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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #11363 > unrolled thread

Message-not-understood and stack effects

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-17 13:16 +0000
    Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-17 18:20 +0200
      Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-17 16:37 +0000
        Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects vandys@vsta.org - 2012-04-17 17:43 +0000
        Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-17 10:40 -0700
    Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-17 12:41 -0500
      Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-18 09:48 +0000
        Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-18 05:59 -0500
          Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-18 08:52 -0700
          Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-19 11:47 +0000
            Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-19 07:50 -0500
              Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 07:14 -0700
                Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-19 09:31 -0500
              Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-04-19 19:31 +0200
              Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-20 10:17 +0000
                Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 07:52 -0700
                  Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-20 15:26 +0000
                    Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 06:09 -0700
                      Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-24 16:52 +0000
                        Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-28 18:38 -0700
                          Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-29 00:19 -0400
                            Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 11:16 -0700
                              Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-29 21:55 -0400
                                Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-05-01 14:44 -0700
                                  Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-05-02 05:35 -0400
                                    Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-05-02 06:29 -0500
                                      Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 12:23 +0000
                                        Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-05-02 08:43 -0500
                                          Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 11:06 -0400
                                            Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-05-03 18:41 +0200
                                              Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 13:07 -0400
                                                Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-05-04 02:46 +0200
                                                  Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 22:09 -0400
                                          Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-03 09:14 +0000
                                            Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-05-03 04:33 -0500
                                    Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-02 12:58 -0700
                                      Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects vandys@vsta.org - 2012-05-02 20:43 +0000
                                        Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-02 13:48 -0700
                                    Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-05-03 10:42 -0700
                          TypoForth (was: Message-not-understood and stack effects) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:47 +0000
                            Re: TypoForth (was: Message-not-understood and stack effects) BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 08:38 -0700
                              Re: TypoForth (was: Message-not-understood and stack effects) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 16:23 +0000
                                Re: TypoForth (was: Message-not-understood and stack effects) BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 09:41 -0700
                            Re: TypoForth (was: Message-not-understood and stack effects) John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-05-01 14:53 -0700
    Re: Message-not-understood and stack effects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-21 12:34 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#11731

"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:76998005-12b7-4e2e-a9e0-4e3f2ef27010@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
...

> I'm designing a new Forth where the text interpreter works a bit
> differently from other Forths.  Whenever a word can't be found in the
> dictionary, it will permute characters in the word until it matches or
> all permutations are exhausted.  I think this is a fantastic feature
> for Forth programmers who are bad typists; for such people it will be
> amazingly useful.  For example, here's the top level word in the
> infamous washing machine example from Forth, Inc.:
>
> : WASHER ( -- ) WSAH SPNI IRNSE SIPN ;
>
> With old Forth, this example wouldn't even run!  But thanks to
> TypoForth, it just works.  Sure it is a bit odd and surprising to
> anyone who knows Forth and doesn't expect that behavior.  But that's
> how it's going to work, so please don't question the premise and say
> that such a feature isn't necessary and isn't beneficial.  Instead,
> answer this question:  Would it be better to actually permute the
> characters and then look up in the dictionary on each permutation, or
> should I encode the dictionary differently to make such lookups fast?

Sort the names alphabetically by character, i.e., SPIN becomes INPS, then
use a hash instead of names.

> What's that?  You think this is a stupid idea?

Yes, I do.  SPIN and PINS would collide.  The hash would fail to determine
the correct word.  You'd need to be able to detect and handle collisions.

Oh, that isn't what you meant is it?  You didn't want a real response.  You
weren't discussing a real program.  You meant that we'd all think it's a bad
idea because it's impossible to determine what would actually execute ...
Yes, that's a totally stupid idea you proposed there, John.

> I don't understand. I've just stated that it would be useful for bad
> typists, so clearly there is no further discussion possible on this point.

Oh, I agree that it would be useful for bad typists and there are many of
them.  But, you're saying there is no further discussion on this point?
You're clearly wrong with that.  In addition to this rambling, also
sarcastic, post by me, which is discussing the point, we have yet to
quantify as to how bad of a typist TypoForth needs to handle.  There is an
entire range of bad typists.  What about the phonetic typist where SPIN
becomes SPN?  Your examples presume that the misspeller can at least get all
the letters in a word correct.  I don't believe that's a good assumption.
Misspelling frequently involves dropping or adding letters.  Also, some
people have difficulty with punctuation.  How are we going to determine the
needed implicit : (colons) and ; (semicols) for this?

SPIN (DOSPIN) (DOWASH) ON MOTOR WASH (DOWASH) RINSE
FLOOD TEMP @ IF HOT ELSE COLD THEN WASHER ( -- ) WSAH
SPNI IRNSE SIPN RESET 3 CYCLE START

>  Please put aside your silly notion that the initial premise can be
> questioned and instead just help me find the best solution.

Suggestions above.

> So, how exactly should I handle look-up of misspelled Forth words that
> are anagrams of each other in TypoForth?

Suggestions above.

> > I think you still miss the issue:
>
> Apparently so.  Apparently the issue is that you don't want to
> question your own premise.

"Pot calling the kettle ..."


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11750

On Apr 29, 12:19 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> > Apparently so.  Apparently the issue is that you don't want to
> > question your own premise.
>
> "Pot calling the kettle ..."

Actually, I question my premises all the time, both here and in the
real world.  That should be obvious; I don't just state my opinion and
expect others to accept it (as you do), rely on silly pedantic
arguments (as you do), construct elaborate logical fallacies as a
defense (as you do), or believe that merely citing past opinion,
pedantry, or logical fallacy lends additional worth to arguments (as
you do).  I consider all reasoned and intelligent challenges to my
statements and offer justifications based on experience, research, and
intuition.  Sometimes I change my mind.  Sometimes I don't.  But just
because you have views different from mine and just because you've
been unable to convince me I'm wrong does not a "pot to kettle" make.
I know you don't want to believe this because it points to the quality
of your arguments, but that's your problem, not mine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11764

"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8563e117-d9ef-462b-bb65-2acacb6e9139@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 12:19 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
> wrote:
> > JP wrote
...

