Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #3564 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 328 — 44 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:13 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 15:50 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 20:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 18:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 12:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 11:27 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 17:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 18:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 12:25 -0700
Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 09:43 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 12:35 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-14 08:32 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-14 07:10 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 09:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse arc@vorsicht-bissig.de - 2011-07-12 22:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 03:02 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-27 21:29 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 06:55 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 06:17 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 16:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-01 13:41 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:26 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:56 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-02 08:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 17:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-03 10:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 20:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 15:45 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 16:19 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 01:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:44 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 19:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 10:39 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:42 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 10:32 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse marko <marko@marko.marko.marko> - 2011-07-07 22:09 +1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:19 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 10:33 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-08 05:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 17:47 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-07-08 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-08 15:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:04 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 15:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 22:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 03:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-12 19:42 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-12 14:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 07:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 07:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-11 20:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 21:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-12 18:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 20:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-13 00:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 19:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-07-11 13:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-07-12 21:51 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-09 16:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 04:27 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 11:57 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 21:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 18:22 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-01 12:59 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 00:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-01 22:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-08 20:44 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-31 10:25 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-08 16:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-10 07:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-10 18:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 03:05 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 07:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-11 10:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:32 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-11 10:06 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 11:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-12 18:49 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 12:52 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 12:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 15:09 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 04:52 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 03:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 12:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-15 20:51 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 21:56 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 19:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-18 11:38 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-18 07:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 06:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-16 05:10 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 06:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 17:14 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 00:29 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 00:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 01:04 -0700
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 16:12 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-21 13:21 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 10:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:56 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:33 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 12:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:15 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-24 00:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-21 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-22 10:36 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 22:57 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-22 23:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 04:16 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 08:29 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 14:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 16:54 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 11:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 17:11 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 12:27 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 13:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 20:30 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-22 01:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 17:02 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 07:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 01:03 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 22:38 -1000
