Sujet : Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"
De : dxforth (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dxf)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 10. Apr 2025, 04:25:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <dce1e0caeb7b818470feed3a602a1262a94f3851@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/04/2025 5:10 pm, mhx wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 5:21:05 +0000, dxf wrote:
On 5/04/2025 6:12 pm, mhx wrote:
[..]
On the topic of documentation Forth Standard (the document to which
everyone looks) hasn't clarified aspects of REPRESENT F. etc.
I don't let the Standard confuse me. It's beneficial when others
adhere to it closely, unless it's not. In particular, I don't agree
to the efforts to try to standardize untested 'good ideas.'
...
Do you mean 'significant digits' as opposed to 'decimal places'? FWIW
I believe Forth-94's introduction of the former had definite benefits -
particularly if one is interested in compact representation. For me
it wasn't a case of either/or but how I could combine both in a simple
user-friendly interface. Oddly Forth-94's lack of functionality and
vague specification proved an advantage. I wasn't hog-tied by it.
Probably when Forth-94 came out 'significant digits' was "untested".
But it's now been two decades for me. Over that time I've scrutinized,
replicated, massaged, had thought bubbles I then rejected. So for me
at least it's 'proven'.