From: ahaley@eoe.co.uk (Andrew Haley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Documenting
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:27:04 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Mike Haas (mikeh@starnine.com) says that "screens" (by which I presume
he means blocks used for source code) are viewed by [users of other
languages] as evidence that Forth will never be a modern language.

Some people may believe this, but it flies in the face of historical
fact; BLOCK was an innovation.  Every computer OS around at the time
(1970) supported text files, but Charles Moore invented a different
method of accessing source text and other data, not because he was
"old fashioned" but because he thought that he had a better system.

I don't think that people who do not use Forth will be drawn to it if
we change all our sources to use OS text files; they will carry on
happily using C or whatever.  The only difference will be that people
who like to use blocks will no longer have their sources in that
convenient form.  

There is a great deal of work to be done in getting the interactive
development tools already used in Forth systems to work with text
files.  If Forth has any virtue, it is simplicity; rewriting existing
tools to use text files would greatly complicate things.

There is too much emphasis in this group on rewriting tools that
already work very well in order to satisfy the expectations of people
who are never going to use them.

I've no idea where the notion that some of [Forth's] major features
are architected to work best only in embedded controller applications
comes from; that is contrary to what is known about Forth's history.
Much early Forth use at Forth, Inc was in commercial/database
systems.  They found that blocks work extremely well in that
environment.

On some platforms, interaction with host operating system files is
essential; fair enough.  You might even run Forth as a task under
another OS.  I've done this in many applications, and sometimes it's a
good solution, but Forth is not a programming language so much as an
operating system.  The Forth applications I've seen which impressed me
the most used Forth as the OS.  There are some wonderful multiuser
databases which use the Forth operating system.

It depends on what your goal is.  If it's to get the maximum number of
Forth users, maybe Mike Haas's route is the best.  If your goal is to
develop efficient applications on computers (and yes, efficiency is
still important) then you might choose a different route.

If the "mainstream" expects a standard set of functions which allow
one to link with object files from other languages, then by all means
let's supply one.  But we shouldn't assume that they will use Forth if
we do.

Those who stay with source blocks don't do so because they don't care
to "put the work in."  It's because we find that blocks are a good
solution to the problems we face when developing applications.  If
some others choose to use text files, that's fine.  I don't want to
convince others how great blocks are; I just want to explain why _I_
use them.  

If others prefer text files, that's great, but I resent the
implication that I haven't moved to text files because of laziness.
It's because blocks work best for my uses.  If others use text files
that doesn't bother me at all.

I am very disappointed to see the great "blocks versus files" flame
war resurrected in this conference.  I suppose this message will only
prolong the latest outbreak; ho hum.

Andrew.