Forth Philosophy
Guy Macon
I recently ran into some websites that seem to me to relate
to or contrast to the basic philosophy behind Forth, so I
thought I would share them.
The Graphing Calculator Story
[ http://www.pacifict.com/Story/ ]
Worse Is Better
[ http://dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html ]
[ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf ]
[ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf ]
[ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/WorseIsBetterPositionPaper.pdf ]
[ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/ProWorseIsBetterPosition.pdf ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better ]
The Hollywood Principle
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Principle ]
...and a couple that relate to Forth's popularity
Models of Software Acceptance: How Winners Win
[ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/AcceptanceModels.pdf ]
Money Through Innovation Reconsidered
[ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/Innovation.pdf ]
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Elizabeth D Rather
Thank you! "How Winners Win" is partcularly relevant and well-done.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
Marcel Hendrix
> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/AcceptanceModels.pdf ]
> Thank you! "How Winners Win" is partcularly relevant and well-done.
" o The implementation should be fast
o It should be small
o It should interoperate with the programs and tools that the expected users are already using
o It should be bug-free, and if that requires implementing fewer features, do it "
Spot the odd one!
-marcel
Clever Monkey
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> I recently ran into some websites that seem to me to relate to or
>> contrast to the basic philosophy behind Forth, so I thought I would
>> share them.
>> The Graphing Calculator Story
>> [ http://www.pacifict.com/Story/ ]
>>
>> Worse Is Better
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html ]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/worse-is-worse.pdf ]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/IsWorseReallyBetter.pdf ]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/WorseIsBetterPositionPaper.pdf ]
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/ProWorseIsBetterPosition.pdf ]
>> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better ]
>>
>> The Hollywood Principle [
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Principle ]
>>
>> ...and a couple that relate to Forth's popularity
>>
>> Models of Software Acceptance: How Winners Win
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/AcceptanceModels.pdf ]
>>
>> Money Through Innovation Reconsidered
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/Innovation.pdf ]
>
> Thank you! "How Winners Win" is partcularly relevant and well-done.
>
into exactly the same trap in some respects.
In their argument that the best tech does not always win, they cite:
Mac vs. Wintel
Emacs vs. vi
Lisp vs. Java
...
Really? These are the highlights of better technologies that have lost
out that they have chosen to prove their argument?
First of all, the assumption that one of these is better technology than
the other is specious, at best. Second of all, best technology in what
regard? Are Macs really all that better? I may think so, but what I'm
really saying is that "Macs are better for me, as a working software
engineer and part-time home IT person, and let's face it, when I
switched Linux desktops sucked and Windows 2000 was a disaster."
Comparing something as broad as market share for a platform is really
lame, as the actual patterns tend to be clumpy. An argument can be made
that OS X (especially) has reinforced and encouraged a sort of
mind-share among certain var of technical people where Macs have all the
"market share" they need.
And the Emacs vs. vi thing, well, I'm flabbergasted.
The rest of the presentation introduces similar sorts of weak
comparisons or downright false dichotomies. The fact that they base
their critique on the assumption that these technologies are
self-evidently "better" than the other, and yet did not (again, in a
self-evident manner) "succeed" pretty much makes their entire thesis
suspect.
--
clvrmnky <mailto:spam...@clevermonkey.org>
Direct replies to this address will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap"
with my name to contact me directly.
Elizabeth D Rather
> Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
...
> This is an interesting critique of the received wisdom, but it falls
> into exactly the same trap in some respects.
>
> In their argument that the best tech does not always win, they cite:
>
> Mac vs. Wintel
> Emacs vs. vi
> Lisp vs. Java
> ...
>
> Really? These are the highlights of better technologies that have lost
> out that they have chosen to prove their argument?
>
> First of all, the assumption that one of these is better technology than
> the other is specious, at best. Second of all, best technology in what
> regard? Are Macs really all that better? I may think so, but what I'm
> really saying is that "Macs are better for me, as a working software
> engineer and part-time home IT person, and let's face it, when I
> switched Linux desktops sucked and Windows 2000 was a disaster."
I can't comment knowledgeably about Emacs vs vi or Lisp vs. Java, but I
know a lot about Macs vs PCs. We (FORTH, Inc.) bought our first PCs
when they first came out, and had Forth running on them within a few
months. That was about 1981. We bought our first Mac in 1984 (also
when they first came out), and Macs quickly became our office computer
of choice. There was one on every desk, and those doing PC development
had one of each. Not only did all of us who used both prefer the Mac,
all industry pundits of the time acknowledged its technical superiority.
By the mid-90's Windows became sufficiently usable that we could abandon
the dual-technology office. Everyone was sad to see their Macs go, but
it was just too complicated to support two incompatible networks. It
was clear that Windows had won the market share battle.
Last January, I bought another Mac, my first in 12 years. It's a
dual-boot (BootCamp) computer, so I have both Leopard and XP available.
There is absolutely no doubt that Leopard is faster and easier to use
by a huge margin. I spent time in XP *only* because there's software
for it that isn't available for Leopard.
Clever Monkey
with. The issue is that somehow overall market share should reflect
this success. It does not, and likely never will.
Something as simplistic as "market share" is too narrow to define the
sort of success, especially recently, that the platform has had. In
terms of mind share among a highly skilled set of technical users (and,
some might even say, taste-makers) the platform has succeeded well beyond
I'm saying that using these sorts of simplistic notions of "success" and
"better" -- essentially setting up false dichotomies -- strike me as
very weak, which undermines a critical part of their entire argument.
