Re: Forth as a polarising language

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Forth as a polarising language
References	(6 earlier) <k28b6a$o7a$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4d5114f6-1185-4bb9-b275-2e48f5fcdeb3@googlegroups.com> <9776b0d9-234a-4fd0-840c-4ddb22e3644b@sd5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <96e329b8-92e8-45f8-85dd-87c15bd4e174@googlegroups.com> <3f31baf6-68e9-4be5-8b90-c1b6637171e4@googlegroups.com>
Date	2012-09-07 14:05 -0700
Message-ID	<7xk3w58rwq.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> (permalink)
Organization	Nightsong/Fort GNOX

Show all headers | View raw

Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Agreed. I would like to add a sharing and version control system into
> the language ( colorForth , of course ;-)

This would be awesome, a distributed VCS for block-based programs ;-).

> mentioning Forth in a work context in England often produces an
> over-the-top negative reaction. 

I heard some mention of that before, so I gave it sort of a try.  I
worked with an English guy who does a lot of embedded programming and
got started in the 1980's, which was Forth's heyday.  So I said
something about Forth to him at the office to see how he'd react, and it
turns out he had never even heard of Forth.  

I also mentioned some Forth stuff at a Haskell meeting a few months ago,
as geeky a group of programming language nerds that one could hope for.
The mention drew some smiles and some shrugs, but certainly no
hostility.

> I have also heard reports of attacks on several Forth notables in FIG
> meetings etc. 

I've heard of Chuck getting hassled for writing a Forth system around a
weird keyboard, and I guess Colorforth didn't really catch on either.
Is that what you're referring to?

> My own theory is that most people in a professional software
> environment like to have their own piece of complexity (expertise)
> that only they know. Forth tends to be too simple.  

Meh, this may be controversial but in my opinion Forth is more
complicated than Lisp, from either an implementer's or a user's point of
view.  Forth uses many clever tricks to operate in a rather restricted
computing model, using minimal machine resources.  It's really cool that
way, for those of us into that sort of thing.  Lisp, IMHO, has more
conceptual clarity.  The price of this is that a naive Lisp is far less
efficient than a traditional Forth, and it can't operate in hard
realtime because of unpredictable gc delays.  For the now-wide class of
problems where you have plenty of machine resources and don't care about
occasional processing pauses, Forth's advantage becomes harder to
demonstrate.  If I buy the idea (disputed, but it's true ;-)) that
today's trendy interpreted languages are really just Lisp with some
added syntax sugar and features, then it seems to me that simplicity is
doing fine.

> The hostility occurs when someone cannot demonstrate superiority using
> Forth, so they feel inferior.  The effect definitely seems to be real.
> If this is the case, what can we do to make Forth more acceptable?

Acceptable to who?  Forth does ok in a certain niche of problems, with a
certain type of programmer.  If a programmer thinks Forth can solve
their problem, great.  If they think it can't solve their problem and
they lose interest, I don't see an issue.  I can understand that there's
some impatience with the view that Forth is the answer to everything.
There is no single answer to everything.  Lisp isn't the answer to
everything either.  The solution is to just be realistic about one's
claims.

Do you know the "Blub paradox"?  It's been mentioned here a few times;
you can find it quickly with a web search.

Thread

Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700
  Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 01:47 -0700
    Re: Article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-30 12:13 +0000
  Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-30 11:31 -0400
    Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-08-30 10:37 -0500
      Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 10:30 -0700
  Re: Article hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2012-08-30 19:56 -0700
    Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-08-31 12:35 +0200
  Re: Article "Greg Bailey" <greg@greenarraychips.com> - 2012-08-31 17:51 -0700
    Re: Article Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 18:22 -0700
    Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 01:04 -0700
      Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:18 -0700
    Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-01 01:48 -0700
    Re: Article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 18:38 -0400
    Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:59 -0700
    Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-03 13:07 -0500
      Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-03 14:25 -0700
      Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 17:04 -0700
        Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 06:23 +0300
    Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 18:17 -0400
      Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-03 12:37 -1000
        Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-04 04:48 -0400
          Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-04 03:39 -0700
            Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:48 -0400
          Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-09-04 13:18 +0200
            Re: Article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-04 16:03 +0200
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:29 -0400
            Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:24 -0400
          Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 08:12 -0700
            Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
          Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-04 11:35 -0500
            Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:40 -0400
              Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:28 -0700
          Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-04 08:32 -1000
            Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:22 -0400
              Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:08 -0700
                Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:07 -0400
                Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:39 -0700
              Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:35 -0700
            Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-07 17:24 +1000
            Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-07 05:28 -0400
              Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 03:28 -0700
              Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 13:31 +0300
                Re: Article jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
                Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:06 -0700
              Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:03 -0700
        Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 16:45 -0700
      Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 21:38 -0700
        Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:51 -0400
          Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:49 -0700
            Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:20 -0400
        Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
          Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:32 -0700
            Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:50 -0700
              Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 22:34 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 14:05 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-08 01:53 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 18:22 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:08 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-08 17:34 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 15:57 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 08:12 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 22:07 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 15:14 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 01:52 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 19:17 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 15:01 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 07:00 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 01:07 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 18:47 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 16:08 -1000
                Re: Forth as a polarising language anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-11 07:51 +0000
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 19:24 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 21:40 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:58 -1000
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 18:24 -0700
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-09 13:42 +0000
                Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 10:34 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 07:06 -0400
                Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:14 +0200
                DEFER (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 16:47 +0000
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:22 -0400
                OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 11:38 +0000
                Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 08:19 -0400
                Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:41 +0200
                Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:24 -0400
                Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 12:03 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-09-09 13:20 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:33 -0400
                Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:54 +0200
                Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:12 -0400
                OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:28 +0200
                Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:56 +0200
                Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 15:00 +0000
                Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net> - 2012-09-08 11:56 -0500
                Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:20 -0400
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:15 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:50 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 03:12 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 16:01 +0200
                Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:54 -1000
                [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 06:33 -0500
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:16 -0400
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:28 -0400
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-10 12:43 +0000
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:24 -0400
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 08:12 -0500
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:32 -0400
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:40 -1000
                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 14:42 -0500
                Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 07:59 -0400
                Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:27 -0400
                Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:44 -1000
                Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:30 -0400
            Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-09 14:13 +1000
              Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-11 11:26 -0700
                Re: Article "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-09-11 21:02 +0100
                Re: Article vandys@vsta.org - 2012-09-11 20:37 +0000
                Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:01 +1000
              Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 16:50 -0700
                Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-12 00:45 -0700
                Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 18:44 -0700
                Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 20:26 -0700
                Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:47 +1000
    Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-06 19:28 -0700
      Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700

csiph-web