Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #9615
| Date | 2012-02-18 08:57 -1000 |
|---|---|
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
| Organization | FORTH, Inc. |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology |
| References | <8e4d1e51-06cc-4003-9530-6e11bb23c2e8@i10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <4f3ee367$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <jhnsed$dde$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| Message-ID | <NZqdnTsekPE2aaLSnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink) |
On 2/17/12 11:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Doug Hoffman"<glidedog@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4f3ee367$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> On 2/17/12 2:32 PM, Mentifex wrote: >>> Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post ... > ... > >> >> In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth. >> >>>> A decade later, I stuck my head back in and started >>>> reading. It was the same. The same tinkering with the >>>> language, the same debates,... >> >> He's mistaken. The topics have changed. I follow it mostly because I >> learn things. How to do ANS multi-whiles and how to avoid wordlist >> search-order problems with create-does> are just two somewhat recent >> examples. >> > > Well, I think the topics have broadened slightly, but otherwise, in general > at least, the topics are the same. Why do I think that? I search > comp.lang.forth *alot* for information to use to implement aspects of my > Forth interpreter. I also search net.lang.forth. Remember that? Many of > the topics today are the same as they were a decade ago, two decades ago, > and almost three decades ago. I see the same conversations with different > people at a different time period with some being more accurate or in depth > than others. People are still having the exact same problems with Forth > that they've always had. Well, Forth is unique in a number of respects. People who come to it with a background in other languages and expect the same paradigms will inevitably encounter those unique features and be confused by them. The fact that c.l.f exists to help with these issues is a good thing, and there's no reason to be surprised or embarrassed that these features crop up in discussions repeatedly. 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." ==================================================
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2012-02-17 11:32 -0800
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 18:31 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-02-18 04:52 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-02-18 08:57 -1000
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-18 12:21 -0800
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 10:30 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 15:50 -0800
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 16:30 -0800
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-02-18 05:28 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2012-02-18 11:15 -0800
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2012-02-18 15:44 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-19 09:16 +0000
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "A. K." <minforth@arcor.de> - 2012-02-19 12:53 +0100
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-19 12:47 +0000
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 09:12 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-20 21:43 +0000
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-20 18:12 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-21 23:19 +0000
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2012-02-19 08:27 -0500
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "P.M.Lawrence" <pml540114@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 06:15 -0800
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> - 2012-02-26 05:56 +1100
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-25 23:39 +0000
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-08 19:03 -0800
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-03-09 20:13 +0000
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology m II <C@in.the.hat> - 2012-03-29 20:45 -0600
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> - 2012-02-26 09:43 +1100
Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-21 17:12 -0800
csiph-web