On Mar 11, 11:45 am, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mark W. Humphries wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 9:05 am, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Mark W. Humphries wrote:
>
>>>> I've suggested an alternative hypothesis which you've chosen to
>>>> ignore:
>>>> The traditional Forth approach is to solve specific problems by
>>>> extending a Forth into a custom proprietary interpreter targeted at
>>>> that specific problem. The Forth approach is not about producing
>>>> generic solutions for generic problems. Why would it be surprising
>>>> that most Forth code is proprietary?
>>> That's not incompatible with my hypothesis: it extends and adds
detail.
>>> But you're talking about a model of software development that is
rapidly
>>> becoming outdated. The future belongs to those who reuse software, not
>>> to those who reinvent the wheel. The traditional Forth approach is
>>> doomed to shrinking niches. But there remains a need for something
like
>>> Forth: its combination of interactivity, hardware orientation, and
>>> flexibility is missing from more common tools. However, current Forths
>>> fail to meet 21st century standards for usability and readability. Why
>>> not exploit Forth's flexibility to fix this?
>
>> Outdated? The future belongs to...? Doomed?
>> Feeling a bit apocalyptic today aren't we?
>
> Well, haven't you noticed that the computing environment has changed
> quite a bit in the last 30 years?
Yes, and the Forth approach still has unique value.
>> Is your problem with Forth as a language, or the Forth approach to
>> solution development? Or both?
>
> My problem is that Forth is unusable in large collaborative projects.
> The customers want C, and they're right: Forth's weaknesses as a
> collaborative tool are too great. Unfortunately, none of its competitors
> have its strengths. I'm greedy: I want the strengths of both approaches.
You didn't answer the question.
>> If you're hope is to come up with a world-conquering language that is
>> anti-ethical to the Forth approach, please don't call it Forth, might
>> I suggest Machine Python or The Un-Forth? Might I also suggest you
>> start your own newsgroup to expound your theories and plans.
>
> You think I'm actually smart enough to work this all out by myself? I
> don't. But there are some good ideas coming out here despite all the fog
> generated by the forces of denial.
I assume those who share your goals would join your discussion group,
and those who don't would be relieved.
> "Underground Forths are still needed" - Chuck Moore
>
> He's right, you know?
Yes he is, but he's talking about Forths not Machine Python. I've yet
to understand what would remain that is recognizably Forth-like in
what you're proposing beyond interactivity and hardware orientation.
Everything you've described so far sounds more like a hardware
oriented mainstream language than Forth. I believe this is a case of
throwing out the baby with the bath water.
|
