home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
- Path: sparky!uunet!starnine!mikeh
- From: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
- Subject: Re: Documenting
- Message-ID: <C18DMI.H1J@starnine.com>
- Sender: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:03:53 GMT
- References: <4262.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
- Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.
- Lines: 37
-
- In article <4262.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
- >Category 3, Topic 3
- >Message 69 Sun Jan 17, 1993
- >L.ZETTEL [Len] at 17:11 EST
- >
- >> From: starnine.com!mikeh (Mike Hass) > Subject: Re: Documenting > Date: 13
- >Jan 1993 4:06 am GMT > Room: comp.lang.forth > Organization: StarNine
- >Technologies, Inc.
- >
- >> It is nuts to suggest that blocks were implemented because they were
- >>thought superior to text files and to do so is rewriting history.
- >
- >Damnit! This piece of ignorant arrogance is finally too much! I have had
- >personal conversations with Chuck Moore in which he explained at length why
- >blocks were the only rational way to do mass storage on disks.
-
- Of course they are... and that's the way Operating systems do it.
- But they relieve the applications from having to deal with them in this way.
-
- Besides, Chuck has always been notorious for implementing what HE needs...
- he is not usually concerned with GENERAL programming practices.
-
- One look at the three-key keyboard and Novix chip should tell you that.
-
- >
- >Based on much other personal contact, I suspect the only way you will get
- >blocks away from Forth, Inc. is to pry them from their cold, dead fingers (and
- >they sell some systems that run under DOS).
-
- I know. That's why this discussion is so much fun.
-
- >
- >Myself, I can see merits on both sides of the argument. It depends on your
- >priorities, your experience, and the facilities you have available.
-
- AAARRRGHH! What arrogant ignorance!
-
-