Standardization process (was: single-xt approach in the standard)

On 2024-09-18 07:39, dxf wrote:

On 18/09/2024 4:58 am, Anthony Howe wrote:

On 2024-09-17 07:59, Ruvim wrote:
...

I think, the standard conformance test suite is enough.

>
One would think so, but the test suite is:
>
* incomplete

 As is the standard generally.  It's also dated.  It's no coincidence
vendors provided functionality well beyond what ANS specified. 

Some words that cannot be implemented in a standard program should be standardized, for example, sockets, multitasking, and perhaps FFI.
But libraries (except some most basic ones) should not be a part of the Forth language standard, I think.

Since
these extensions were never coordinated, there's no common practice
and thus no consensus.  Neither are willing to risk customer backlash
on what is essentially a dead idea. 

Their role on the TC is to ensure
nothing jeopardizes their investment.  It's impossible to have spent
20 years 'standardizing' and have achieved so little. 

This critics is absolutely fruitless. No one owes you to develop any specifications unless you pay for it. Whether some people have achieved much or little is their own business.
Do you have any specific proposals? If this bothers you, why not get involved? Or why not develop some specifications independently?

For fans only.

This is not a paid job. You have to be a fan to do this.
--
Ruvim