Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 21 Sep 2024 at 21:18:00 CEST, "Ruvim" <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> wrote:

The trouble is that the standard provides no tools to implement such
words. We (MPE) provide such tools in VFX Forth 64, which comes
with full source code.

 
 

If the standard removes the entitlement to have words such as S" a
significant portion of implementors will just ignore the standard, so reducing
its usefulness.

 
Agreed.

The NDCS: notation in VFX provides a simplicity and clarity that is absent
from most other approaches that I have seen.

I suspect that some members of the TC only talk to each other, and have
little or no contact with people who disagree with them on fundamental
issues.

 
What are the particular fundamental issues?  And where can these people
be heard?

Mitch Bradley was particularly fervent in retaining state-smart words,
especially when defining Domain Specific Languages (DSLs).
He has a point, but the TC has been so fervent in its "state smart
words are evil" approach that he simply regards Open Firmware
as its own standard - another group lost to the current Forth
standard.

Does this matter? Yes, there are still OF projects at compaanies
like Apple.

It will be ineffective to assume that all this people will seek out
the Forth standards committee. It is up to the committee to
perform some research and talk sympathetically to people
who have given up on Forth standards. It's just practical
politics.
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)78 0390 3612,  +34 649 662 974
http://www.mpeforth.com
   MPE website
http://www.vfxforth.com/downloads/VfxCommunity/
   downloads