Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"

On 10-04-2025 12:40, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
 > In article <f7a591a1dc38e555ac1aecce6c59bd3bf195d09c@i2pn2.org>,
 > dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
 >> On 9/04/2025 9:28 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
 >>> In article <nnd$4e97017c$71179fa7@ab267a929dfc81b6>,
 >>> Hans Bezemer  <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:
 >>> <SNIP>
 >>>>
 >>>> I see two ways out of this:
 >>>> a. Add F.R to the standard;
 >>>> b. Add SET-DECIMALS or SET-FIXED to the standard.
 >>>>
 >>>> And finally, add a section to the Annex to define and clarify the whole
 >>>> darn thing (because IMHO that is dearly missing).
 >>>
 >>> I'm with Anton Ertl here. If you have a clear idea what has to be done,
 >>> formulate it and send in a proposal. (But I'm as guilty as you
 >>> regards other matters ...).
 >>
 >> Why must it be done?  To please you?  If the committee is satisfied with
 >> the status quo nothing need be done.  And that's what you're seeing.
Well, sometimes people post things just to give their take on it - and hope that other, more expert people give their opinion. It might be because their original take has merit - or because there are arguments against it.
It's - as people call it - their 2 cents to the discussion. Because in the end - that's what all this is: a shared effort to select the best solution to the problem. It may turn out it is not even a problem at all.
"Calling for fixing the standard" is a bit strange in this regard. For one - Forth people have never been good guardians of "the standard". Any standard. No matter who votes - or what they vote - they'll still do their own thing. I think I'm a notorious example of that school of thought - which makes asking me a bit of a strange move. Why not ask somebody who actually cares..
Yeah, I have helped to make a proposal for PLACE and +PLACE - which never even made it to the voting stage. But those words were in 4tH before - and they're still in 4tH, and will be for a long time to come.
So what. In the 4tH manual it says "There have been efforts to modernize ANS-Forth, the Forth-200x initiative, which has resulted in Forth-2012. In our view a number of proposals have been accepted which eroded the consistency of Forth as a language standard even further. We tend to handle Forth-2012 proposals pragmatically: if it doesn't violate the basic principles we have stated, we will comply and align."
And that's about all I have to say about that.
Hans Bezemer