To chuck or not? 
Author Message
 To chuck or not?

Quote:
> ``I beg to differ.  ... The one
> ``thing I find missing and can't figure out how to synthesize is
> ``something like the eiffle retry semantics.
> ``
> ``the fact that  we can think of problems with a part of the standard is no
> ``reason to chuck that part.

> Au contraire... the fact that ``we can think of problems with a part
> of the standard'' is _absolutely_ reason enough to ``chuck'' that
> part.  Only those things that are proven aspects of Forth should be
> standardized as part of ANS Forth (in my heretical opinion).

No way, Jose.  I can think of problems with just about *every* aspect
of Forth.  There is no such thing as a word that does everything well.

Should we chuck "DO .. LOOP" and "CREATE" and "ALLOT" and ":" ?  The
problems with those words are a lot more severe than the problems with
CATCH/THROW.

We don't chuck Newtonian mechanics because it ultimately fails to work
in relativistic situations.  In 99.9% of the cases, it is exactly what
you want.  Similarly CATCH/THROW solves the problem it was intended to
solve, and solves it quite well.  A lot of people think that problem is
worth solving (I have the email to prove it), and those people that don't
like it are encouraged to ignore the ERROR wordset and do whatever kind
of error handling they want.

I have a hard time respecting the "I don't like it, so you can't have it"
attitude.

Mitch



Sun, 01 Aug 1993 02:42:55 GMT  
 To chuck or not?

``> Au contraire... the fact that ``we can think of problems with a part
``> of the standard'' is _absolutely_ reason enough to ``chuck'' that
``> part.  Only those things that are proven aspects of Forth should be
``> standardized as part of ANS Forth (in my heretical opinion).


``No way, Jose.  I can think of problems with just about *every* aspect
``of Forth.  There is no such thing as a word that does everything well.

        <...stuff...>

``I have a hard time respecting the "I don't like it, so you can't have it"
``attitude.

My desire to include a quote from another posting led to a
misunderstanding in the definition of the word ``problem.''  I was
referring to _new_ (and unproven) Forth features that may have problems
that we do not yet know about and (in my heretical opinion) should,
therefore, be chucked.  It happened with FORTH-83 and I see no reason
(please, do not send another X3J14 resume list) that prevents ANS Forth
from suffering a similar fate.  

No one interested in any serious way in standardizing Forth would ever
advocate removing DO from Forth, whatever its problems, and I do not.

I find it _impossible_ to accept the ``I like it, so you must accept it''
attitude.
--

      POBox Two | CIS: 73607,1646   | BIX, Delphi, MCIMail: dcp   /  \
 Cambridge,  MA | `It must've been some-other-body,              /    \
02140-0001  USA |  uh uh babe it wasn't me...'                  /______\



Sun, 15 Aug 1993 14:34:27 GMT  
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Chuck Shaffer

2. Chuck and Jan

3. Online interview with Chuck Moore!

4. Chuck Moore

5. Chuck on Slashdot

6. Chuck Moore to be interviewed on Slashdot

7. Slashdot interview with Chuck Moore

8. Slashdot discussion re Chuck Moore

9. Chuck Moore Website

10. comments /was Chuck is right after all

11. How well did Chuck know Lisp in 1970?

12. Hey Chuck...

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software