<JP went OT with a rant>
<rational reply by RP>

> > > Apparently so. Apparently the issue is that you don't want to
> > > question your own premise.
>
> > "Pot calling the kettle ..."
>
> Actually, I question my premises all the time, both here and in the
> real world.

You blatantly ignore or disregard others.  You intentionally provoke others
into arguments, apparently to boost your outrageously uncontrolled ego.  You
always believe you're correct, even when presented with of a mountain of
evidence to the contrary.  You reject all counter arguments in the face of
that truth, fact, reality, and proof.  That's why you can't let arguments go
when they aren't going anywhere, i.e., stalled or stalemated.  You must
continue to pound and pound and chip away until the other person is too
exhausted to deal with you, angered all to hell with you and decides that
they don't want to speak to you anymore, or until you can accidentally trip
them up in some trivial but unintentional manner for which you can proclaim
victory.  You're not about determining the truth or a solution to some
problem.  You seem to be all about *winning* the argument.  That's truly
sad.  You seem to be educated, degreed, well spoken, have a decent
vocabulary, and have a modicum of experience in computer related issues.
Unfortunately, despite all that going for you, you still come off as being
"thick," like talking to a tree thick ...  Although insultive, I didn't
actually mean that as an insult.  That's just how I perceive you.  Talking
to you is like talking to a tree.  I.e., others are talking to you, not at
you, and yet you're present but unaccounted for mentally.  Control issues?
You just regurgitate your perspective over and over and over as if God will
make you correct upon the sixth or seventh time.  I wouldn't doubt it if
more than a few people actually envision that happening when you speak:
"Another JP hurl, ... JP hurl, ... JP hurl ... O' God I'm gonna be sick!"
Perhaps, you're just on your own magical "plane of understanding", due to
drugs, delusion, insanity, or perhaps even intelligence.  It doesn't really
matter why you're there.  No one else is there with you.  So, you need to do
far more to present or explain your perspective instead of just attempting
to discretely claim that everyone else is dumb through obtuse verbiage.

Admittedly, you don't ignore or disregard others as arrogantly or blatantly
as Anton Ertl.  Intentionally or not, perhaps he's just too terse or
conservative in his replies or has language problems translating to English
or has too little time to respond appropriately due to academia, he projects
the attitude that because he is well degreed and has written a few papers,
that it is all a measure of his intellect, rank, or status relative to
others.  That's pure fantasy, if he believes that.

> I don't just state my opinion and expect others to accept it (as you do),
> rely on silly pedantic arguments (as you do), construct elaborate logical
> fallacies as a defense (as you do), or believe that merely citing past
> opinion, pedantry, or logical fallacy lends additional worth to
> arguments (as you do).

Has anyone here ever agreed with you? on any topic? about anything?  It sure
doesn't seem so.  I have yet to see one thread with you involved where that
has been true.  It's not true with me in the conversation, without me in the
conversation, in recent conversations, or in archived conversations.  If
ever there was a prize for someone playing devil's advocate, you'd take the
prize.  How many times have people referred to you as a "Troll" ... ?

In real life, no one likes dealing with people who have a pitbull attack
attitude.  So, please drop the fake tough guy persona.  Be human.  Stop
inciting.  You'll go further in life.

Despite your claims, I've don't believe I've ever done any of that.  I only
state things from what I believe to be a sound perspective, one based upon
truth and fact, intelligence and experience and familiarity.  Admittedly,
I'm not experienced in everything.  To me, your claims are a terrible
misperception of me on your part.  Apparently, you're still blinded by the
argumentative nature of the discussions with me and your competitive desire
to win those arguments, instead of learning something.  Personally, I think
it's highly representative of you projecting your own faults onto others.
In fact, I frequently cite far more evidence that you do, in part that is in
response to your idiocy and ignorance.  Unfortunately, providing more
evidence to the discussion only seems to incite you into being more hostile
and argumentative.  If I met you in real life and you acted this way in
person, I'd think that you have some serious anger control issues.

> I consider all reasoned and intelligent challenges to my
> statements and offer justifications based on experience,
> research, and intuition.

Clearly, that's why you unconditionally reject all arguments by others, even
when they are more experienced than you, or when they are more intelligent
than you.  Why do you bother?  If you're going reject everything, then there
is nothing that anyone here can provide that will help you.  Please stop
wasting your time and our time.

> But just because you have views different from mine and just
> because you've been unable to convince me I'm wrong does
> not a "pot to kettle" make.

I'm not sure how I was inserted into that.  I was referring to your claims
about Anton Ertl being equally valid if applied to you.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11806

On Apr 29, 9:55 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> > Actually, I question my premises all the time, both here and
> > in the real world.
>
> You blatantly ignore or disregard others.  [...]

Yep, there are certainly *some* people who I ignore, disregard,
disrespect, or otherwise, discount.  You're in that set of people,
mostly driven by your past behavior and argumentative style.  I simply
don't get a lot from my conversations with you, and I'm sure you feel
the same about me.  And that's why about the only time I write to you
anymore is when you knee-jerk on something I write and try to derail a
conversation.  Like here.

> You intentionally provoke others into arguments, apparently to
> boost your outrageously uncontrolled ego.  You always believe
> you're correct, even when presented with of a mountain of
> evidence to the contrary.  [...]

Wrong on both counts.

One of the reasons I bother to participate in this newsgroup is that
there are a handful of people who consistently reveal both great
experience and perspective.  A very big part of my personal philosophy
is that I have limits, and I constantly seek to find them.  I believe
that it's important for any engineer to know what they don't know, and
that seems to me to be the very opposite of an uncontrolled ego.

