chuck's language - if just "history"
> > then what principles have replaced them?  Is the name "Forth" still
> > appropriate - or has it lost all meaning?
> >
>
> One can of course blame the fundamental discrepancy between
> standardization and progress. Although IMO in the history of Forth the
> standardization was progressive in its own, by ruling some diverging
> inconsistencies out.
> ...

Not a few of those "progressive" changes turned out to be mistakes.
And what is progress anyway?  While Standard Forth continues to
channel other languages, Chuck's ColorForth remains sparse and
primitive.  Perhaps his notion of progress is different from the rest
of us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18299 — Re: Foreword

On Dec 27, 12:54 am, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote:
> A. K. wrote:
> > On 22.12.2012 14:43, Ed wrote:
> > > Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > >> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@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.
>
> > > 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".  What of
> > > the principles which underpinned Chuck's language - if just "history"
> > > then what principles have replaced them?  Is the name "Forth" still
> > > appropriate - or has it lost all meaning?
>
> > One can of course blame the fundamental discrepancy between
> > standardization and progress. Although IMO in the history of Forth the
> > standardization was progressive in its own, by ruling some diverging
> > inconsistencies out.
> > ...
>
> Not a few of those "progressive" changes turned out to be mistakes.
> And what is progress anyway?  While Standard Forth continues to
> channel other languages, Chuck's ColorForth remains sparse and
> primitive.  Perhaps his notion of progress is different from the rest
> of us.

If progress is to be assessed by the measure of use and usefulness,
ColorForth is used by a much smaller number than ANS Forth, and
supports two vendors whose customers are (Aguilar excepted) more than
happy to purchase systems and services from them. Chuck has plowed a
solitary furrow for a long time; it works for him. That doesn't make
it progressive, simply different.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18300 — Re: Foreword

On Dec 27, 5:36 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 12:54 am, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > A. K. wrote:
> > > On 22.12.2012 14:43, Ed wrote:
> > > > Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > > >> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@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.
>
> > > > 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".  What of
> > > > the principles which underpinned Chuck's language - if just "history"
> > > > then what principles have replaced them?  Is the name "Forth" still
> > > > appropriate - or has it lost all meaning?
>
> > > One can of course blame the fundamental discrepancy between
> > > standardization and progress. Although IMO in the history of Forth the
> > > standardization was progressive in its own, by ruling some diverging
> > > inconsistencies out.
> > > ...
>
> > Not a few of those "progressive" changes turned out to be mistakes.
> > And what is progress anyway?  While Standard Forth continues to
> > channel other languages, Chuck's ColorForth remains sparse and
> > primitive.  Perhaps his notion of progress is different from the rest
> > of us.
>
> If progress is to be assessed by the measure of use and usefulness,
> ColorForth is used by a much smaller number than ANS Forth, and
> supports two vendors whose customers are (Aguilar excepted) more than

s/and supports/and ANS Forth supports/

> happy to purchase systems and services from them. Chuck has plowed a
> solitary furrow for a long time; it works for him. That doesn't make
> it progressive, simply different.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18194 — Re: Foreword

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18061

On 17.12.2012 20:40, Peter Knaggs wrote:

>      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.

My comments:

You are describing systems programming here, but which is not the 
typical realm of Forth.

Then you are referring to a Forth environment (system), but what about 
native code compilers?

We have used Forth as kind of portable assembler, better than HLA which 
is x86-bound.
We have used Forth for rapid prototyping of a realtime controller OS. 
(MinForth is an offspring from that time)
We have used Forth as trojan horse for remote debugging.
etc (others will have more examples)

So I would rephrase the first sentence to be more generic, and add just 
some exemplary application domains where Forth excels. And the 
difference between the Forth LANGUAGE and a Forth SYSTEM should be made 
clear and sharp.

The historic annotations should be moved to an appendix IMHO.

Regards
Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18063

On 12/17/2012 9:27 PM, A. K. wrote:
> On 17.12.2012 20:40, Peter Knaggs wrote:
>
>>      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.
>
> My comments:
>
> You are describing systems programming here, but which is not the
> typical realm of Forth.

My experience is primarily in application development, and all of this 
applies and is relevant. Of course, the "computer-controlled hardware" 
is characteristic of embedded & control systems more than desktop IP 
apps, but they are applications, nonetheless.

>
> Then you are referring to a Forth environment (system), but what about
> native code compilers?

AFAIK this paragraph applies to native code compilers without change.

> We have used Forth as kind of portable assembler, better than HLA which
> is x86-bound.
> We have used Forth for rapid prototyping of a realtime controller OS.
> (MinForth is an offspring from that time)
> We have used Forth as trojan horse for remote debugging.
> etc (others will have more examples)
>
> So I would rephrase the first sentence to be more generic, and add just
> some exemplary application domains where Forth excels. And the
> difference between the Forth LANGUAGE and a Forth SYSTEM should be made
> clear and sharp.

Such as...  ?

Cheers,
Elizabeth

> The historic annotations should be moved to an appendix IMHO.
>
> Regards
> Andreas
>
>
>


-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18069

On 18.12.2012 09:24, Elizabeth D Rather wrote:

>> So I would rephrase the first sentence to be more generic, and add just
>> some exemplary application domains where Forth excels. And the
>> difference between the Forth LANGUAGE and a Forth SYSTEM should be made
>> clear and sharp.
>
> Such as...  ?

:-) I am not good enough at wordsmithing in English.

Of course you know the distinction between system and program (eg §5 in 
the standard document). However as this goes through the the whole 
specification IMO it is worthwhile to mention it already in a preface.

It is one of the characteristics of Forth. Because OTOH there is no such 
beast as a Python "system".

Andreas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18071

On 12/18/12 9:38 AM, A. K. wrote:
> On 18.12.2012 09:24, Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
>
>>> So I would rephrase the first sentence to be more generic, and add just
>>> some exemplary application domains where Forth excels. And the
>>> difference between the Forth LANGUAGE and a Forth SYSTEM should be made
>>> clear and sharp.
>>
>> Such as...  ?
>
> :-) I am not good enough at wordsmithing in English.
>
> Of course you know the distinction between system and program (eg §5 in
> the standard document). However as this goes through the the whole
> specification IMO it is worthwhile to mention it already in a preface.
>
> It is one of the characteristics of Forth. Because OTOH there is no such
> beast as a Python "system".
>
> Andreas
>

The problem is, that there is *no* technical distinction between system 
and program in Forth! That is one of its strengths, actually. All of the 
I/O, compiler tools, and other building blocks are available to 
programmers to use in their applications, and many do.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18073

On 18.12.2012 20:54, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> The problem is, that there is *no* technical distinction between system
> and program in Forth! That is one of its strengths, actually. All of the
> I/O, compiler tools, and other building blocks are available to
> programmers to use in their applications, and many do.
>

That's a bit of whistling always on the bright side of life ... ;-)

Our compilates certainly did NOT contain the compiler words in the 
target. Nevertheless they were made from plain Forth sources.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web