Re: An Observation

John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Stephen J. Bevan wrote:
John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Certainly it's the kind of programming a narrow specialist is
comfortable with. LSE isn't intended for narrow specialists.
We are communicating right via a network of computers running
software that solve problems virtually identical to the SIP one I described.

And very little of this is in Forth.

Agreed, but it does exist. There is no LSE64 code in this area.


I deny that LSE couldn't be good at this, but as I have no interest in
solved problems I have no motivation to work on it. It certainly is a
very narrow area of the programming universe.

And yet you want everyone to care that Standard Forth isn't being used
much in your narrow area of the programming universe? Hm.


Go read some of the stuff Ritchie wrote on the history of Unix. Those
guys understood explicitly that they were engaged in a *social*
activity.
Unix is not C. If you have a *specific* paper/book about C in mind
then reference it.

Unix and C came from the same minds, the same culture. They were
*very* aware that they were engaged in a social activity. But it
doesn't really matter.

Actually it does, because the following the truth or falsity of the
following has absolutely nothing to do with the above unless you can
show a causal link :-

I'm confident that any reasonably unbiased sample of computer users
would judge C code more readable by humans than Standard Forth code.

The vast majority of computer users don't program at all and so I'm
not sure what they find readable. However, one thing I am confident
about is that those users would lump LSE and Standard Forth in the
same category since the difference between them is tiny compared with
the difference between them an C.


Probably where it is now, mainly in the niche of systems with limited
amounts of memory.
It's only in a very small part of that niche.
So what? You want to quibble about the size of the niche?

Forth's niche used to be very large, encompassing much of the kind of
work I'm interested in. Now it's so small it's hard to find. Maybe
that doesn't matter to you, but it matters to me.

No maybe about it: it doesn't matter to me at all since I'm not
interested in the work you are interested in, it certainly a very
narrow area of the programming universe.


It's mostly gone from *all* environments.
So what? Why does it have to exist in all environments? APL is
mostly gone from all environements, but if you want to analyze
stockmarket data it is hard to find anything better than K (an APL
derivative). Use the right tool for the job.

You seem to be agreeing with me that Standard Forth is rarely the
right tool for any job.

No I'm not, nor do I see how you could draw that conclusion from what
I wrote.


The evidence I see suggests that most computer users agree: few ever
choose Forth.

Few computer *users* choose any programming language at all, they
browse the web, watch/create videos, play MP3s, write letters,
file their taxes, ... etc. Only a small subset of computer users
actually program computers. Of that small subset, the majority of
them have little or no choice as to the programming language. It is
dictated by the environment, management, money, ... etc. That leaves
a small subset of that small subset who actually have the freedom to
choose a language. Back in 1980 there weren't that many you could
choose from, especially if memory was an issue. Now, unless memory is
tight (which is still were Forth beats most other languages), you can
choose TCL, Python, Perl, Ruby, Smalltalk, Lisp/Scheme, ... etc.


But it seems to me that Forth *technique* remains valuable as an
approach to a broad range of problems. At least that's why I'm here.

No argument from me.


nobody cries that Unix is extinct because it isn't the
#1 solution for document processing.
Unix remains *very* strong in the area of technical document
processing.
Unix was used by Bell labs secretaries to prepare documents.

Rarely anywhere else I know of.

So? The point was Unix is barely used in the environment where it got
its first foothold. Over time it has moved to other environments some
of which it is still used in, others in which it has been pushed out
of by competition (DOS/Windows). It is now going to get another
chance in the "desktop" area with OLPC given that it run Unix (Linux).
Incidentally it uses (OpenFirmware) Forth for its BIOS. So, clearly
someone's still doing Forth, even if you don't personally know them
ir it isn't in your area of interest.


MacOS (10) is about as close as you'll
get but it is more than likely running Microsoft Word, the secretary
never sees the command line and might as well be running MacOS 9 or
Microsoft Windows for all the difference it makes to how they prepare
a document using Word. You can still find people using Unix to
prepare documents (I do, using LaTeX), but it is a niche compared to
vast majority who use Word.

An enormous niche compared to Forth's.

So, you're back to arguing about the size of niches.


Again, so what? Forth isn't suddently going to make large inroads
into the gigantic desert, it isn't a local optimum for most of the
desert.

It used to own much of the desert.

Exactly what is the "desert"? I assumed that "desert" meant all
programming tasks but that clearly can't be the case since Forth never
owned anything except a tiny fraction of that. If "desert" means
"problems related to astronomy" then you'll need to make a case as to
why anyone should care about something that is only of interest to
narrow specialists.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Hoard Scalable Memory Allocator
    ... functioning of your program whether objects (and data structures) ... We can use efficient algorithms like RCU, Joes SMR+RCU, or my vZOOM to achieve a very-scaleable success factor for good MT programming that uses mutable data-structures all over the place. ... outside that niche, then garbage collection is often not worth it. ...
    (comp.programming.threads)
  • Re: properly accessing files > 2GB
    ... That probably means the system doesn't support the other two ... programming environments. ... environments the _compiler_ supports, ... find out in advance whether the system can execute them all. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: The chart of comp.lang.c
    ... working environments and he DID do his work in his car, ... This newsgroup is *not* dedicated to work environments, ... group about programming work environments, ... most part, you can't fix anything, and you have to learn to ignore it. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Disappearing data on screen
    ... > Pete Dashwood wrote: ... intended to emulate devices in mainframe environments that have attributes ... obsolete cop out for people who can't deal with event driven GUI ... terms of procedural programming and are used to controlling the process, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: The chart of comp.lang.c
    ... working environments and he DID do his work in his car, ... This newsgroup is *not* dedicated to work environments, ... group about programming work environments, ... And again my point goes totally over a regulars head. ...
    (comp.lang.c)