I don't believe I'm always right.  But at the same time, I'm not
spouting statements based on mere opinion.  I have more than 2.5
decades of actual real-world experience to draw on, and yes, that
sometimes can *easily* trump a "mountain of evidence."  You in
particular seem to confuse quantity for quality, and think that merely
repetitively disagreeing or stating your opinion amounts to a
"mountain of evidence."  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I also accept that others may have different experience or
subjectively judge things differently.  That's fine, but it again
doesn't contribute to a "mountain of evidence."

> Has anyone here ever agreed with you? on any topic?
> about anything?  It sure doesn't seem so.  [...]

Yes, of course.  I can't think of *anyone* in this newsgroup who
hasn't had points of both agreement and disagreement with the various
things I've written about.  If you're asking if there is someone here
who has agreed with *everything* I've ever written, I can't think of
any.  But that's true of everyone here.

> Despite your claims, I've don't believe I've ever done any of
> that. I only state things from what I believe to be a sound
> perspective, one based upon truth and fact, intelligence and
> experience and familiarity.  Admittedly, I'm not experienced
> in everything.  [...]

Don't try to elevate your arguments.  There are plenty of statements
that you've given that are purely subjective-- where "truth" and
"fact" are a matter of your perspective, interest, and abilities.  And
that seems to be at the core of my problem with you.  It's not that
you have opinions and that those opinions are colored by your
experience.  It's that you try to elevate those opinions as if they
were unassailable facts.

> To me, your claims are a terrible misperception of me on your
> part.

You're free to think that.  You could also consider the alternative.

> Apparently, you're still blinded by the argumentative nature of
> the discussions with me and your competitive desire to win
> those arguments, instead of learning something.  [...]

Oh great Rod, what can I learn from your vast experience today?

Honestly, I have the opinion that I can learn from *everyone*.  But
with some people, I quickly learn that in order to get to those
nuggets of wisdom, I have to wade through through a river of
bullshit.

> Clearly, that's why you unconditionally reject all arguments
> by others, even when they are more experienced than you, or
> when they are more intelligent than you.  [...]

And yet, I don't unconditionally reject anything.  What I reject is
the result of disagreement or conflict with my own experience.  And
no, "experience" is not some generic unit-less quantity that can be
meaningfully compared.  I know a guy who has been a programmer twice
as long as I have, but his experience is limited to business
applications.  He's the first person I'd ask if I needed to understand
how to construct a CRM or accounting system.  But he's the last person
I'd ask if I needed help converting a time-domain filter to an
equivalent frequency domain version.  His years of experience over
mine simply doesn't help him there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11818

"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d0c8e14-61ee-446d-8992-c57eb3ce2bbc@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 9:55 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
> wrote:
...

<OT JP still in denial.>

> Yep, there are certainly *some* people who I ignore, disregard,
> disrespect, or otherwise, discount.  You're in that set of people,
> mostly driven by your past behavior and argumentative style.

If I'm in that set of people, it's because you are all about *winning
arguments*.

> I simply don't get a lot from my conversations with you, and
> I'm sure you feel the same about me.

No, I don't feel that way.  I think that.  And, I know that. I can go
through decades of your posts, in fact I can go all the way back to early
1990's, and not find a single thing of value.  This is because you don't
discuss.  You argue.  You incite.  You get called a troll, repeatedly, for
decades, by numerous people.  Do you honestly believe every single one of
those numerous people lied to you?  At some point, you have to consider
that what they've said is actually the truth and not discount it.

> And that's why about the only time I write to you anymore is
> when you knee-jerk on something I write and try to derail a
> conversation.  Like here.

Oh, poor baby ...  I interfered in his argument.  Boo hoo!  You post
something *blatantly stupid* or failed to label it as "sarcastic" and
expect people to *not* respond to it just so you can *win* your argument?

> > You intentionally provoke others into arguments, apparently to
> > boost your outrageously uncontrolled ego. You always believe
> > you're correct, even when presented with of a mountain of
> > evidence to the contrary. [...]
>
> Wrong on both counts.

Denial doesn't change the truth.

> One of the reasons I bother to participate in this newsgroup is that
> there are a handful of people who consistently reveal both great
> experience and perspective.  A very big part of my personal philosophy
> is that I have limits, and I constantly seek to find them.  I believe
> that it's important for any engineer to know what they don't know, and
> that seems to me to be the very opposite of an uncontrolled ego.

Wow, delusional too ...

> I don't believe I'm always right.

It sure seems that way.  It's not just me either.  Your posts are archived.
There are hundreds, probably hundreds upon hundreds, who'd disagree with
that statement and have done so.

> But at the same time, I'm not spouting statements based on mere opinion.

AFAIR, you've never cited anything or provided a link to anything.

Who provided links proving Lua was slow?  (me)  Etc.

> > Has anyone here ever agreed with you? on any topic?
> > about anything? It sure doesn't seem so. [...]
>
> Yes, of course.

Again, your posts are archived.  So many people have disagreed with you I'm
almost not hesitant to call you a flat out liar.  I won't, but it's truly,
truly, borderline.  I really think I should.  I actually feel inspired to do
so.

> There are plenty of statements that you've given that are purely
> subjective-- where "truth" and "fact" are a matter of your
> perspective, interest, and abilities.

Really?  Well, you have yet to prove that.  I don't believe so.  I've always
based my reality on truth for the same reasons that non-liars don't tell
lies.  If you don't understand that, then you won't ever understand it.

> And that seems to be at the core of my problem with you.

The core of your problem is you.  Re-read all the posts you've ever posted.
You'll see I'm not just stating my opinion.  I'm stating the conclusion of
*numerous* others.  Nearly everyone you've ever conversed with has the same
negative opinions of you as I do.  At what point do you accept this as the
truth?  What does it take?  10,000 people?  100,000 people?  Einstein? Jesus
Christ?  God?  Satan?  Aliens?  What?  Clearly the message is not getting
through ...  How is it that you can logically and rationally justify
completely dismissing the statements of others, apparently truthful
statements, about you for decades?  Do you think that doing so will make
those statements go away or magically disappear or somehow change when you
haven't changed?

