Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:00:35 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 21 Message-ID: <87shmyiyuk.fsf@nightsong.com> References: <680318eb-535b-4595-96c6-3bf7e7f2928c@googlegroups.com> <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com> <81c490f2-711c-4fe1-b055-a0c6b8d62bf1@googlegroups.com> <87r32kk3yp.fsf@nightsong.com> <90d87260-6074-41ee-89b2-4a61c8610a52@googlegroups.com> <87fuj0jz9d.fsf@nightsong.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="896a6ec9e8c0bc62dcd4ea840e8902d1"; logging-data="26095"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/46v62S+r0vlfaxS7WcGzU" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BvnH/ZOFoL2hSz2EBs9eHj6BYYs= sha1:G8AfvrcqymnYV4/IEH3Kt5WlcDU= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:55231 Ilya Tarasov writes: > I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often > non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other > features or implement existing features by other way. What is the > reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still > can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, > familiar with different approaches? If a Forth implementer wants to do something, there are 3 possible approaches: 1) do it the ANS way 2) do it some other way because that has significant advantages 3) do it some other way even without gaining any advantages. Example of #3 is Colorforth's OR word, which means exclusive OR. What the heck did anyone gain from not calling it XOR? My attitude towards standardization is #1 is good if it's not too much hassle, #2 is fine if it gains advantages or avoids hassle, #3 is just silly. Lots of non-standard approaches are basically #3. What's the gain?