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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #34337

Re: Does Forth solve the paradox?

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 11:18:25 -0500, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>>> In article <6f36e5e5-037c-41e2-89c5-2bc11937ddcd@googlegroups.com>,
>>> <forthisit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1963779
>> [...]

>>> This article reminds me of when I was a high school student and was
>>> obliged to write essays about subjects. Of course I was naive and
>>> had no opinion whatsoever about the subjects, even less personal
>>> experience.
>>
>> I also got the feeling of buzzword bingo from the article, like much
>> software engineering stuff around, but there are apparently some
>> points worth discussing there:
>>
>>> But in the spirit of
>>> Halloween I'll drive a wooden stake through the heart.
>>>
>>> Flexibility breeds complexity?
>>>
>>> No!
>>>
>>> Simplicity breads flexibility.
>>
>> Now that's an interesting point.  Looking at the descriptions of Chuck
>> Moore's philosophy (often called the Forth philosophy), he seems to
>> side with the author of the article: "Do not put code in your program
>> that might be used. Do not leave hooks on which you can hang
>> extensions."  These things he avoids are things that make the program
>> flexible.  And Chuck Moore does not want flexibility.  If the
>> requirements change and the program is not flexible enough, he does
>> not change the program, he rewrites it.
>
> Indeed so.  It seems to me that a lot of the arguments made by the
> author were exactly the ones made by Forthers in the past, especially
> Chuck Moore.  A very-generalized solution to a problem is going to be
> more complex, more expensive, and harder to maintain [than] one that
> simply does the job at hand.  A reusable component likewise.  I don't
> quite understand why this simple piece has raised so much ire here.
>

s/that/than

> "Software complexity is a terrible enemy that inhibits our ability to
> develop adaptable software that's easy to understand. To deal with
> complexity, we try designing flexible software. Sadly, too often the
> flexibility we hope will tame complexity and yield higher degrees of
> reuse and maintainability has a paradoxical effect. The complexity
> hinders use and decreases the ability of our software to survive
> long-term."
>

I think the problem is that everyone decided the
ancient paradigm of a dedicated program for every
task was bad, and adopted new paradigms which were
unproven and worse.  Look at the Linux applications
which attempt to merge the tasks of 50 programs into
just one.  I'd argue that 50 programs with few to
no parameters is much easier to use and maintain than
one program which has over 500 command line options.
Most standalone programs are "once and done."  They'll
never need any more work.  They work correctly the first
time and every time.  I can't even use "ls" list directory
command on Linux without consulting the manpage on an
almost daily basis for some needed option.  I'm constantly
consulting manpages for information on parameters and the
format of them.  What a total waste of time.  DOS did it
the correct way.  Every command has only a handful of
options and displays the options when queried or executed
without paramters.  If it's not that, then it's some other
issue such as which choice among many choices it the better
option, such as deciding between GREP, AWK, VI or SED.
Grocery stores which limit choice make far more money
than those which don't.  I believe the psychology behind
that is solid for programming languages too.  I've been
saying that is one reason for C's success versus Forth,
but no one here is listening to that, or receptive of it.


Rod Pemberton

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

Thread

Does Forth solve the paradox? forthisit@gmail.com - 2014-11-05 08:08 -0800
  Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-05 19:45 +0000
    Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-05 10:43 -1000
      Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-05 14:04 -0800
        Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-05 12:49 -1000
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-05 18:13 -0500
            Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-05 13:54 -1000
            Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-06 10:13 +0000
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-05 20:55 -0800
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-05 22:19 -0800
      Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-11-06 03:05 -0800
        Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-06 11:43 +0000
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-11-06 04:46 -0800
            Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-06 16:58 +0000
    Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-05 17:22 -0500
    Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-05 18:54 -0800
    Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-06 09:22 +0000
      Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-11-06 03:20 -0800
      Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-06 10:18 -0600
        Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-06 18:30 +0000
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-07 03:22 -0600
        Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-06 16:57 -0500
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? forthisit@gmail.com - 2014-11-06 14:38 -0800
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-06 13:58 -1000
        Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-07 10:40 -0800
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-08 02:36 -0600
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-07 22:45 -1000
        Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-14 01:33 +0100
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-11-14 02:34 -0800
          Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-14 05:07 -0600
            Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-15 16:21 +0000
              Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-15 11:52 -0600
              Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-11-15 12:47 -0800
              Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-16 00:06 +0000
                Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-11-16 00:45 +0000
                Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-16 13:39 +0000
      Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-11-06 19:54 +0000
  Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-11-06 08:26 -0800
    Re: Does Forth solve the paradox? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-06 16:57 -0500

csiph-web