What's up with the aversion to filesystems in forth languages?
Here's a Usenet post from 2003 that discusses blocks:
The central thing Forth depends on is KISS. We've consistently rejected
complicated solutions when simpler solutions work. The result is fewer
co-adaptations, where you can't change one thing because it's built into
a bunch of other things. We do have some of that but not very many.
Giving up blocks removed a lot of them. Blocks gave an integrated
editor, and fast integrated compiling, and a sort of paged virtual
memory, and something you could easily turn into a somewhat inferior
database, etc. It wasn't the best solution for very much but it gave an
easy adequate solution for a whole lot. I read that using blocks was a
fundamental cause of the Valdocs failure so many years ago. They
started out with blocks and then ran into limits and instead of throwing
them out and starting over they tried to design around them and ran out
of time. Now we use blocks when the problem demands them instead of
wherever they look good enough. It takes longer and we probably get
better solutions. -- Jonah Thomas, [[https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/7gWtjMoQXk8/Wr0yBdbZMWsJ][comp.lang.forth 2003-07-18]]I'm personally not averse to file systems. I've implemented (but not yet published) a couple for testing purposes. It's probable that one or more of these will eventually be included in Konilo. But that won't happen until I write a program that needs this and have an implementation that I'm happy with.