> Honestly, I have the opinion that I can learn from *everyone*.

Yet, you don't and apparently never do.  Your posts are archived.  Decades
worth.  So, how valuable is your opinion of yourself that you *can* learn
from everyone if you *never* do learn from anyone?  How accurate is that
opinion?  I'd say worthless and inaccurate.

> But with some people, I quickly learn that in order to get to those
> nuggets of wisdom, I have to wade through through a river of
> bullshit.

"Don't hate the playa' hate the game."  Really?  Take responsibility for
once.  The ends don't justify the means.  You don't have the *right* to
create a "river of bullshit" just to obtain a "nugget of wisdom".  Every
reckless act has a price.  It doesn't matter whether you are good or bad,
or that your reasons may be just or accomplish something good.

> What I reject is the result of disagreement or conflict with
> my own experience.

So, that amounts to everything being rejected by you.  Apparently, nothing
corresponds to your experience except your experience.  Wow, I've never met
*anyone* with such isolated experiences.


In c.l.f.,

You're not asking Forth questions.
You're not answering Forth questions.
You're not coding in Forth.
You're not posting Forth code.
You're not coding a Forth interpreter.
You're not coding a Forth compiler.


As far as we know, you only code Perl, Python, and Lua.  That's what your
posts here seem to be about.  If not one of them, then you're discussing
some OTHER language besides Forth:

John said: "Perl this ..." (GG pulls up 135)
John said: "Python that ..." (GG pulls up 100)
John said: "Lua doesn't suck ..."  (GG pulls up 91)
John said: "Lisp ..." (GG pulls up 90)
John said: "Ruby ..." (GG pulls up 53)
John said: "PHP ..." (GG pulls up 29)
John said: "Postscript ..." (GG pulls up 33)


I can do the same thing with complaints about you too.  There are *decades*
worth of people complaining about you.

Complaints on comp.arch.embedded...
Complaints on comp.arch.robotics...
Complaints on comp.lang.forth...
...

There are also numerous posts of you intentionally bashing certain people
*repeatedly*.  On c.l.f., you've bashed Jeff Fox, Anton Ertl, etc.

There are 393 posts with your name and "troll".  If one gives you the
benefit of the doubt, say 50% of them are actually about you, that's nearly
200 "troll" complaints!  I think the real percentage is much higher, like
70% or so.


You're clearly not here to discuss Forth.
You're clearly not here to learn.
You're clearly not here to provide.


You seem to prefer groups like alt.support.jock-strap and
other debased groups ...

So ...

  WHY ARE YOU HERE?


You are argumentative and seem to enjoy being a nuisance.  That seems to be
the *REAL* reason.

The *most* informative posts of yours that I could find in comp.lang.forth
seem to be regurgitation of stuff you read years earlier that was posted by
others.  Feel free to post some links to your *valuable* c.l.f. posts if you
*actually* think otherwise.  Somehow, I suspect you won't, i.e., lazy, even
though that would go against your desire to *win* an argument.

But, you're not just argumentative, you're angry ... hostile ... extremely
hostile ... near to hatred.  Yes, hatred is the correct level of anger
intensity.  "Roid" rage?  Steroid abuse?  High androgen levels?  FYI,
steroids feminize the brain, be it artificial or natural.  High testosterone
levels push estrogen to the brain and breasts.  If you were a woman, I'd
think you were psycho-"bitchy" like a woman with very bad PMS.  The phrase
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" comes to mind.  I don't know how to
fit that to a man ...  Women are the ones who are so concerned about
*winning* arguments.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11820

Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote:
> "John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9d0c8e14-61ee-446d-8992-c57eb3ce2bbc@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 29, 9:55 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
>> wrote:
> ...
> 
> <OT JP still in denial.>
> 
>> Yep, there are certainly *some* people who I ignore, disregard,
>> disrespect, or otherwise, discount.  You're in that set of people,
>> mostly driven by your past behavior and argumentative style.
> 
> If I'm in that set of people, it's because you are all about *winning
> arguments*.
> 
> Oh, poor baby ...  I interfered in his argument.  Boo hoo!  You post
> something *blatantly stupid* or failed to label it as "sarcastic"
> and expect people to *not* respond to it just so you can *win* your
> argument?

It was a reductio ad absurdum argument.  I often find such arguments
unhelpful, but in this case it was obvious what point was being made.

To recap: Anton is considering a scheme where, if you call a method
that expects a singular object on, say, an array, the system (or the
array) automagically inserts a "forEach" loop and calls the method
once with each element.  I think that's a terrible idea: if you want a
loop, I think you should say so.  John Passaniti's reductio ad
absurdum argument was addressing precisely this point.  And yes, it
was argumentative and sarcastic.

> But, you're not just argumentative, you're angry ... hostile
> ... extremely hostile ... near to hatred.  Yes, hatred is the
> correct level of anger intensity.  "Roid" rage?  Steroid abuse?
> High androgen levels?  FYI, steroids feminize the brain, be it
> artificial or natural.  High testosterone levels push estrogen to
> the brain and breasts.  If you were a woman, I'd think you were
> psycho-"bitchy" like a woman with very bad PMS.  The phrase "Hell
> hath no fury like a woman scorned" comes to mind.  I don't know how
> to fit that to a man ...  Women are the ones who are so concerned
> about *winning* arguments.

And you think that sexist stupidity helps yours?  You could have done
nothing better to torpedo yourself so completely.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11822

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>To recap: Anton is considering a scheme where, if you call a method
>that expects a singular object on, say, an array, the system (or the
>array) automagically inserts a "forEach" loop and calls the method
>once with each element.  I think that's a terrible idea: if you want a
>loop, I think you should say so.

