Re: What's right with FORTH and wrong with c.l.f.

Aleksej Saushev <asau@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bruce McFarling <agila61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 
> > On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Richard Owlett <rowl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> What do they have in common?
> >> Someone else has compiled raw data. It's available in ASCII format.
> >> That requires me to parse it.
> >> I doubt anyone would claim string handling as a Forth forte.
> >
> > However, parsing data in ASCII format *is* a Forth forte.
> 
> But the world is not ASCII, and this brings Forth to failure.

Perhaps the word "контексте" might be worth noting.

> 
> > Then add on top the lack of a de facto library management standard,
> > and on top of that the fact that for those who only need to do a
> > specific, people with a distinct set of concrete string tasks can
> > solve it from scratch with tools like those in TOOL2002. If that is
> > auxiliary to their main task, then once its solved, they may rarely
> > need to revisit it. So instead of investing the time and effort into
> > learning and importing a general purpose string handling toolkit and
> > than using 5% of it, they build a much simpler special purpose string
> > handling toolkit and use 100% of it.
> 
> And thus reinventing the same wheel 100 times, instead of reusing
> the library written once years ago.

Well, what if it is another wheel each time?

Marc