Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #4498

Re: Interesting article

Show key headers only | View raw

Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Jul 28, 7:06 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
> wrote:
>> Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>> > Fromhttp://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/231002535
>>
>> [about language standardization in general]
>>
>> >So the language
>> >gets no new lease on life and simply lives inside its original skin
>> >getting progressively fatter, more complex, and dragged down by otiose
>> >features."
>>
>> >The last sentence doesn't apply to Forth 200X - er does it?  :-)
>
> Yes, very much so! The same people who screwed up Forth-79, Forth-83
> and ANS-Forth, are now in charge of Forth-200x --- so what else would
> you expect?

Apart from how true or false this or your subsequent comments are,
what's your aim in making them?  These comments are so venomous, it's
like you're gloating.  "They wouldn't listen!  I told them but they
wouldn't listen! And now, FORTH WILL BURN."   This stuff wastes
your time, wearies your audience, and - to the extent that anyone puts
any faith in your account - just tells onlookers to stay far away from
this ship.

> We recently had
> a discussion of how Forth-200x is going to support the Chinese
> language, and this is despite the fact that none of us know Chinese.

我會讀中文

I still need to wake my Zaurus up so that I can copy my Chinese-study
program from it.  It's written in Forth, deals with BIG5 and GB2312
(16-bit characters), has a pinyin input method that displays characters
matching e.g. du2 and lets you select the appropriate character with the
arrow keys.  It's a great little system, and it got a lot of use after I
altered nethack a teensy bit (about to die?  No worries, I'll just study
Chinese for a bit and... there.  Full health, full belly!  Just like in
real life!)

> This is why :NAME and
> ALLOCATION were killed --- because these allow the user to do some
> basic OOP-like programming (inheritance, anyway) --- the users never
> need to spend the money on a non-standard commercial system to get OOP-
> like facilities (SWOOP).

gforth comes with _three_ OOP packages.  SwiftForth isn't a non-standard
system.  SWOOP apparently can't be ANS, but look at the portability
layer for VFX Forth in the package at FLAG:

   http://soton.mpeforth.com/flag/swoop/swoop.zip

When you proposed :NAME and ALLOCATION , you got some responses.  Your
attempt at telepathically divining the secret motivations behind these
responses has led you to the really super wrong and bizarre quote above,
so please try taking those responses at face value, instead.

Or rather, if gforth were an evil plot to deprive amateurs of OO and
:NAME and ALLOCATION , you could foil this plot as directly as putting
up a webpage that tells people how to install gforth and also your own
provisions of OO and :NAME and ALLOCATION .  You accomplish absolutely
nothing when you point out the conspiracy on c.l.f, but you frustrate
the sinister aims of the conspirators just by being a little bit
productive.

> When I eventually come out with my competing
> standard, the primary difference from Forth-200x will be at a
> fundamental level. My system will inherently be a cross-compiler; the
> user is always cross-compiling with distinct HOST and TARG
> dictionaries, even if his host and target machines are actually one
> and the same. One purpose of this is so code can be easily ported
> between such disparate targets as micro-controllers and desktop
> computers, because you always have the same HOST and TARG distinction
> in your application code. Another purpose of this is to solve the
> problem in ANS-Forth in which it is unclear if words are supposed to
> be executing at compile-time or run-time --- every word will have two
> versions with distinct xt values, one in HOST that executes at compile-
> time and one in TARG that executes at run-time. This is a very
> fundamental (maybe even inspiring!) change from ANS-Forth.
>
> I will also have functional upgrades, such as having a D/ word, but
> the big change will be at the fundamental level as described above. I
> don't expect to be much fatter than ANS-Forth, and I may even be
> thinner. I will have extensions such as a string library, but these
> are optional extensions so they don't count as fat. My standard will
> be more complicated because it is a cross-compiler rather than a stand-
> alone system, but this will make application programming *less*
> complicated. From the application programmer's point of view, my
> standard will be simpler. From the compiler writer's point of view, my
> standard will be more complicated, but they can live with that ---
> compiler-writers claim to be mighty smart, so they forfeit the option
> of complaining about complexity!

... or you can write Yet Another Incompatible Forth.  There should be a
"Friends Don't Let Friends" poster about that.

Ah, well.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Interesting article Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 13:32 +0100
  Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-28 13:06 +0000
    Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-07-29 14:49 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-29 19:32 -0500
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:27 -0700
      Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-30 11:41 +0000
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:38 -0700
        Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 17:47 -0700
          Re: Interesting article Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2011-08-03 07:26 +0200
            Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-11 16:19 -0700
              Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-11 22:57 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-12 16:40 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:59 -0400
                Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 13:13 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-15 03:27 -0500
                Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-16 17:49 +0000
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-17 02:47 -0500
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-14 08:28 -1000
                Re: Interesting article Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 20:41 +0200
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:01 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-08-14 14:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-08-14 21:05 -0500
                Re: Interesting article BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-08-14 22:23 -0700
              Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 12:29 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 10:42 -1000
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 13:50 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-14 03:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 02:12 -0700
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 14:31 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:58 -0400
    Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 19:18 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 04:13 -0500
      Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 10:07 +0000
        Re: Interesting article mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-07-31 11:31 +0200
          Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 22:24 +0000
  Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-28 10:02 -0500

csiph-web