Re: MISC-d Digest V99 #69
vic plichota wrote:
> Fuck ANS, fuck Microsoft, and fuck Chuck too -- I have implemented a
> couple of maverick FORTH variants which (despite their obvious flaws)
> I have been happy with, and always got the job done -- the trouble
> lay with establishing faith, and trying to get paid for going the
> full distance. Bless ChuMoo for inspiring me, but I take credit +
> blame for my own work.
I understand that folks on this list look at the world from an embedded
systems perspective for the most part . So another take from a software
guy who puts getting the job done over technology may be of little
interest.
But, here goes anyway...
I'm not aware of many companies who've produced more Forth-based software
applications than my company, Prentice Associates Incorporated. Over the
years we've produced some 150+ educational, consumer and business
titles. We did this in a much-extended version of Forth '79. For a number
of years Forth gave us a distinct competitive advantage in our market.
Then Windows came along and shook our tree perilously and the Web came
along and toppled it.
The problem was this: We were so busy building tools in Forth and getting
titles out the door that we didn't have time to understand and master the
new technologies that came to dominate the desktops that we were trying
to serve.
By the time we saw the handwriting on the wall, we couldn't, as a small
company, afford to build a Windows Forth or a web Forth. So we turned to
the Forth community for help. We purchased a Windows Forth that helped us
limp along for a bit; but never did find a product or see a publication
that could help us use Forth to advantage in the web work that we're
doing now.
When I turned at the Forth community here's what I saw:
1) A small population
2) A diminishing population
3) An aging population
4) A fragmented population
5) A population with little interest in the mainstream markets that were
our bread-and-butter
Forth Dimensions, as a source of vital new ideas, was a joke.
When I volunteered to help FIG bring in new blood, I was essentially told
to f**k off. Which I did.
The only real sign of vitality that I saw in the Forth world was the work
that Chuck and Ting and Jeff and others were doing with Forth chips. And
that work was no where near far enough along to help my company salvage
our fast-fading markets.
The problem is this: We did a lot of "roll your own." Money that should
have gone to our bottom line went into "roll your own." "Roll your own"
kept us in the poorhouse. Yet in no way were we smart enough to roll
Forth-based JPEG encoders/decoders; Postscript and TruType font
renderers; relational database interfaces and the score or more
increasingly sophisticated functions that we needed to serve our markets.
Now I suppose we could have stuck our heads down and said bugger all,
we're going to do our thing in Forth whether or not there's a market for
it. But we couldn't see any profit or glory in that. So now we're serving
our clients with the rather inane and clumsy proprietary language
provided as part of Allaire's Cold Fusion. MISC it is most definitely
not.
The point is that technology evolves. As it evolves it encompasses
greater sophistication and complexity. And it fast reaches a point where
no one person or company can be master of it all.
Beyond a relatively primitive stage, technology must be supported by a
community. The vitality of that community is a critical variable. There
must be a leading edge of practitioners who push the limits, establish
ever higher standards of performance and excellence, and inspire the rest
of us. There must be large body of practitioners who create and exploit
the opportunities that bring in the resources that keep the community
flourishing. There must be a strong and steady stream of "new blood,"
"young Turks," lean-and-hungry neophytes who are uninhibited by
conventional practice or past failure. There must be rich communication
forums. And yes... there must be "sizzle," that intangible quality that
captures the imagination of practitioners and non-practitioners alike.
The simple and hard fact is, you have to capture and coopt the
imaginations of the next generation of ees, programmers, comp sci
researchers, and technical managers.
The operational test is this: You go to a four-day conference and lose
four nights sleep because you're afraid you'll miss a single new idea;
curse yourself because you can only participate in one discussion at a
time.
I submit that the Forth software community was like this in the late
'70s, but never since.
In my view, MISC is an inordinately attractive idea. We're all aware that
technologies can evolve beyond their own utility; self-elaborate until
they crumble under their own bloat, complexity, weight and the pressure
of better, simpler ideas and ways of doing things.
So it seems to me that MISC is as much process or point of view as
specific technology. MISC is a way of swimming against the tide -- a
synonym for KISS. Thinking from a MISC perspective keeps us and the rest
of the world honest.
But I question that the MISC ideal can be realized by a lone inventor
burning the midnight oil. We're all aware of the price that Chuck and
Jeff and Ting and others have paid in the service of MISC. And we're all
aware of the impact that they have had to date on the larger world of
computing. So the question is, what additional does it take to build a
more vital community; achieve critical mass?
From a software point of view, what does a state-of-the-art, commercial
MISC OS, web-browser, word processor, relational data base, spread sheet,
graphics editor, action-adventure game, etc., etc., etc. look like? Or is
MISC irrelevant to the desk top?
Ok, then, where should we turn to examine the best-of-breed embedded
software components that we need to do the world's work?
When you're in business you have precious little time to tinker. You
simply have to depend upon a creative and successful group of vendors to
supply the tools you need to get the job done.