Did I express myself so misleadingly?  The programmer for the
collection class would write a loop in the NOT-UNDERSTOOD method, or
he would decide not to define this method in this way.  And the
programmer of code that uses a collection class would select a
collection class with that feature if that feature is desired, or a
collection class without that feature if it is not desired.

If that does not satisfy your notion of "say so", what does.  Should
the users of the collection class then have to create another
collection class, and define various methods for them, each looking
like:

:: draw ['] draw this foreach ;;

Does that gain anything?

(The programmer might write something like this anyway, because of the
stack effects issues, or because of efficiency considerations)

And what's the difference from the proxy case?  If it is good to be
forced to write such methods for collections and bad not to be forced
to do this, why wouldn't it also be good to be forced to write methods
like

:: draw ['] draw this doproxy ;;

for proxies; then we would not need NOT-UNDERSTOOD at all, and we
would be more explicit.

Anyway, I had understood that you and John Passaniti don't think it's
a good idea, but failed to see the reasoning, and the (according to
you) "reductio-ad-absurdum" posting did not do anything to change that
situation.

The funny thing about that posting is that, if it was intended to
demonstrate that one cannot productively discuss technical issues
concerning features that one considers a bad idea, it failed.  On the
contrary, it demonstrated that one can.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11823

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>To recap: Anton is considering a scheme where, if you call a method
>>that expects a singular object on, say, an array, the system (or the
>>array) automagically inserts a "forEach" loop and calls the method
>>once with each element.  I think that's a terrible idea: if you want a
>>loop, I think you should say so.
> 
> Did I express myself so misleadingly?  The programmer for the
> collection class would write a loop in the NOT-UNDERSTOOD method, or
> he would decide not to define this method in this way.  And the
> programmer of code that uses a collection class would select a
> collection class with that feature if that feature is desired, or a
> collection class without that feature if it is not desired.

Here goes:

Anton is considering a scheme where, if you call a method that
expects a singular object on, say, an array, the array may
automagically call the method once with each element.  I think
that's a terrible idea: if you want a loop, I think you should say
so.

> If that does not satisfy your notion of "say so", what does.  Should
> the users of the collection class then have to create another
> collection class, and define various methods for them, each looking
> like:
> 
> :: draw ['] draw this foreach ;;
> 
> Does that gain anything?

I would have thought that was not so much a collection class as a
subclass of DrawableObject which contains a collection of objects.
This DrawableObject would respond to the method "draw" by calling
"draw" on each of its sub-objects.  And indeed, it might look like the
method above, but more like

:: draw ['] draw myCollection foreach ;;

I really don't think that a composite DrawableObject would respond to
any message it doesn't understand by passing it to its sub-objects
because it doesn't make sense to do so.  Sure, "draw" makes sense, but
"getPos" and "getSize" really don't.  In order for those methods to
work correctly, you have to override them.  It makes sense for the
NOT-UNDERSTOOD method to throw an exception, so you can see that you
forgot to implement "getSize".

> And what's the difference from the proxy case?

I think I answered that one before.  A proxy is a substitute for an
object.  To an outside observer it behaves precisely like the object
it's proxying for and responds to the same messages.  I don't think
that's the case with your collection class.

> The funny thing about that posting is that, if it was intended to
> demonstrate that one cannot productively discuss technical issues
> concerning features that one considers a bad idea, it failed.

I don't imagine for a nanosecond that was the intention.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11827

On 5/2/12 9:43 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Anton Ertl<anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>  wrote:
>> Andrew Haley<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>  writes:
>>> To recap: Anton is considering a scheme where, if you call a method
>>> that expects a singular object on, say, an array, the system (or the
>>> array) automagically inserts a "forEach" loop and calls the method
>>> once with each element.  I think that's a terrible idea: if you want a
>>> loop, I think you should say so.
>>
>> Did I express myself so misleadingly?  The programmer for the
>> collection class would write a loop in the NOT-UNDERSTOOD method, or
>> he would decide not to define this method in this way.  And the
>> programmer of code that uses a collection class would select a
>> collection class with that feature if that feature is desired, or a
>> collection class without that feature if it is not desired.
>
> Here goes:
>
> Anton is considering a scheme where, if you call a method that
> expects a singular object on, say, an array, the array may
> automagically call the method once with each element.  I think
> that's a terrible idea: if you want a loop, I think you should say
> so.
>
>> If that does not satisfy your notion of "say so", what does.  Should
>> the users of the collection class then have to create another
>> collection class, and define various methods for them, each looking
>> like:
>>
>> :: draw ['] draw this foreach ;;
>>
>> Does that gain anything?
>
> I would have thought that was not so much a collection class as a
> subclass of DrawableObject which contains a collection of objects.
> This DrawableObject would respond to the method "draw" by calling
> "draw" on each of its sub-objects.  And indeed, it might look like the
> method above, but more like
>
> :: draw ['] draw myCollection foreach ;;
>
> I really don't think that a composite DrawableObject would respond to
> any message it doesn't understand by passing it to its sub-objects
> because it doesn't make sense to do so.  Sure, "draw" makes sense, but
> "getPos" and "getSize" really don't.  In order for those methods to
> work correctly, you have to override them.  It makes sense for the
> NOT-UNDERSTOOD method to throw an exception, so you can see that you
> forgot to implement "getSize".
>
>> And what's the difference from the proxy case?
>
> I think I answered that one before.  A proxy is a substitute for an
> object.  To an outside observer it behaves precisely like the object
> it's proxying for and responds to the same messages.  I don't think
> that's the case with your collection class.

