retroforth/doc/book/Historical-Papers

# Historical Papers and Notes

## On the Naming of RETRO

Taken from http://lists.tunes.org/archives/tunes-lll/1999-July/000121.html

On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 07:43:54PM -0400, Paul Dufresne wrote:

> My brother did found it funny that Retro is called like that.
> For him retro means going back (generally in time) so this
> does not looks like a name of a OS to come. So he'd like to
> know from where the name came.

Heheh, here's the story: When I started playing with OS stuff
last year (not seriously), I was reading about some old things
like FORTH and ITS, dating back to the 1960's and 70's.  The
past few years in America, there's been a revival of disco
music (along with bell bottoms, platform shoes, and all that
crap) and they call it "retro".  Now, my OS was named by
musicians.. I was telling a fellow musician about my ideas,
how it would be cool to have a small OS that isn't bloated and
unmanageable like Windows... go back to the 70's and resurrect
a line of software that died out.  He goes "hmm.. sounds kinda
retro.."

I think it sounds kinda rebellious, which is a Good Thing now
that everybody hates the M$ empire. :) It seems like other
people are as sick of the future as I am.  Look at TUNES, the
idea there isn't to make some great new invention, just take
some decades-old ideas and combine them in one OS.  The first
time I saw Knuth's "Art of Computer Programming" in the library
I thought "god that looks old.. 1973!!! nevermind.."  Now it's
my programming bible.  Find me something better published in
the 90's.. if such a thing exists, it'll be like a needle in a
haystack.  "Newer" doesn't necessarily mean "better".

	New cars = flimsier
	New farming methods = more devastating
	New version of Netscape = more bloat, more bullshit

One thing is better now: computer hardware.  Give me 70's
software on 90's and 00's hardware :)

- Tom Novelli <tcn@tunes.org>


## The Design Philosophy of RETRO Native Forth

Computer software is a technology in its infancy, a mere fifty years
old.  The last 25 years in particular have seen an explosion in the
software business.  However, software has seen little innovation while
hardware technology has improved phenomenally (notwithstanding the advent
of lousy slave-made parts).  Proven software techniques of forty years ago
have yet to reach widespread use, in deference to the "latest and
greatest"  proprietary solutions of dubious value.  Thanks to agressive
marketing, we make huge investments in these dead-end technologies
(through our businesses and governments, if not personally) and we end up
with a reliance on a heap of complicated, error-prone, poorly understood
junk software.

Complexity will dominate the software industry for the foreseeable
future.  The Retro philosophy is a simple alternative for those willing to
make a clean break with legacy software.  A Retro system can communicate
with other systems, but it won't run much legacy software, especially
proprietary software without source code.  An emulation layer could be
added, but doing so would defeat the purpose of a simple operating system.
I think TCP/IP support is all the compatibility that's needed.

At first Retro will appeal to computer hobbyists and electronic
engineers.  Once the rough edges are smoothed out, it could catch on with
ordinary folks who don't like waiting five minutes just to check their
email (not to mention the long hours of setup and maintenance).  Game
programmers who take their craft seriously may also be interested.
Businesses might even see a use for it, if the managers decide it's more
cost-effective to carefully design software for specific needs, rather
than buying off-the-shelf crap and spending countless manhours working
around the bugs.  Since it's not practical for businesses to make a clean
break, my advice is to run Retro (and its ilk) on separate machines
connected by a network.  Retro is efficient enough to run on older
machines that would otherwise sit idle, being too slow for the latest
Microsoft bloatware (or Linux, for that matter).

I strive to avoid the extraneous.  That applies even to proven
technologies, if I don't need them.  If my computer isn't set up for
people to log in over the network, I don't want security features; they
just get in the way.  If I'm only running programs I wrote, I should be
able to run them with full access to the hardware; I don't need protection
from viruses.  If I download something I don't trust, then I can run it in
an isolated process, which is customary with Unix and kin.  But that's not
core functionality.  All that's needed is the flexibility to add things
like security, graphical interfaces, and distributed processing - if the
need ever arises.

In programming languagues, I was misled.  It's the Tower of Babel all
over again.  The thousands of languages in existence all fall into a
handful of archetypes: Assembler, LISP, FORTRAN and FORTH represent the
earliest descendants of nearly all languages.  I hesitate to name a
definitive "object-oriented" language, and here's why: Object-Oriented
programming is just a technique, and any language will suffice, even
Assembler.  The complexites of fancy languages like Ada and C++ are a
departure from reality -- the reality of the actual physical machine.
When it all boils down, even LISP, FORTRAN and FORTH are only extensions
of the machine.

I chose FORTH as the "native tongue" of Retro.  LISP, FORTRAN, and
other languages can be efficiently implemented as extensions of FORTH, but
the reverse isn't so efficient.  Theoretically all languages are
equivalent, but when design time, compilation time, and complexity are
accounted for, FORTH is most efficient.  FORTH also translates most
directly to the hardware.  (In fact, FORTH has been implemented in
hardware; these "stack machines" are extremely efficient.)  FORTH is also
the easiest language to implement from scratch - a major concern when
you're trying to make a clean break.  So with simplicity in mind, FORTH
was the obvious choice.

I'm perfectly happy working with text only, and I go to great lengths
to avoid using the standard graphical environments, which have major
problems: windows, pulldown menus, and mice.  Windows can't share the
screen nicely; that idea is hopeless.  Pulldowns are tedious.  Mice get in
the way of typing without reducing the need for it; all they give me is
tendonitis.  Their main use is for drawing.

Some of my favorite interfaces: Telix, Telegard BBS, Pine, Pico, Lynx,
and ScreamTracker.  All "hotkey" interfaces where you press a key or two
to perform an action.  Usually the important commands are listed at the
bottom of the screen, or at least on a help screen.  The same principles
apply to graphical interfaces: use the full screen, except for a status
and menu area on one edge.  Resist the temptation to clutter up the
screen.

As for switching between programs, the Windows methods suck; the only
thing worse is Unix job control (jobs, fg, and such).  The Linux method is
tolerable: Alt-Arrows, Alt-F1, Alt-F2, etc.  Still, things could be
better: F11 and F12 cycle back and forth through all open programs; Alt-F1
assigns the currently selected program to F1, and likewise for the other
function keys.  Programs just won't use function keys - Control and Alt
combinations are less awkward and easier to remember, besides.  I'll also
want a "last channel" key and a "task list" key; maybe I'll borrow those
stupid Win95 keys.  The Pause key will do like it says - pause the current
program - and Ctrl-Pause (Break) will kill it.

One more thing: consistency.  I like programs to look different so I
can tell them apart, but the keys should be the same as much as possible.
Keys should be configured in one place, for all programs.  Finally,
remember the most consistent interface, one of the few constants
throughout the history of computing - the text screen and keyboard, and
the teletypewriter before that.  Don't overlook it.

More to come, maybe... :)

"If it's on line, it's a work in progress."

Tom Novelli, 3/4/2000