From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com
On 18-04-2025 08:28, Anton Ertl wrote:
> So you could try to propose a word like FORTH-2030-FP-SYNTAX, but I
> expect that the reactions would be along the following lines (in the
> community and in the standardization committee)
Lots of words - and very few arguments. Let's break it down to the most
egregious part of the whole argument.
1. You seem to suggest you know how the TC (and the community) would
react. This fuels ugly rumors that the whole "standards game" is rigged.
Not your best argument.
2. You put up a whole lot of things - but nowhere do you prove (contrary
to your previous posts) that it is not technically feasible. On the
contrary, you agreed that every single solution I put forward can be
done. You just don't like it. That's okay, but that doesn't take
anything away from my original argument.
3. Nowhere did I state the application of this word should be limited to
a single file? Or a single block file. Or a single word. It could
function like "BASE". You don't like BASE. . Okay - see previous
enumeration.
4. No, I don't start every single file with DECIMAL. Like every compiler
4tH starts up in decimal. It is a safe assumption that when a file is
compiled, the state of the compiler is in decimal. If you changed that
and don't change it back to the default, that is because you're a lousy
programmer without any discipline who should have touched Forth with a
pole. Every horror heavens unleashes upon you is well deserved.
5. Quote: "you usually don't want BAR or FOO to change its behavior
depending on which standard is selected." That's exactly what I want,
actually. And using a word to set the standard could automatically be
applied to every single source file or block (unless you have blocks
where all 16 lines are used - in which case you're a lousy programmer
without.. etc.).
6. Quote: "If that word does not appear in that file, "1.0" would still
be non-standardized." In that case you're a lousy programmer without..
etc. Gee - next we're gonna get the argument "If you take too many items
from the stack, your program will crash".
7. I tend to put all of my includes (except one) at the very front of my
program. Just like I neatly declare all variables and arrays at the
start of a programs. That's a kind of personal hygiene all programmers
should master.
What you're actually "forgetting" is that ALL THIS is necessary only and
only because companies or individuals rather acquire technical debt than
change their sources to new standards - AND THEN *USE* that technical
debt to halt down the natural evolution of a language - by introducing
the argument of "breaking code", and thinking they can get away with it.
Python 2.0 -> 3.0 introduced some technical debt. True. They overcame
it. The language is still alive. Next time, try to reduce the number of
changes you introduce per release. Duh! Perl 5.0 -> 6.0 accumulated so
much technical debt they never recovered. And yes, I'm aware of the cost
of "technical debt" - both professionally as personally. So don't try
this on me.
Sometimes, I made changes to 4tH that accumulated a huge amount of
technical debt. The changes in itself were sometimes trivial, but would
break code. I'd be editing, compiling and testing tens, hundreds of
programs for evenings without end. Keeping lists of what was done, and
what still had to be done. It's no fun. But it had to be done.
At work, we either put in the effort - or had to run the code on an old
interpreter with all the CVE's associated with it. Not a good plan.
So yes, collecting technical debt has its consequences. And I think it's
better to have a language WITHOUT all the old kludges in place than one
where the most horrible compromises had to be made in order to
facilitate a bad attitude - to put it frankly.
Hans Bezemer
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