I think I may now understand the general nature of the issue now.  I 
believe that I have run into this situation before.  One wants to 
create, for example, a collection of objects for a GUI (button, picture, 
editable text, etc.).  Each object must be able to accept a pre-defined 
set of GUI messages (draw, key, enable, disable, click, getPos, and so 
on).  Not every GUI object will "understand" each of these messages 
because, for example, it is not appropriate for a picture object to 
respond to a key message.  So what to do?  One way is to manually define 
all GUI messages for all GUI objects and so inappropriate messages 
(i.e.not understood) are effectively ignored.  But this is quite 
cumbersome to write.  What I have done is to write *one* generic proxy 
class with default benign responses to all possible GUI messages in the 
set.  Differing number of stack items are dropped as appropriate. 
Finally, all one has to do is write the real GUI classes and simply 
multiply inherit from the generic GUI proxy class.  In this way any 
"undefined" messages are automatically properly handled (ignored).  I 
promise that this is not an attempt to promote the use of multiple 
inheritance.  But there are times where multiple inheritance elegantly 
provides an easy solution to certain problems.

I may still be missing the original point.  If so sorry about that and 
ignore this post.

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11864

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> What I have done is to write *one* generic proxy
> class with default benign responses to all possible GUI messages in
> the
> set.  Differing number of stack items are dropped as appropriate.
> Finally, all one has to do is write the real GUI classes and simply
> multiply inherit from the generic GUI proxy class.  In this way any
> "undefined" messages are automatically properly handled (ignored).  I
> promise that this is not an attempt to promote the use of multiple
> inheritance.  But there are times where multiple inheritance elegantly
> provides an easy solution to certain problems.

Why do you need multiple inheritance for that?  MINOS has the same 
thing, but the generic GUI class is the root GUI class, the one that 
defines the interface. As all other GUI classes are derived from this 
class, they inherit a useful set of default methods for things they 
don't handle themselves.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11867

On 5/3/12 12:41 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:
>> What I have done is to write *one* generic proxy
>> class with default benign responses to all possible GUI messages in
>> the
>> set.  Differing number of stack items are dropped as appropriate.
>> Finally, all one has to do is write the real GUI classes and simply
>> multiply inherit from the generic GUI proxy class.  In this way any
>> "undefined" messages are automatically properly handled (ignored).  I
>> promise that this is not an attempt to promote the use of multiple
>> inheritance.  But there are times where multiple inheritance elegantly
>> provides an easy solution to certain problems.
>
> Why do you need multiple inheritance for that?

The short answer is you don't.  Providing that you have planned your 
classes appropriately ahead of time.

The longer answer is you likely have a variety of classes designed 
originally for different purposes.  You then want to leverage that work 
for your new GUI classes.  Such as a string class to be used as a GUI 
text display or GUI editing class or a picture class to be used as a GUI 
picture display class.  Neither the string class or the picture class 
were originally planned for use as GUI-aware classes.  Multiple 
inheritance allows one to very simply add all of the standard GUI 
protocol methods to handle those not defined.

In other words, the availability of multiple inheritance allows one to 
create classes now that can be easily used later without having to 
anticipate all possible future uses of that class.


> MINOS has the same
> thing, but the generic GUI class is the root GUI class, the one that
> defines the interface. As all other GUI classes are derived from this
> class, they inherit a useful set of default methods for things they
> don't handle themselves.

Yes.  But with single inheritance (SI) you had to carefully "plan 
ahead".  MI provides greater flexibility in that respect.

MI is the general solution for objects.  SI is a special case of MI. 
With MI you can always do it either way as needed by the problem and 
perhaps depending on what pre-defined classes you already have.

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11896

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> Yes.  But with single inheritance (SI) you had to carefully "plan
> ahead".  MI provides greater flexibility in that respect.

Though the has-a design pattern often provides a way around that.  Your 
text edit widget just can have a string object inside, and wrap it up as 
GUI widget, it does not necessarily have to *be* a string object itself.  
Composition usually is far more flexible than inheritance.

> MI is the general solution for objects.  SI is a special case of MI.
> With MI you can always do it either way as needed by the problem and
> perhaps depending on what pre-defined classes you already have.

Yes, MI is the general solution of messy code, slammed together without 
planning - a very common approach in the OOP world ;-).

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11900

On 5/3/12 8:46 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:
>> Yes.  But with single inheritance (SI) you had to carefully "plan
>> ahead".  MI provides greater flexibility in that respect.
>
> Though the has-a design pattern often provides a way around that.  Your
> text edit widget just can have a string object inside, and wrap it up as
> GUI widget, it does not necessarily have to *be* a string object itself.
> Composition usually is far more flexible than inheritance.

I prefer to use both.  One issue with embedding an object inside another 
object is you either have to write pass-through methods to operate on 
the embedded object or remember to use methodless instance variable 
access.  With MI a string message is simply sent to the text edit widget 
and it is automatically handled properly because the widget *is* a 
string object.  Manual message directing will still be required if there 
are message name conflicts, between the widget class and the string 
class, that you care about.  But you can save a lot of message 
redirecting work by using MI.


>> MI is the general solution for objects.  SI is a special case of MI.
>> With MI you can always do it either way as needed by the problem and
>> perhaps depending on what pre-defined classes you already have.
>
> Yes, MI is the general solution of messy code, slammed together without
> planning - a very common approach in the OOP world ;-).

MI will not be favored by everyone.  But it need not be used even if 
using a class written by someone else that employs MI.

I'm curious to see how the meta object protocol project turns out, if 
there is to be one.

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11842

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
[...]
>I really don't think that a composite DrawableObject would respond to
>any message it doesn't understand by passing it to its sub-objects
>because it doesn't make sense to do so.  Sure, "draw" makes sense, but
>"getPos" and "getSize" really don't.

It depends on the aggregation/reduction used.  But yes, one would
probably not want to deal with that through a general NOT-UNDERSTOOD
mechanism, but by defining getPos and getSize for the collection class
(or the class that contains the collection).

>In order for those methods to
>work correctly, you have to override them.  It makes sense for the
>NOT-UNDERSTOOD method to throw an exception, so you can see that you
>forgot to implement "getSize".

Ok, so the reason not to make use of NOT-UNDERSTOOD for collections is
better error recognition.

