Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth in oblivion Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:16:26 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <53010196$0$6654$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <8e92ee6b-6a2e-4cf2-9d4b-d0785cb9e624@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:28541 On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:52:46 -0500, wrote: > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:04 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0500, wrote: >> > When Forth is in oblivion, then it is time to reinvent Forth ! >> >> Why? > > It is time to reinvent Forth because Forth isn't present at any > important new movement: [examples] Basically, you've declared that Forth should be used for things simply because it isn't currently ... I'm left to wonder from where exactly does this positively pompous position on Forth come from? So, I have no other choice but to question the rationale. Should we resurrect other extinct things too, say the Rocky Mountain locust? American farmers weren't able to grow crops in the west while it existed. America wouldn't have become the "bread basket" of the world if it existed. All other food growing regions of the world must deal with locusts. I.e., some things make humanity better simply by being extinct. I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected, modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct. The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth. The second important of which is that other languages are doing the jobs needed by those new and exciting projects, i.e., no need. There is no demand or need for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced, Forth suitable for such "new" jobs that you mentioned either. It seems that most people would rather start from scratch with a new programming languages in order to put their hated memories of other languages perceived as being flawed to rest. Having "dead" languages, like Forth, Pascal, Modula, Fortran, COBOL, Lisp, etc., among the mix of choices for programming languages only serves to confuse people, delay the inevitable, and waste resources. You should notice that I didn't list other old languages like C or BASIC or PL/I etc as being among the "dead." So, why should a language - apparently decided to be not suitable for those projects by the projects' authors - be touted for them? Rod Pemberton