User talk:Zzo38/FORTAVM

From IFWiki
Revision as of 01:28, 4 October 2008 by Zzo38 (Talk | contribs) (Can someone please review the specification?)

Jump to: navigation, search

Not neutral enough?

It is much more powerful and more cross-platform than Inform, TADS, Hugo, and it is also more simpler to implement and other stuff.

I feel that this sentence isn't neutral enough for IFWiki. It's quite a lot of praise to write that an IF tool (especially if you created it yourself!) is much more powerful than all the major IF authoring systems. Does anyone else agree? --Eriorg 10:11, 1 October 2008 (PDT)

I also agree that it isn't neutral enough, but unfortunately I don't know how to make it neutral enough, that is why I wrote it in the way that I did write it. Feel free to correct that sentence so that it makes more sense, if you know how to do that. --Zzo38 12:33, 1 October 2008 (PDT)
It seems a little premature to say anything about what FORTAVM is, since as far as I can tell, it only exists as a specification at this point. It can't be "more cross-platform" when it doesn't yet run on any platform. --Vaporware 14:26, 1 October 2008 (PDT)
I guess right now it doesn't (and it isn't really complete yet anyways), but anyone can implement it according to the specification and it work. It isn't too complicated. Forth specifications are always not too complicated. FORTAVM is a specification. Do you know if you or someone can make a comment of it so far? If there is any mistakes or things missing, I would definitely like to know about it so that I can correct it. --Zzo38 14:53, 1 October 2008 (PDT)

Can someone please review the specification?

Can someone please review the specification? Please note that the standard libraries aren't complete yet, but it should still work (although not very good) without the standard libraries. Can you make a comment of it? Is there anything ambiguous? Is there something you think is wrong with it? Is this specification clear enough to write a interpreter? Please be specific. (Also, I tried to fix the neutrality of the article, I hope I fixed it good.) --Zzo38 18:28, 3 October 2008 (PDT)