>> The funny thing about that posting is that, if it was intended to
>> demonstrate that one cannot productively discuss technical issues
>> concerning features that one considers a bad idea, it failed.
>
>I don't imagine for a nanosecond that was the intention.

I think the intention was that I should react with "This is a terrible
idea" and not discuss the technical question he posted.  That failed.
It's a bad idea (but he knew that, so no need to point that out), but
the question and its answer still offers some insights.

What do you think the intention was?

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11844

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>In order for those methods to
>>work correctly, you have to override them.  It makes sense for the
>>NOT-UNDERSTOOD method to throw an exception, so you can see that you
>>forgot to implement "getSize".
> 
> Ok, so the reason not to make use of NOT-UNDERSTOOD for collections is
> better error recognition.

Yes, and better understandability of a program.

>>> The funny thing about that posting is that, if it was intended to
>>> demonstrate that one cannot productively discuss technical issues
>>> concerning features that one considers a bad idea, it failed.
>>
>>I don't imagine for a nanosecond that was the intention.
> 
> I think the intention was that I should react with "This is a terrible
> idea" and not discuss the technical question he posted.  That failed.
> It's a bad idea (but he knew that, so no need to point that out), but
> the question and its answer still offers some insights.
> 
> What do you think the intention was?

Heh.  I thought it was intended to *provoke* dicussion!

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11829

On May 2, 10:35 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> "John Passaniti" <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9d0c8e14-61ee-446d-8992-c57eb3ce2bbc@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 29, 9:55 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
> > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> <OT JP still in denial.>
>
> > Yep, there are certainly *some* people who I ignore, disregard,
> > disrespect, or otherwise, discount.  You're in that set of people,
> > mostly driven by your past behavior and argumentative style.
>
> If I'm in that set of people, it's because you are all about *winning
> arguments*.
>
> > I simply don't get a lot from my conversations with you, and
> > I'm sure you feel the same about me.
>
> No, I don't feel that way.  I think that.  And, I know that. I can go
> through decades of your posts, in fact I can go all the way back to early
> 1990's, and not find a single thing of value.  This is because you don't
> discuss.  You argue.  You incite.  You get called a troll, repeatedly, for
> decades, by numerous people.  Do you honestly believe every single one of
> those numerous people lied to you?  At some point, you have to consider
> that what they've said is actually the truth and not discount it.
>
> > And that's why about the only time I write to you anymore is
> > when you knee-jerk on something I write and try to derail a
> > conversation.  Like here.
>
> Oh, poor baby ...  I interfered in his argument.  Boo hoo!  You post
> something *blatantly stupid* or failed to label it as "sarcastic" and
> expect people to *not* respond to it just so you can *win* your argument?
>
> > > You intentionally provoke others into arguments, apparently to
> > > boost your outrageously uncontrolled ego. You always believe
> > > you're correct, even when presented with of a mountain of
> > > evidence to the contrary. [...]
>
> > Wrong on both counts.
>
> Denial doesn't change the truth.
>
> > One of the reasons I bother to participate in this newsgroup is that
> > there are a handful of people who consistently reveal both great
> > experience and perspective.  A very big part of my personal philosophy
> > is that I have limits, and I constantly seek to find them.  I believe
> > that it's important for any engineer to know what they don't know, and
> > that seems to me to be the very opposite of an uncontrolled ego.
>
> Wow, delusional too ...
>
> > I don't believe I'm always right.
>
> It sure seems that way.  It's not just me either.  Your posts are archived.
> There are hundreds, probably hundreds upon hundreds, who'd disagree with
> that statement and have done so.
>
> > But at the same time, I'm not spouting statements based on mere opinion.
>
> AFAIR, you've never cited anything or provided a link to anything.
>
> Who provided links proving Lua was slow?  (me)  Etc.
>
> > > Has anyone here ever agreed with you? on any topic?
> > > about anything? It sure doesn't seem so. [...]
>
> > Yes, of course.
>
> Again, your posts are archived.  So many people have disagreed with you I'm
> almost not hesitant to call you a flat out liar.  I won't, but it's truly,
> truly, borderline.  I really think I should.  I actually feel inspired to do
> so.
>
> > There are plenty of statements that you've given that are purely
> > subjective-- where "truth" and "fact" are a matter of your
> > perspective, interest, and abilities.
>
> Really?  Well, you have yet to prove that.  I don't believe so.  I've always
> based my reality on truth for the same reasons that non-liars don't tell
> lies.  If you don't understand that, then you won't ever understand it.
>
> > And that seems to be at the core of my problem with you.
>
> The core of your problem is you.  Re-read all the posts you've ever posted.
> You'll see I'm not just stating my opinion.  I'm stating the conclusion of
> *numerous* others.  Nearly everyone you've ever conversed with has the same
> negative opinions of you as I do.  At what point do you accept this as the
> truth?  What does it take?  10,000 people?  100,000 people?  Einstein? Jesus
> Christ?  God?  Satan?  Aliens?  What?  Clearly the message is not getting
> through ...  How is it that you can logically and rationally justify
> completely dismissing the statements of others, apparently truthful
> statements, about you for decades?  Do you think that doing so will make
> those statements go away or magically disappear or somehow change when you
> haven't changed?
>
> > Honestly, I have the opinion that I can learn from *everyone*.
>
> Yet, you don't and apparently never do.  Your posts are archived.  Decades
> worth.  So, how valuable is your opinion of yourself that you *can* learn
> from everyone if you *never* do learn from anyone?  How accurate is that
> opinion?  I'd say worthless and inaccurate.
>
> > But with some people, I quickly learn that in order to get to those
> > nuggets of wisdom, I have to wade through through a river of
> > bullshit.
>
> "Don't hate the playa' hate the game."  Really?  Take responsibility for
> once.  The ends don't justify the means.  You don't have the *right* to
> create a "river of bullshit" just to obtain a "nugget of wisdom".  Every
> reckless act has a price.  It doesn't matter whether you are good or bad,
> or that your reasons may be just or accomplish something good.
>
> > What I reject is the result of disagreement or conflict with
> > my own experience.
>
> So, that amounts to everything being rejected by you.  Apparently, nothing
> corresponds to your experience except your experience.  Wow, I've never met
> *anyone* with such isolated experiences.
>
> In c.l.f.,
>
> You're not asking Forth questions.
> You're not answering Forth questions.
> You're not coding in Forth.
> You're not posting Forth code.
> You're not coding a Forth interpreter.
> You're not coding a Forth compiler.
>
> As far as we know, you only code Perl, Python, and Lua.  That's what your
> posts here seem to be about.  If not one of them, then you're discussing
> some OTHER language besides Forth:
>
> John said: "Perl this ..." (GG pulls up 135)
> John said: "Python that ..." (GG pulls up 100)
> John said: "Lua doesn't suck ..."  (GG pulls up 91)
> John said: "Lisp ..." (GG pulls up 90)
> John said: "Ruby ..." (GG pulls up 53)
> John said: "PHP ..." (GG pulls up 29)
> John said: "Postscript ..." (GG pulls up 33)
>
> I can do the same thing with complaints about you too.  There are *decades*
> worth of people complaining about you.
>
> Complaints on comp.arch.embedded...
> Complaints on comp.arch.robotics...
> Complaints on comp.lang.forth...
> ...
>
> There are also numerous posts of you intentionally bashing certain people
> *repeatedly*.  On c.l.f., you've bashed Jeff Fox, Anton Ertl, etc.
>
> There are 393 posts with your name and "troll".  If one gives you the
> benefit of the doubt, say 50% of them are actually about you, that's nearly
> 200 "troll" complaints!  I think the real percentage is much higher, like
> 70% or so.
>
> You're clearly not here to discuss Forth.
> You're clearly not here to learn.
> You're clearly not here to provide.
>
> You seem to prefer groups like alt.support.jock-strap and
> other debased groups ...
>
> So ...
>
>   WHY ARE YOU HERE?
>
> You are argumentative and seem to enjoy being a nuisance.  That seems to be
> the *REAL* reason.
>
> The *most* informative posts of yours that I could find in comp.lang.forth
> seem to be regurgitation of stuff you read years earlier that was posted by
> others.  Feel free to post some links to your *valuable* c.l.f. posts if you
> *actually* think otherwise.  Somehow, I suspect you won't, i.e., lazy, even
> though that would go against your desire to *win* an argument.
>
> But, you're not just argumentative, you're angry ... hostile ... extremely
> hostile ... near to hatred.  Yes, hatred is the correct level of anger
> intensity.  "Roid" rage?  Steroid abuse?  High androgen levels?  FYI,
> steroids feminize the brain, be it artificial or natural.  High testosterone
> levels push estrogen to the brain and breasts.  If you were a woman, I'd
> think you were psycho-"bitchy" like a woman with very bad PMS.  The phrase
> "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" comes to mind.  I don't know how to
> fit that to a man ...  Women are the ones who are so concerned about
> *winning* arguments.
>
> Rod Pemberton

