On Mar 13, 9:44 am, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bruce McFarling wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 6:13 pm, John Doty <j...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> But this is the same old rehash. You're "begging the question". Most
C
> >> code is also not published, for similar reasons. Most Java code is
not
> >> published, for similar reasons. Most Python code is not published,
for
> >> similar reasons. These arguments apply to most programming languages,
> >> and *all* common ones. Yet, unlike Forth, these languages also
sup****t
> >> publication cultures. So why not Forth?
>
> > But this is the same old rehash ... you are continuing to ignore the
> > implications of your characterization of the state of affairs that are
> > inconvenient to your conclusion that there is something intrinsic to
> > Forth that makes it impossible for it to have a publication culture,
> > so that the only recourse is to fork an incompatible version of Forth
> > that lacks that obstacle.
>
> If anyone can overcome the obstacles (plural, I think) without forking
> the language, I will cheer. I believe it impossible. But I didn't think
> the Rockies had any chance of getting to the Series last year either:
> sometimes it's fun to be wrong.
>
>
>
> > The state of affairs you present is:
> > * Most code in most languages is not published
> > * Developing a publication culture around a project in a given
> > language is therefore a rare event
> > * Forth is a niche language, as are most programming languages.
>
> But it wasn't such a niche language a quarter century ago. It failed
> then to create a sustainable code base, despite the fact that it was
> fairly popular in the academic/research community. Your argument is a
> little stronger now, but you have to ignore history to make it.
>
>
>
> > Then comes a demand for an explanation why a niche language has not
> > experienced a relatively rare event. As if its something that is
> > unusual and unexpected and there has to be some flaw in Forth to
> > account for it.
>
> > The odds are high that publi****ng projects will emerge that rely on
> > some niche languages, because niche languages are so numerous. But the
> > odds are strongly against it happening to any given niche programming
> > language, and most publi****ng languages will use the mainstream
> > languages.
>
> > And there is no necessity to have recourse to the specific
> > characteristics of a mainstream language to explain why its
> > mainstream. Its intrinsically a power-law distribution setting,
>
> Yes. Species populations have a power law distribution. Star
> luminosities have a power law distribution. But for an individual
> species or star its place in the distribution is not random: it depends
> on intrinsic properties of the species or star. So, what are the
> intrinsic properties of Forth that consign it to a tiny niche and how do
> we fix them?
This is getting old. Why don't you just put together a list of
==explicit requirements== for your desired language and see if it
generates interest, instead of incessantly repeating the same
question? It would help to understand if what you desire is Forth-
related enough to be of interest to clf. If it ends up being more like
Python than Forth than it belongs in comp.lang.python.
> > both
> > because of the associated network economies and because of the
> > economies of scope, so some small number of languages will be the
> > mainstream languages ... and they could well be the very best ones
> > available, or just the lucky ones, or some mix of the two by various
> > degrees.
>
> I don't think it's luck.
>
> --
> 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.
|
