Re: part 21 asserts forth best for small memory systems, would lisp

Richard Owlett wrote:
> Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> 
>> m-coughlin wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>  > Programmers who write large Forth systems
>>
>>> will not publish their code for others to use. Its MUCH more
>>> difficult to write Forth source for others to read than to just
>>> write it for yourself when you remember what all your Forth
>>> words do. The problem of knowing and remembering what other
>>> programmers have done is the crucial step. 
>>
>>
>> Programmers who write large Forth systems work in teams.  All 
>> successful teams (using Forth or any language) develop strategies to 
>> maximize code sharing, do***entation, and readability within the 
>> team.  Once you accept the concept of writing code for the team, it's 
>> certainly no harder to do in Forth than other language.  Forth has 
>> been used successfully in team programming projects for over 30 years.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elizabeth
>>
> 
> Yeah *BUT*
> Doty and Coughlin demand source be published if it is claimed that Forth

> code is "shareable". That code is proprietary is irrelevant to them. The

> exist in an academic fantasy land.

My major customers are in academia, yes. But I assure you the products 
and remuneration are no fantasy. ;-)

Without published code, the claims of shareable Forth code remain 
unverifiable bragging. Also, one must assert that somehow Forth's 
advantages eva****ate when code is to be published, a very strange claim 
I think.

> Lots of programmers publish code in 
> XYZ because their goal is proving a point and publi****ng allows others 
> to *DUPLICATE* their work. Seems Forth gets used where goal is 
> COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL advantage.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Forth actually is significant 
there (but I doubt it: a few applications at the margins, I think), what 
weakness in Forth *restricts* it to that area?

Scientific research is highly competitive, and once Forth was judged to 
be an advantageous tool there. But that's past. Why is Forth largely 
frozen in an obsolete form that can no longer compete?

> 
> Gee whiz, different goals -> different modes -> different results LOL
> 

There's lots of proprietary code in other programming languages also. It 
seems they lack Forth's restrictions, creating plenty of both published 
and unpublished code.

-- 
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
--
History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor 
necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to 
use logic for that purpose are abusing it.