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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28573

Re: Forth in oblivion

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:05:27 -0500, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:16:26 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:52:46 -0500, <visualforth.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:04 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> 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.
>
> I read the same attitude today about Microsoft with Windows XP.
> Microsoft ends the support for XP and urges millions of people to buy
> new computers. This is outrageous.

Why?

> 50% of all Chinese computers have Windows XP.

The simple fact that the Chinese are using XP is a good enough reason
right there to kill it ... ;-)

But, what exceptionally low percentage of those computers do you believe
had XP legally purchased and installed in China?

> Is Microsoft your employer? It sounds like that.

No.

> Why should an outstanding tool become extinct instead of
> becoming promoted?

Microsoft is a for profit corporation.  Maintaining an operating system
for you costs them money.  Selling another operating system to you
generates money for them.  So, why should they settle for selling you one
operating system when they can sell you five, ten, twenty or more operating
systems in your lifetime?

>> There is no demand or need for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced,
>> Forth suitable for such "new" jobs that you mentioned either.
>
> I didn't ask for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced Forth - I asked for
> reinventing Forth.

If not a warmed over, patched up, enhanced Forth, then this goes to the
point I've Hugh about numerous times.  At what point is Forth no longer
Forth but some other new language?  I.e., you might as well start from
scratch and fix all the know issues with Forth too, e.g., oddly named
ANS Forth words, use of names AND OR XOR instead symbols like & | ^ (from  
C).

>> 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.
>
> Looks like you are biased, too - the opposite direction.

I was talking about other people in general from what I've seen.

> I am sorry to read about your hated memories of Forth.

I was thinking about the anti-Microsoft FSF/GNU/FOSS crowd who prefer to
kill the old and start anew.  Most of those projects you cited are by  
people
 from the same crowd.

I don't have hated memories of Forth, although I'm not fond of the  
language.
It lacks many of the language features that make C preferred to assembly.
I can code in assembly and did so just the other day, but I'd rather not if
I have the choice.

> I am wondering why you are a member of c.l.f.

I've coded a Forth interpreter.  The early generations were mostly C.
The current generation is mostly Forth with some C.

> The only answer may be that you are waiting for a reinvented Forth which  
> will be a lovable tool for you.
>

No.  C is the answer.  Although, an ITC interpreter for Forth is useful
outside of a Forth language context.  It can be used as the backend for
other interpreted languages or for parsing.

> By the way, I can prove you wrong concerning "most people would rather  
> start from scratch". Embedded Systems Design wrote recently: "One of the  
> great mysteries of the embedded market is why design teams don't migrate  
> all code development to new tools like MATLAB or LabView and free  
> themselves of the drudgery of C?

Drudgery?  It must be a biased article.  TIOBE rankings proves that C and
derivatives are the dominant languages.  If C was truly "drudgery," would
it be so successful over such a long time period?

> Our guess is the legacy code base is large and needs to be supported
> and that it would take a very brave engineering team to abandon all
> that code and risk a failed project.

That seems highly doubtful to me.  All you'd need is an FFI to allow
access to C libraries from your language.

FFI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_function_interface

> You got that wrong. Forth is a living language.

It is?  Where is it alive?

Forth <- dead
OpenFirmware <- dead
PostScript <- dead

Forth seems to succeed in obscure embedded systems
where there is no attention to it from the public:
Kitt Peak telescopes, FedEx package tracking, etc.

Every time Forth is involved in a high profile
project it seems to lead to failure: VALDOCS,
Easywriter, Harris processors, and possibly OLPC ...

> There will be confusion if you don't know Forth.

Why?

I know, or have known, many programming, scripting, and batch languages.

I.e., I can make the same claim about C, or just about any other language
I've ever experienced.  But, the claim would only be truthful about C.

>> You should notice that I didn't list other old languages like C or
>> BASIC or PL/I etc as being among the "dead."
>
> I guess BASIC and PL/I are your favorite languages.

C is my favorite.  PL/I is as powerful as C, but isn't as widely
available as C.  This is rumored to be due to the complexity of
producing a compiler for it.  Forth is as widely available as C,
but not used anywhere near as much.  BASIC was a favorite once,
but it lacked structured coding concepts.  FORTRAN, I absolutely
hated.  Pascal was just about useless.  I've seen BASIC used
very effectively in industry for machine control.  Assembly for
6502, 68000, 80x86 are what they are.

