Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 2024-09-22 23:34, dxf wrote:

The only guidance a standard can give is on duplicating the past.  I see
no value in creating a new forth simply to do that.  As an individual one
has the opportunity to bring something new that's not merely repetition.
At the very least one can avoid repeating the same mistakes.

A standard does provide guidance and knowledge of the past, but also provides a jump off point for new work, new designs, new blood.
In the 1980's there were a plethora C compilers (tiny c, small c, sozobon c, bsd c, turbo c, watcom c, gnu c, sysv c, solaris, ...) just different enough to make portability of source code a PITA.  Similarly all the *nix variants drove a need for POSIX and X/Open (now SUS) to improve portability of software (especially if they wanted government contracts).
Linux came about and aimed for standards compliance in most aspects and then built new and/or improved tools that extend beyond the standards.  Now clang has come on scene looking to dethrone the megalith gcc that is a bit of portability nightmare within itself as it tries to support numerous CPUs and OSes.
Having an *agreed on* standard is a good thing, it helps new people learn what is portable, see/hear of pitfalls, and _then_ improve (speed, size, supported hardware) and extend.  A standard should not get in the way of that, but help.
I read a large number of these posts about the woes of building a standard and/or compliance - its like someone is trying to take away your favourite teddy, "Mr.Floop", or washing your favourite blanky once a year.
I believe in standards and portability and there are those that sometimes need to break with them because of special niche targets, but at least they that do tend to know where they differ and document those differences.
--
Anthony C Howe
achowe@snert.com                                   BarricadeMX & Milters
http://nanozen.snert.com/                          http://software.snert.com/