Mark W. Humphries wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:16 am, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Mark W. Humphries wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 2:50 am, Richard Owlett <rowl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Seems Forth gets used where goal is COMPETITIVE COMMERCIAL advantage.
>>> Exactly, for a business whether or not to share code is a commercial
>>> decision not to be taken lightly.
>>> I currently see no commercial advantage to sharing the code that most
>>> differentiates our products from those of our competition. If on the
>>> other hand we one day write a new device driver, or a some generic
>>> utility for FreeBSD, for example, than I would have no problem
>>> contributing this code to the open source community. But sharing the
>>> code at the heart of our competitive advantage would be commiting
>>> commercial hara-kiri.
>> What does this have to do with Forth?
>
> Everything.
Oh yes? What about all of the proprietary software in other languages?
You personally choose Forth. Apparently most who write such software
don't.
We use Forth for those areas which differentiate our
> products, the mass appeal of the language isn't in any way a
> consideration, neither is reusing other's code. It's only for those
> aspects that are non-differentiating (and therefore generic) that
> popularity comes into play and we go with the flow of the m*****.
What weakness in Forth restricts it to these situations?
--
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.
|