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 15:10 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 00:09 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 13:09 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:41 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 17:58 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-24 00:25 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-24 07:17 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-19 17:41 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-19 18:05 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-19 13:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-19 13:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 15:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 19:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 17:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-20 03:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-20 15:20 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-21 14:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:47 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-08-22 20:30 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 23:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 22:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-23 15:44 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-23 21:43 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-08-20 08:55 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 10:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:03 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-14 07:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-12 09:51 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 13:45 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 08:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 02:56 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-13 04:35 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:13 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-13 13:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-14 14:46 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-17 01:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 03:24 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-28 19:55 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 06:30 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 13:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 14:02 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-29 15:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 19:45 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 22:08 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 10:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-06-30 20:44 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 18:08 -0400
Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 20:07 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 22:12 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 17:59 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:37 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-01 06:07 -0500
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:00 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-01 14:06 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 14:57 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 16:55 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:04 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-02 22:10 +0200
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 14:36 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:36 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:25 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-03 10:53 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 23:41 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-02 22:46 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-07-18 01:25 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 14:44 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 23:24 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-03 12:04 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-03 20:24 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 02:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-04 16:02 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 10:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 12:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 15:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-04 13:23 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 11:34 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 05:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 14:28 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:39 -0700
OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 15:36 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:17 -0500
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:53 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-08 17:11 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 12:41 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:34 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-10 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-10 13:06 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-07 00:11 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-06 12:47 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 10:07 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 12:40 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 15:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 10:16 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:23 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 09:54 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 22:33 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 16:28 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 16:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-04 15:03 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 00:20 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-05 11:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:46 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-05 23:13 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 19:21 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-05 14:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-06 07:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:46 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-07 09:12 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-06 21:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-07 14:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 20:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-08 04:39 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 23:22 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-12 19:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 23:37 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-12 05:10 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-12 03:44 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-13 22:06 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 04:01 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-03 07:34 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 13:25 -0400
Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 18:27 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 17:50 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 22:45 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-30 11:42 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 13:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 08:38 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 18:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 12:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-06-30 08:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-03 15:22 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:31 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-29 23:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-01 09:42 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-01 18:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-06-29 15:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Fuschia, President-Elect of the Bright Purplish-Green Council" <fp-eotbp-gc@ibm.com> - 2011-06-29 19:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-06-30 00:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000
Page 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 11:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iuvb1t$b78$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3789 |
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:c58cc7ab95384b37ff11fe9ced570ca4@dizum.com... > > I'm just disputing the universal wisdom > that goto's have no place in code when > people who never coded anything but C > are saying it, > Who would that be? Almost everyone here is a Forth coder. Surely, you don't mean me... I've experienced quite a variety of programming languages. When not required by the language proper, e.g., BASIC, there are very limited situations where a GOTO is *absolutely* needed. I already mentioned these. > [...] K&R says there is a place for them even in C. > That's intellectual dishonesty. I quoted K&R. It says it's unecessary. > But it's not exaggeration, on this topic that would be almost impossible > to do. Every company who ran a computer in the 1960s and 1970s used > IBM mainframes, and every major company and government still uses > them. They're king, baby! > You're ignoring the fact that other OS' havely clearly: outsold that OS, changed the world, etc. You can't claim IBM's OS's are the "most influential" or "widely used", unless you restrict the time period to 1960's, the first half of the 1970's, and maybe, it's questionable, the second half of the 1970's. You can't claim the 1980's with the personal computer revolution. You can't claim the late 1990's and 2000's with the portable smart device revolution. If IBM's OS work is currently revolutionary, where are the lawsuits of patent infringement of IBM's patents? There are effectively "none". Google, MS, Intel, Nokia, Apple, Samsung, RIM, even Motorola, AT&T and Oracle, etc have had many, many patent infringement lawsuits in the last decade. You read about them all the time. IBM? IBM sues Amazon, but on Internet related patents... Mostly, IBM is being sued by others for infringement. > You have everything > upside down. The world didn't start with the 8080. > Learn some history, > bucko! It's good for you! > I lived through it. You're correct that the "world" didn't start with the 8080, it all started with the 6502. The 6502 was the first microprocessor that had the major breakthrough that brought inexpensive and increasingly faster microprocessor based computing to the masses: pipelining. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lang.asm/msg/e38c78eb59dba037 Yes, central processing units had some type of pipelining earlier, i.e., Seymore Cray CDC 6600/7600, but mainframes were and still are virtually inaccessible by the masses. > mmap? > mmap is non-standard. > > This can be far simpler than malloc()/free(). You just set a pointer to > > a typedef for a struct, union, etc to free space in the array. Or, you > > can use one of the three or so publicly available memory allocators > > applied to the array. > > But that calls malloc or libc, does it not? > No. Since it's C language only, it's supposed to be independent of libc... > The question is how do you allocate memory on > Linux without malloc (libc) since Linux/UNIX doesn't provide any > application memory management at the OS level, only through libc. > Linux? Oh that's a new constraint... I've not coded for Linux, but Linux does have wrappers for calling OS functions from C. One should be able to call the OS' memory allocation routines via the appropriate syscall, or so I would assume. I'd have to find a syscall list to see if there was a memory allocation call. There should be one since libc must call the OS to allocate memory. > If you're saying you just create a bunch of .data elements that's also not > dynamically allocating anything. Even .bss doesn't qualify because it's > just stealing from heap or stack once, when the program is loaded. For > example if you want to read in an unknown amount of data and want to > create a linked list of it, how are you supposed to allocate each node? > AFAIK you have to call libc whether you do it directly or indirectly. > Oh, another new constraint: dynamically... Without libc, dynamic allocation requires use of the stack, i.e., procedure local variables and recursive procedure calls. Each procedure declares a local node. The link for the older node is passed in the procedure call as one of the parameters. Calling a the procedure recursively allocates another node. I.e., you'll create a linked-list on the stack, intermixed with the procedure's stackframe. (FYI, technically, C doesn't require use of a stack. At least one C implementation was doen without a stack. Most C's do use a stack. So, "stack" means: whatever temporary allocation and free method used for a procedure.) > It only has break and mmap like all other UNIX. > Those are probably the two main memory allocation methods for *nix... AIUI, brk just adjusts the start or end of the stack. I understand they were moving away from brk towards mmap. I'm not to familiar with either. I'd have to look over their syscall lists to see if there are others. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea8b56d2-5665-4254-b6ab-f05ecf031606@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3811 |
On Jul 5, 4:35 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > > If IBM's OS work is currently revolutionary, where are the lawsuits of > patent infringement of IBM's patents? There are effectively "none". > Google, MS, Intel, Nokia, Apple, Samsung, RIM, even Motorola, AT&T and > Oracle, etc have had many, many patent infringement lawsuits in the last > decade. You read about them all the time. IBM? IBM sues Amazon, but on > Internet related patents... Mostly, IBM is being sued by others for > infringement. IBM has by far and away the largest portfolio of patents. But measuring technology by patent lawsuits is using the wrong number; they're about economics and competition (or the stifling thereof), not innovation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 23:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d3d3d6e91b24ebd7f48a1c4bfd36d760@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #3811 |
