Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: single-xt approach in the standard Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 14:28:43 GMT Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien Lines: 57 Message-ID: <2024Sep22.162843@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> References: <1a3ebf77c1ed8926d455a268e1309fe0@www.novabbs.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 17:02:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="511b646e4025f96132525e6ac5a52b4b"; logging-data="2373670"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19E8rhXDjn0mZnUAzG74j57" Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mg+QFlrxjSlWrN2yYMd32OYIOQA= X-newsreader: xrn 10.11 Bytes: 3427 Stephen Pelc writes: >On 21 Sep 2024 at 21:18:00 CEST, "Ruvim" wrote: >> What are the particular fundamental issues? And where can these people >> be heard? > >Mitch Bradley was particularly fervent in retaining state-smart words, >especially when defining Domain Specific Languages (DSLs). Everything I read from him on the topic was that he likes interpretive control structures, and that he has not experienced problems with state-smart implementations of such words. Fervent? >He has a point, but the TC has been so fervent in its "state smart >words are evil" approach that he simply regards Open Firmware >as its own standard - another group lost to the current Forth >standard. Mitch Bradley has been on the TC. It's interesting that you characterize the TC as being 'fervent in its "state smart words are evil" approach'; you were there, too. My impression used to be that while both camps existed and their influence is visible in various places in Forth-94, the intention was that at least words like S" should be implementable as STATE-smart words, and that the fact that the text of the standard does not reflect this intention is an oversight. Is my impression wrong? >Does this matter? Yes, there are still OF projects at compaanies >like Apple. Evidence? Certainly says: |Starting in 2006, Apple phased out its use of Open Firmware in favor |of EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) during its transition to Intel |processors. So if Apple still uses Open Firmware, even Apple fans don't know about it. Oracle has canceled SPARC development in 2017, so that branch of Open Firmware is dying, too. So the only living branch of Open Firmware may be at IBM. >It will be ineffective to assume that all this people will seek out >the Forth standards committee. It is up to the committee to >perform some research and talk sympathetically to people >who have given up on Forth standards. It's just practical >politics. Has anyone held you back from taking such efforts? - anton -- M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html New standard: https://forth-standard.org/ EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net