From: nick@sw.stratus.com (Nicolas Tamburri)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: What's wrong with screens (Re: Documenting)
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:52:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: kyron.sw.stratus.com

penev@venezia (Penio Penev) writes:
> 
> Everything has limitations. The processor has limitations, the
> technology has limitations, the human biology has limitations, the
> speed of ligh has limitations. The questions is what are the
> advantages of limiting Yourself. You loose the ability do do something
> efficiently (or at all), but get the ability to do other things
> faster. The judging is a matter of balance.

Everything has limitations; except everything you mention is imposed on us by
forces beyond our control.  In the case of formatting our source files to fit
1960's terminal technology you impose the limitation on yourself.

> : Not one block proponent has yet to address the issues of interoperability with
> : other system tools and utilities.  The only argument that comes close is "write
> : your own, it's not that difficult in Forth."  I for one don't have the time to
> : write my own applications, much less rewriting existing tools.  I refuse to rewrite
> : GNU emacs in Forth, and I refuse to use a more limited editor to write my Forth
> : code.  I shouldn't have to, and I will not choose a Forth that forces me to.
> 
> I use GNU emacs to write these lines. It has its virtues. But if I
> wanted to write a FORTH-major-mode, It would have to mimic my FORTH
> editor. So why bother?

If you used text files, you wouldn't have to bother.  Text mode works just fine
for Forth, (although a major mode wouldn't hurt.)  Do you like to switch between one
editor's command set and another, or does your Forth editor use the emacs command
set?  In the former case, you are one of the few who does.  In the latter case,
you've rewritten yet another tool that already exists.

> : If Forth's vendors wish to survive, they must address this issue;  not adaptability,
> : (Forth is already that,) but interoperability.
> ...
> 
> Yes, I use all of these ( foreign libraries, calling mechanisms into the
> OS, file system support). On one system You have to talk to a UART, on
> another to a robot arm control register, and on UNIX You have to talk
> to X terminals. For everything You build a little lexicon with the
> interface and do Your job. You treat X terminal like external devices
> with their own copntall language. What's the problem?

The problem still remains that I can't read your source unless you munge it before
you distribute it.  If I change it and give it back to you I have to make sure I
keep to your silly format because I can't predict how your editor will treat 
my changes, most likely truncating long lines and splitting functions between
screens.  G_d forbid I should have a need to add a screen in the middle, because
I have to then fix all your load screens.  If you give it to me in block form,
I have to use Forth to edit it, or even look at it because I can't type it.
I can't use any regular editor I'm used to because blocks don't have carriage
returns at the end of each 'line' so it's all one line that wraps at 80 characters
instead of 64 characters.

How many other ways does this problem have to be stated?

								/nt