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: Here, I left your attribution in! > > I'm just disputing the universal wisdom > > that goto's have no place in code when > > people who never coded anything but C > > are saying it, > > > > Who would that be? Almost everyone here is a Forth coder. Surely, you > don't mean me... I've experienced quite a variety of programming > languages. No, I don't mean you. I mean since Wirth and Dijkstra started on their rampage, everybody thinks it's obvious you don't use goto's. That might be mostly true in C, but it's not universally true. The main thing is people who only code in C shouldn't be making generalizations about languages and platforms they never heard of. > You're ignoring the fact that other OS' havely clearly: outsold that OS, > changed the world, etc. You can't claim IBM's OS's are the "most > influential" or "widely used", unless you restrict the time period to > 1960's, the first half of the 1970's, and maybe, it's questionable, the > second half of the 1970's. You can't claim the 1980's with the personal > computer revolution. You can't claim the late 1990's and 2000's with the > portable smart device revolution. Hey, it all had to start somewhere. Give some credit to the machine and software that started it all and is still going today! No other computing platform has that track record of market success, market share, and longevity. It rocks! And yes, IBM also ruled in the 1980s, by market share, by profit, by income, by every possible financial metric. Go check it out if you want. > If IBM's OS work is currently revolutionary, where are the lawsuits of > patent infringement of IBM's patents? There are effectively "none". > Google, MS, Intel, Nokia, Apple, Samsung, RIM, even Motorola, AT&T and > Oracle, etc have had many, many patent infringement lawsuits in the last > decade. You read about them all the time. IBM? IBM sues Amazon, but on > Internet related patents... Mostly, IBM is being sued by others for > infringement. No, IBM is real good at keeping their stuff under wraps. Real security for employees and contractors. One time a Japanese company stole their stuff by using dumps and they paid almost a billion in cash settlement in US courts. IBM doesn't mess around. > I lived through it. You're correct that the "world" didn't start with the > 8080, it all started with the 6502. The 6502 was the first microprocessor > that had the major breakthrough that brought inexpensive and increasingly > faster microprocessor based computing to the masses: pipelining. > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lang.asm/msg/e38c78eb59dba037 Yawn, bring me back to 1964! IBM OS/360, who needs more? > > But that calls malloc or libc, does it not? > > > > No. Since it's C language only, it's supposed to be independent of > >libc... Ok > > > The question is how do you allocate memory on > > Linux without malloc (libc) since Linux/UNIX doesn't provide any > > application memory management at the OS level, only through libc. > > > > Linux? Oh that's a new constraint... I've not coded for Linux, but Linux > does have wrappers for calling OS functions from C. One should be able to > call the OS' memory allocation routines via the appropriate syscall, or so I > would assume. I'd have to find a syscall list to see if there was a memory > allocation call. There should be one since libc must call the OS to > allocate memory. Yes, from what I read libc uses brk. The point is there is almost no application level storage management in NIX without libc. It's a bad "design". Other than mmap and stuff to manipulate r/w for pages there isn't any memory management syscall designed for application use in NIX. You can't say "give me 100 bytes, give me 20 bytes, give me 40 bytes, now I'm freeing the 20 bytes in the middle" without going through libc. Pure CrapOS! > Those are probably the two main memory allocation methods for *nix... AIUI, > brk just adjusts the start or end of the stack. I understand they were > moving away from brk towards mmap. I'm not to familiar with either. I'd > have to look over their syscall lists to see if there are others. >From what I have seen only page r/w type of stuff. Real disappointing. Maybe it's time to go off Linux and see what Windows has to offer the developer. Never thought I would say that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d882ef07-74bd-46d3-b577-628ff35c2fc5@y30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3821 |
On Jul 5, 5:13 pm, Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > No, I don't mean you. I mean since Wirth and Dijkstra started > on their rampage, everybody thinks it's obvious you don't use > goto's. That might be mostly true in C, but it's not universally > true. The main thing is people who only code in C shouldn't be > making generalizations about languages and platforms they > never heard of. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Gotos don't kill programs; programmers kill programs. The only thing worse than a programmer who uses goto and creates a mess are the programmers who domatically refuse to use goto even when using it would be perfectly justified and result in better (or at least nicer) code. Is there a magic button I can press that will erase the programmers at both ends of that spectrum? An annoyingly- large amount of my career has been spent cleaning up the messes left behind both by the sloppy and dogmatic. Those of us with a more pragmatic streak don't recoil in horror when we see "goto" in code. We look at it, decide if it's stupid or not, and then move on. > Other than mmap and stuff to manipulate r/w for pages there > isn't any memory management syscall designed for application > use in NIX. You can't say "give me 100 bytes, give me 20 bytes, > give me 40 bytes, now I'm freeing the 20 bytes in the middle" > without going through libc. Pure CrapOS! Works for me. What I want in an operating system is generic and thin layer over the hardware so that my application can make its own decisions on how best to manage memory, rather than by going through some one-size-fits-all abstraction provided at the operating system level. The operating system doesn't have any great insight into the allocation patterns at the application level, nor should it. And what you call "libc" has never been terribly constraining to me, because "libc" isn't one single thing. There are several "libc" libraries available and most of them (especially the ones targeting embedded systems) allow you to pick and choose from different allocators to match your application's needs. But I'm willing to be convinced: Explain to me how a general purpose operating system is a better arbiter of allocation strategy than the application itself (or the libraries that the application chooses to use)? Seems to me that the operating system can't possibly know that allocation #81348 will be freed 20ms from now but allocation #81349 will be freed in two days. But an application's programmer can know, and can choose an allocator that could easily out-perform even the best adaptive allocator at the operating sytem level. And that's especially true when we're no longer talking about low-level C applications, but applications written with "managed" storage that run on that operating system. > it's time to go off Linux and see what Windows has to > offer the developer. Never thought I would say that! These days, the Windows world is no longer dominated by old-school C applications that directly manage memory, but by .NET applications that are hosted on a virtual machine that has a sophisticated multi- process, multi-processor generational garbage collector to manage memory. The .NET virtual machine can most certainly allocate memory more efficiently than the underlying operating system because it has access to program and usage metadata that can give information on the lifetime and other attributes of that data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mLudnZNjQ4I444jTnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3821 |
