On Mar 10, 6:02 pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I think Jonah really hit the issue on the head with:
>
> > If an expert told you that in his extensive experience internal
> > combustion engines work very well for land vehicles, would you then
> > immediately say there's something wrong with internal combustion
engines
> > because they can't be used at sea or in the air?
> It's a good question, but my answer wasn't what he expected. In the real
> history here, the experts faced the problems and rose to the challenges,
> rather than arguing that the engine was only for land vehicles. Indeed,
> their response *created* practical air vehicles.
This is not what the challenge above says. The expert above simply
says that internal combustion vehicles work very well for land
vehicles. The expert does not say anything regarding air or sea
vehicles. Indeed, the ex****t could be talking in 2007, with a long
history of internal combustion engines being used in a variety of air
and sea vehicles.
And the answer to the question ... would you infer a statement about a
lack of capability in another area from the fact that the expert talks
in their area of expertise ... the answer is evidently yes, as you did
so above.
> So what restricts Forth to proprietary applications?
At present, a lack of an established non-proprietary code base that
can be readily used as a platform for the creation of additions to
that code base. That is a path-dependency, not a static feature of
Forth.
|
