Re: Forth and Co - The Return of the Jedi

John Doty wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote:
John Doty wrote:

...

Forth is a methodology. The pursuit of simplicity is a critical part of that methodology. If you don't follow that methodology, you are no longer on the Forth path.

That's so strong as to be worthy of a troll.

It's not a troll.

I hope you understand that I didn't suggest that it was.

It's exasperation at the meme "Standard Forth" that is a parasite upon the Forth idea. That a few people prosper by harvesting the fruit of the parasite does not make it the real thing, nor does it mean that "Forth" is healthy.

It's one thing to campaign for Forth to change. Claiming that it's no longer Forth if it doesn't makes no sense to me.

Don't you care whether Forth prospers? Or is the hermit programmer model OK with you? Forth used to be an important tool in my world, but it's essentially extinct and nothing has really emerged as a satisfactory replacement. Should I not be frustrated with this?

I'm retired. I haven't written a useful program in years. Most of my useful code was written in Forth that ran on bare iron. I'm still happy with an OS simulation of that for amusement. I've given up trying to show others the glories of Forth of any variety. Maybe I'm tired.

...

So, your statement that "Being predictable is a large part of being reliable" is hardly universal.

"A large part" is hardly "IFF". You seem to be debating to score points, rather than to clarify.

No, I'm just pointing out that you can't make such a generalization. Reliability stems from matching ends with means, not from some property of the means divorced from the ends.

We are both guilty of unjustified generalizations then.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
.