In article <d3d3d6e91b24ebd7f48a1c4bfd36d760@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Fritz Wuehler) wrote: > I mean since Wirth and Dijkstra started on their > rampage, everybody thinks it's obvious you don't use goto's Off course while Wirth may have depreciated goto he did include it in Pascal. Mind you goto is the basis of all loop structures like "for next", "repeat until" and "while do" though the goto is at machine level not programmer level in the majority of languages. Ken Young
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 19:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <leadnUUdXKkfN47TnZ2dnUVZ7oKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3811 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > I lived through it. You're correct that the "world" didn't start > with the 8080, it all started with the 6502. The 6502 was the first > microprocessor I'm beginning to wonder if this is one of those party games where the idea is to say as any many untruths as you can without anyone noticing! Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 14:57 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <CMGdnQDEzf-cLo7TnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3831 |
On 7/5/11 2:21 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rod Pemberton<do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > >> I lived through it. You're correct that the "world" didn't start >> with the 8080, it all started with the 6502. The 6502 was the first >> microprocessor > > I'm beginning to wonder if this is one of those party games where the > idea is to say as any many untruths as you can without anyone > noticing! > > Andrew. 6502: 1975 6800: February 1974 8080: April 1974 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." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 20:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f59392ea-29ec-483e-a2dd-da5fd089cc02@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3833 |
On Jul 5, 8:57 pm, Elizabeth D Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > 6502: 1975 > 6800: February 1974 > 8080: April 1974 And if you want to really go back... 8008: 1972 (cited as first 8-bit micro) 4004: 1971 (4-bit, cited as the first micro) I wonder if Rod will pull a Sarah Palin and try to rewrite history by rewriting Wikipedia. 8-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc7022a0-4da2-48ea-85e6-1c9bf17dd295@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3835 |
On Jul 5, 11:48 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 8:57 pm, Elizabeth D Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > > 6502: 1975 > > 6800: February 1974 > > 8080: April 1974 > > And if you want to really go back... > > 8008: 1972 (cited as first 8-bit micro) > 4004: 1971 (4-bit, cited as the first micro) > > I wonder if Rod will pull a Sarah Palin and try to rewrite history by > rewriting Wikipedia. 8-) I believe the claim was: "The 6502 was the first microprocessor that had the major breakthrough that brought inexpensive and increasingly faster microprocessor based computing to the masses: pipelining." Which is to say, that if the final memory-clock-locked processor cycle of a machine instruction was internal to the processor, the same cycle was used to fetch the next instruction. This allowed the three clock cycle operation: LDA #0 (load instruction, load first operand byte and parse instruction, load operand byte into accumulator) to only take 2 machine cycles, as the final machine cycle was also used to load the next instruction. That alone, and not the low gate count so reasonably high yield even with the processes of the day leading to substantially lower cost 6502 chips in the mid-1970's vs 8080 chips was the secret of the 6502's success! And that was how! the art of instruction pipelining! that modern memory-clock-locked processors rely upon today! came to the desktop! ... errrrh, kind of? maybe? a little bit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 09:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HKidnTKUWaLU6InTnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3836 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote: > On Jul 5, 11:48?pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 5, 8:57?pm, Elizabeth D Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote: >> >> > 6502: 1975 >> > 6800: February 1974 >> > 8080: April 1974 >> >> And if you want to really go back... >> >> 8008: 1972 (cited as first 8-bit micro) >> 4004: 1971 (4-bit, cited as the first micro) >> >> I wonder if Rod will pull a Sarah Palin and try to rewrite history by >> rewriting Wikipedia. ?8-) > > I believe the claim was: > > "The 6502 was the first microprocessor > that had the major breakthrough that brought inexpensive and > increasingly > faster microprocessor based computing to the masses: pipelining." Yes, you're right. I was being rather unfair. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t9idnfie2o8444jTnZ2dnUVZ8lidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3836 |
In article <cc7022a0-4da2-48ea-85e6-1c9bf17dd295@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, agila61@netscape.net (BruceMcF) wrote: > increasingly > faster microprocessor based computing to the masses: pipelining." Except that Z80 and 8080 machines had market dominance throughout the period especially in the UK. Ken Young
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 10:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BpudnWzliZc2TojTnZ2dnUVZ8m6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3850 |
kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: > In article > <cc7022a0-4da2-48ea-85e6-1c9bf17dd295@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, > agila61@netscape.net (BruceMcF) wrote: > >> increasingly >> faster microprocessor based computing to the masses: pipelining." > > Except that Z80 and 8080 machines had market dominance throughout > the period especially in the UK. I had the feeling that it was pretty much 50:50 between the 6502 and the Z80. The Z80 was popular, not so much the 8080: that was really a 3-chip processor which needed the 8224 and 8228 to get it to work, and it also needed three power rails. The 8085 and the Z80 were much more practical single-chip processors. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb11fe4e-fb10-447e-bcca-9e1d3169c3eb@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3850 |