> For Lucent Technologies I had to develop a manufacturing tool in VB.
> I learned VB while using it. I liked it very much, but it was boring
> after a while. I would have preferred to have a VF instead, a
> VisualFORTH.  Ten years I waited for a VF, then I wrote it by myself.
> It's easier to use than VB. Since then I do all my Windows projects
> with VF.
>

Is it going to replace VB in the world?  If not, all VF does is create
source code which is incompatible with all other languages and understood
by very few, if any.

E.g., there ia a guy named Herbert Kleebauer who posts to alt.lang.asm.
He's a very skilled 80x86 (Intel and AMD PC) assembly programmer.  However,
he codes x86 assembly using 68000 style syntax.  He wrote his own  
assembler.
Almost no one who codes x86 assembly understands 68000 style syntax.  And,
it's nearly impossible to convert his syntax to syntaxes commonly used on
x86: GNU GAS, Microsoft MASM, and NASM.  So, no one uses his code.

The point is businesses have the same problem.  They need their code to be
coded in the languages that best fit with the commonly available skills
of programmers in the marketplace.

>> So, why should a language - apparently decided to be not suitable
>> for those projects by the projects' authors - be touted for them?
>
> It's simple. People are different.
> There are people in this world who appreciate Forth.

That's fine.  I appreciate BASIC.  Except for lacking structured coding
concepts, it was a great language to learn general programming.  It's
string processing abilities are far simpler and more effective than any
other language, including C and Forth.  But, I don't code in BASIC anymore.
Although, I would if an employer paid me to do so.

> Forth should be promoted, because it is a great tool.

There are lots of great tools in the world.  Do you own an chainsaw, adze,
hog ring pliers, or a trim router?  No, I don't either ...  But, I do own
hammers, pliers, wrenches, saws, ax, crowbar, etc, which can do many of
the same jobs, or can be used to do jobs they weren't designed to do.

The point is Forth is competing with other languages which all get the
same job done.  So, even if Forth is the "perfect" tool for the job, if
another cheaper, easier, and commonly available tool which programmers
are skilled with is available for use, then it will be used instead.
C is widespread and many people are skilled in it.

> I am wondering about reading your comments on c.l.f. while Forth  
> apparently has been decided by you to be not suitable for your projects?

No, I use C.  I am developing my own language.  Originally, I was  
developing
my own C compilers.  I still am or may be or might not ...  However, a C
compiler is more complicated than creating your own language.  So, now, I'm
truly conflicted between using C and my language.  Why?  The same reason  
that
affected Herbert.  No one will use the code if it's not in a language they
understand or they can use.  So, the other option is to force my language
to look and act like C as much as is possible, or perhaps return to coding
my C compilers, or perhaps a C subset.


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Forth in oblivion akk <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-02-16 19:21 +0100
  Re: Forth in oblivion Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-16 12:03 -0800
    Re: Forth in oblivion hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-16 15:47 -0800
    Re: Forth in oblivion Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-05 15:25 +0000
  Re: Forth in oblivion visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-02-18 00:06 -0800
    Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 06:15 -0500
      Re: Forth in oblivion visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-02-18 09:52 -0800
        Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:16 -0500
          Re: Forth in oblivion visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-02-18 19:05 -0800
            Re: Forth in oblivion AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-02-19 09:47 +0100
            Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 04:08 -0600
            Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-19 05:39 -0500
          Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 04:09 -0600
            Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-19 06:18 -0500
              Re: Forth in oblivion Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-02-19 03:35 -0800
              Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-20 10:06 -0600
          Re: Forth in oblivion "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> - 2014-02-23 21:17 +0000
            Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-24 01:18 -0500
              Re: Forth in oblivion "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-23 21:44 -1000
                Re: Forth in oblivion hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-02 04:36 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-03 14:30 -0500
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-03 15:34 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 16:53 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-03 17:10 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 10:28 +0000
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-03 21:05 -0500
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-03 18:42 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-03-03 23:54 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-04 13:49 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-04 17:23 -0500
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-05 04:02 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-05 19:01 -0500
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-06 02:17 +0000
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-03-06 23:48 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-07 17:23 -0500
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-08 01:37 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-08 20:32 -0500
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-03-04 22:15 -0800
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-04 16:41 -0500
                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-04 17:06 -0500
                Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-05 11:11 -0600
                Re: Forth in oblivion hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-03-07 21:14 -0800
  Re: Forth in oblivion albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 13:17 +0000

csiph-web