Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- From: Helmar <helmwo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:50:48 -0800 (PST)
Hi,
a lot to think of. Indeed very interesting. A preliminary answer
follows.
On Dec 22, 8:15 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Helmar <hel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But can Forth ever be interesting again for a mainstream? I'm,
curious. The computers today are probably too powerful for a language
like Forth. Even embedded devices now get for 2 ct more of production
costs a such fast chip that something like Forth might not be needed
anymore.
So since a new year will begin soon, where do you see the future of
Forth? Is it ANS94, ANS20xx or something completely different? Should
Forth go to desktop? Where is what Forth in the next years could make
sexy?
Forth is a language for smart people who want to Keep It Simple.
Just now, the machines are fast enough and big enough that it isn't
necessary to keep things simple. Time to market is the most important
thing, and it's faster to deliver something complicated that's cobbled
together from complicated pieces. Simplifying stuff takes longer.
The promise of Forth is that you can keep things simple on all levels
and do better than the complex approaches. This promise has not been
kept yet.
I tend to agree here. The thing that you use Forth does not
automatically make the things simpler. But can not Forth also be used
like the "complex approaches"? I mean company inside rules how to use
it and leaving a lot of power sideways to let the slaves program in a
simple way? RPN does not force you to make it complex. Maybe the
missing syntax makes it obvious to search for the simplest solution.
But if you do not need to search for the simplest solution, simply use
a "stupid" solution and the sources can be as understandable as that C/
Java/Xyz#-stuff is.
It doesn't really matter that it's complicated (or slow) to emulate
Forth on over-complex CPUs. Performance is not really an issue, time to
market is the main issue. What matters is that large projects take
longer to simplify. One person who holds the whole project in his head
can simplify pretty easily. A dozen people who work together have a
harder time. Traditionally Forthers have insisted that Forth programmers
can do more, so larger projects should be entrusted to small groups of
Forth programmers. This argument has failed.
I do not know if this argument failed. Forth has a lot of power. But
indeed, writing GUI-applications is not the first strength of Forth.
Is Forth only for geniuses? Can Chuck Moore build a full GUI in 4K of
code and a TCP/IP stack in 2K and nobody else can? I dunno. Nobody else
has.
Do you think 4K or 2K is any messure? I'm unsure. It can be, but it's
less interesting today. So maybe nobody tried it.
If there were a lot of great amateur Forth programmers we might have
competitions. Or cooperations. Who can make the best alternative to a
GUI? That might be a simpler GUI or something else that's simpler and
useful. GUIs as they now exist are very very complicated, probably
without good reason except that they provide a familiar look-and-feel.
I think it's a good point. So an idea would be to attract amateur
Forthers. How?
We might look for a better simpler alternative to a TCP/IP stack. Get
something good, declare it a standard, register it, provide the
protocols and Forth code to use it anywhere, and use it. Anybody who
needs to use it can download code that should work.
Similarly with HTML. If you want to use HTML it isn't enough to meet the
official standard, your HTML server has to provide something that the
major HTML clients will understand, whether they're standard or not. And
your HTML browser has to handle a million websites that do things
however they want. You can't possibly keep it simple when you have to be
compatible with the top eight incompatible alternative systems. Make
your own standard that *is* simple, and stick to it, and even if the
rest of the world doesn't follow it you can keep it simple. It might
have various advantages -- reliability, security, etc. It might catch
on. It doesn't have to, you can get your work done regardless.
It seems to me that Forth got a big loss dealing with the 1983 standard.
I think this is true. It made the implementation of a Forth system
that is recognized as "OK" more or less something that has to be done
in slave-work. I can say from my own experiences that many people do
not recognize Forth as a way of programming anymore - they think of it
as beeing something in strict terms of the standard. It's unbelievable
for some people that the standard can be implemented using a non-
standard Forth.
But Forth got another big loss dealing with GUIs and Windows. We didn't
get a graphics standard and free Forths that provided graphics at all
tended to provide a few commands -- HLINE VLINE LINE CIRCLE ELLIPSE FILL
and not much else. We didn't get a GUI standard and professional Forths
that provided a GUI tended to do it in a complicated unForthlike way.
Maybe that was absolutely necessary to be compatible with Windows or
Macintosh or Sun, but the advantage of using Forth for those tasks was
not obvious.
Then Forth got another big loss dealing with the net. For a long time
free Forths did not provide TCP/IP (except for Unix Forths).
If you're an amateur, what does it look like? You can buy a system that
does 3D graphics that lets you write your own complex comic strip. (For
a silly example,http://www.thedreamlandchronicles.com/.) You can get
free software that does the same thing but not as well. You can get
web-authoring tools that let you do fantasticly complex websites that
work with the browser that has the most market share, that hide the
complexities from you. None of it works perfectly but you can see
tremendous results. Or you can take up Forth, learn how Forth works, and
then you can write text adventure games that people download.
You write what is unsexy for many newbies.
You can now get trial versions of the professional Forth systems that do
everything. You can have a Forth HTML server but the ugly details are
not hidden from you. If you want to learn all about the ugly HTML
details you can create a superior product that way, but most people
would rather just get something that mostly works.
Here I do have doubts to agree. Or please make this more explicit. I'm
simply unsure to accept this.
Regards,
-Helmar
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- From: Bernd Paysan
- Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- From: Jonah Thomas
- Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- References:
- Your mindset about Forth?
- From: Helmar
- Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- From: Jonah Thomas
- Your mindset about Forth?
- Prev by Date: Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- Next by Date: Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- Previous by thread: Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- Next by thread: Re: Your mindset about Forth?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