If an argument is going to be made that overall success is a possible
indicator that unsuccessful options may have more merit then we better
make sure that we are not just setting up such easy indicators of success.
Forth should be able to stand up on its own. I say that the existence
of so many clever taste-makers who find it useful is indication that
there's life in the old girl yet!
Guy Macon
Clever Monkey wrote:
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> Models of Software Acceptance: How Winners Win
>> [ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/AcceptanceModels.pdf ]
>
>The fact that they base their critique on the assumption
>that these technologies are self-evidently "better" than
>the other, and yet did not (again, in a self-evident manner)
>"succeed" pretty much makes their entire thesis suspect.
Tautology: A statement so framed that it cannot be
denied without inconsistency. AKA Circular reasoning.
Guy Macon
Clever Monkey wrote:
>Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
(Re: Models of Software Acceptance: How Winners Win
[ http://dreamsongs.com/Files/AcceptanceModels.pdf ])
It is pretty evident that Apple Corp. would consider low market share
with high mind share to be failure, and would consider high market
share with low mind share to be success. And the paper itself starts
off with the words "Building business success."
BTW, I think that the products described under "Example:" headings
on pages 28-31 make the case far better than the earlier, weaker
examples that you rightfully criticised.
It is interesting trying to answer the questions on pages
52-59 for Forth and seeing if the theory's predictions hold.
Bruce McFarling
wrote:
> Yes, and I may even agree. But this is not what I am taking umbrage
> with. The issue is that somehow overall market share should reflect
> this success. It does not, and likely never will.
I don't understand in what way that is a critique of the argument that
is sketched in that set of Power Point slides.
The slide that you are referring to argues that success does not
automatically follow from having technology that appears to be
superior, based on available information on technology introduction.
Even if *some* of the examples in the slide are tenuous ... how
tenuous they are would depend on what point is actually being made,
which is not something that can be easily seen in the visual appendage
to a talk without actually hearing the talk itself ... some of them
are quite clearly sound.
On introduction ... and if you skipped past the slide where the point
was made about the difference between analysis of business success
with retrospective and prospective units of analysis, go back and
unskip that slide ... Windows 3.1 *was* technically inferior to the
Macintosh operating system. It was a lot easier to crash, for one.
However, that technically inferior system *in conjunction with* its
other market advantages gave it a significant edge in the market-
place ... and as dominant as network economies are for operating
systems, an operating system with a substantial over-all edge is going
to dominate, and relegate other contenders to niche status.
And the point of the argument in that slide is that the *existing*
presumption in the literature that it is possible to translate
directly from the technical superiority or inferiority that can be
seen on introduction to market success does not hold up to scrutiny.
So it seems that you are not taking umbrage with the argument, but
with the presumption in the literature that the argument is
critiquing.
Now, whether Emacs is unambiguously technically superior to vi ...
that is, to say the least, debatable. I hope never to be condemned to
rely exclusively on either, but I can easily imagine alternative
scenarios where either one emerges as the lesser of two evils.
However, for the argument being made ... you only have to find two or
three of the examples to be actual examples of discernible technical
superiority that was not followed by market success to agree with the
position being argued that the one *does not automatically lead to the
other*.
Guy Macon
More interesting websites on this topic:
The Fable of the Keys
[ https://cs.utd.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html ]
Randy's Response to the Anti-Dvorak Crusaders
[ http://www.dvorak-keyboard.com/dvorak2.html ]
Path Dependence:
(Standard Railway Gauges and the Questions They Suggest)
[ http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/puffert.path.dependence ]
Are Network Externalities a New Source of Market Failure?
[ https://cs.utd.edu/~liebowit/netwextn.html ]
Silly little bobtailed carriages
(The bobtailed carriages come in on page 13)
[ http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/749/1/MPRA_paper_749.pdf ]
Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy
[ http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/jep.html ]
Network Effects
[ http://oz.stern.nyu.edu/io/network.html ]
Vision on Innovation: 1. European innovation performance
[ http://www.caneval.com/vision/innovation/innovation1.html ]
Vision on Innovation: 2. Models on the dynamics of innovation
[ http://www.caneval.com/vision/innovation/innovation2.html ]
Vision on Innovation: 3. Why is the US outperforming Europe?
[ http://www.caneval.com/vision/innovation/innovation3.html ]
Vision on Innovation: 4. Innovation governance
[ http://www.caneval.com/vision/innovation/innovation4.html ]
Vision on Innovation: 5. Achieving the goals of the Lisbon strategy
[ http://www.caneval.com/vision/innovation/innovation5.html ]
Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History
[ https://cs.utd.edu/~liebowit/paths.html ]
Path Dependence
[ https://cs.utd.edu/~liebowit/palgrave/palpd.html ]
Network Externalities (Effects)
[ https://cs.utd.edu/~liebowit/palgrave/network.html ]
Market Processes and the Selection of Standards
[ https://cs.utd.edu/~liebowit/standard/standard.html ]
Wikipedia: format war
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_war ]
Chicken Little Comes Home to Roost:
A Misplaced and Flawed Economic Theory Bedevils Microsoft.
[ http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/upside.html ]
We Don't Know Why She Swallowed the Fly:
Policy and Path Dependence
[ http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/regulatn.html ]
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>