On Mar 10, 3:56=A0pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> So, if you dispute me, suggest an alternative hypothesis that fits the
> evidence (the lack of published Forth). If you can't, I have no reason
> to disbelieve mine.
>
It seems to me that publication of Forth code doesn't work well as an
afterthought. It's unnatural to discipline one's coding style for
maximum ****tability and communication with end users. Academics who
code with an eye toward publication end up with code that's fit to be
published while guys just trying to make something work end up with
non-****table code with sketchy (if any) do***entation. There are also
some things about Forth that hinder ****tability.
Most Forth94 implementations lump all of the wordsets and a bunch of
vendor-specific words into an alphabet soup called FORTH, which forces
programmers to keep on their toes about using non-ANS words. But a
tool can be built to address this.
There is a problem with INCLUDE in that it doesn't provide enough
control over the current file path. That means library A can't include
library B if library A is to be included from any directory, which
forces the user to deal with details that normally should remain
hidden. Hopefully 200x will fix this.
If Elizabeth's project management methods could be encapsulated in an
automated tool, that might solve the publishability problem.
--Brad
|