On Jul 7, 5:38 am, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote: > In article > <cc7022a0-4da2-48ea-85e6-1c9bf17dd...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, > agil...@netscape.net (BruceMcF) wrote: > > increasingly > > faster microprocessor based computing to the masses: pipelining." > Except that Z80 and 8080 machines had market dominance throughout the > period especially in the UK. As far as market dominance, it likely depends on how you define your markets and when you start counting. With the AppleII and then C64 the 6502 did OK in the US market in the 8bit era, though CP/M generated an active Z80 market which was stronger in the high end than the low end, so counting by unit sales and counting by dollar sales volume might well give different result. In the UK and Japan there was a stronger Z80 presence in the low end. I was not actually quoting approvingly ~ what the 6502 did was not what most people understand by instruction pipelining today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 09:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HKidnS2UWaJk64nTnZ2dnUVZ8k-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3831 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > >> I lived through it. You're correct that the "world" didn't start >> with the 8080, it all started with the 6502. The 6502 was the first >> microprocessor > > I'm beginning to wonder if this I'm sorry Rod, the way I snipped this was unfair and misleading. Mea culpa. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 21:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <df88fc8cfd40b995dfa513b2f4813f63@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #3811 |
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > That's intellectual dishonesty. I quoted K&R. It says it's unecessary. No, they show cases and explain where it's *better* to use goto. Nobody says goto is necessary in C, but K&R *did* give an example where it's better to use goto than not to use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 14:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv4v2o$d3l$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3840 |
"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:df88fc8cfd40b995dfa513b2f4813f63@dizum.com... > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > > > That's intellectual dishonesty. I quoted K&R. It says it's unecessary. > > No, they show cases and explain where it's *better* to use goto. > Better? I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from what they said. I see numerous disclaimers saying it's unecessary, but here are some examples of it's use since it's part of the language. > Nobody says > goto is necessary in C, but K&R *did* give an example where > it's better to use goto than not to use it. > 1) "... the goto statement is never necessary ..." 2) " ... it is almost always easy to write code without it. " 3) "Code involving a goto can always be written without one." 4) "... it does seem that goto statements should be used rarely, if at all" Don't all those state GOTOs are unecessary? The first even uses "never necessary". After they stated it four time in a row, I'm not sure what I could've misunderstood here. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2011070720205994579-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #3865 |
On 2011-07-07 19:48:06 +0100, Rod Pemberton said: > "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message > news:df88fc8cfd40b995dfa513b2f4813f63@dizum.com... >> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: >> >>> That's intellectual dishonesty. I quoted K&R. It says it's unecessary. >> >> No, they show cases and explain where it's *better* to use goto. >> > > Better? I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion from what they said. > I see numerous disclaimers saying it's unecessary, but here are some > examples of it's use since it's part of the language. > >> Nobody says >> goto is necessary in C, but K&R *did* give an example where >> it's better to use goto than not to use it. >> > > 1) "... the goto statement is never necessary ..." > > 2) " ... it is almost always easy to write code without it. " > > 3) "Code involving a goto can always be written without one." > > 4) "... it does seem that goto statements should be used rarely, if at all" > > Don't all those state GOTOs are unecessary? The first even uses "never > necessary". After they stated it four time in a row, I'm not sure what I > could've misunderstood here. > > > Rod Pemberton Rod, their useing words ! Got to be careful about that ! :) Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 04:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vw26hvl2php9.1qmwi4k5fwtgx$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #3869 |
Op Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:20:59 +0100 schreef Chris Hinsley: <snip> > Rod, their useing words ! Got to be careful about that ! :) > Chris, My motherlanguage is not English, could you tell me what you just wrote? 1) They're using words 2) Their use of words 3) There they are using words 4) ... -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 23:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2011071223222374601-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #3877 |
On 2011-07-08 03:39:03 +0100, coos haak said: > Op Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:20:59 +0100 schreef Chris Hinsley: > > <snip> >> Rod, their useing words ! Got to be careful about that ! :) >> > Chris, > > My motherlanguage is not English, could you tell me what you just wrote? > 1) They're using words > 2) Their use of words > 3) There they are using words > 4) ... Pardon my incredibly bad spelling and typeing ! And my bad attempt at Forth hummor ! :( Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-12 19:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ivilpd$n0k$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #4058 |
"Chris Hinsley" <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2011071223222374601-chrishinsley@gmailcom... > On 2011-07-08 03:39:03 +0100, coos haak said: > > Op Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:20:59 +0100 schreef Chris Hinsley: > > > > <snip> > >> Rod, their useing words ! Got to be careful about that ! :) > >> > > Chris, > > > > My motherlanguage is not English, could you tell me what you just wrote? > > 1) They're using words I think he meant #1. He was making a joke. > > 2) Their use of words > > 3) There they are using words > > 4) ... > > Pardon my incredibly bad spelling and typeing ! > > And my bad attempt at Forth hummor ! :( > typeing-> typing hummur-> humor (American) or humour (British) For spelling, you can just type in the word in Google's or Yahoo's search box, and they'll suggest corrections: http://search.yahoo.com/web http://www.google.com/ Of course, both British (or United Kingdom) and American spellings of English words come up as correct. Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian spellings probably do also. You can try Babelfish or Google Translate to translate between different languages: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ http://translate.google.com/ In general, Americans have moved on to easier spellings for English versus the British. American British humor humour behavior behaviour while whilst among amongst epilog epilogue prolog prologue truck lorry hood bonnett trunk boot etc. A boot in America is something you wear on your foot that goes above the ankle to protect your feet from snow, mud, or water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot The words football and soccer in America usually mean the opposite from the rest of the English speaking world. "Football" is what most of the world calls the game we call soccer. Football to us is the more violent game with the helmets, body padding, tackling, ... which is America's favorite sport. What we call soccer in America (pictures): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football What we call football in America (pictures): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web