Best post I've seen here in a long time. JP has a long long long
history of being completely vile to people on CLF. I don't know about
other newsgroups. And to think, in the last 6 months, I'd say he's
actually cranked it down a few notches.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11832

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Best post I've seen here in a long time. JP has a long long long
> history of being completely vile to people on CLF.

I generally enjoy his posts, which I often find insightful.  And his
latest "reductio ad absurdam" article really gave me a chuckle.  A coworker
years ago said Usenet was like a comedy club--you come, you watch, and you
laugh.  (I guess sometimes you even jump up on the stage.)

-- 
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11833

On May 2, 9:43 pm, van...@vsta.org wrote:
> Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Best post I've seen here in a long time. JP has a long long long
> > history of being completely vile to people on CLF.
>
> I generally enjoy his posts, which I often find insightful.  And his
> latest "reductio ad absurdam" article really gave me a chuckle.  A coworker
> years ago said Usenet was like a comedy club--you come, you watch, and you
> laugh.  (I guess sometimes you even jump up on the stage.)
>
> --
> Andy Valencia
> Home page:http://www.vsta.org/andy/
> To contact me:http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

On a technical level, I agree. JP is clearly an experienced
professional, with a broad skill set. When talking about computer
software and programming in general, I would say that JP has a lot to
offer, and I often agree with his points and sentiments. The *way* he
chooses to put his points across is, however, a different matter, and
a great shame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11872

On May 2, 5:35 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> > Yep, there are certainly *some* people who I ignore,
> > disregard, disrespect, or otherwise, discount.  You're
> > in that set of people, mostly driven by your past
> > behavior and argumentative style.
>
> If I'm in that set of people, it's because you are all
> about *winning arguments*.

Yes, I understand you believe your positions and opinions are
unassailable pearls of wisdom and so anyone who doesn't find value in
your messages must clearly have other agendas.  There are a handful of
people in this newsgroup who suffer from the same delusion and not
coincidentally, I don't find much value in their messages either.

> No, I don't feel that way.  I think that.  And, I know that.
> I can go through decades of your posts, in fact I can go all
> the way back to early 1990's, and not find a single thing of
> value.  [...]

Opinion noted.  And assuming you actually did obsessively (and
creepily!) review all that content, you'll also note that I at many
points in time have invited people to filter me out by a variety of
means if they don't find value in what I write.  Those who either
can't figure out how to use such filters or who lament over how such
filters are imperfect were always invited to exercise self control and
simply skip my messages.

> This is because you don't discuss.  You argue.  You incite.
> You get called a troll, repeatedly, for decades, by numerous
> people.  [...]

I get called a lot worse than a troll.  And in most every case, it's
from people who didn't like me putting steak sauce on their sacred
cows, challenging their favorite anecdotes, pointing out flawed
reasoning, citing experience that goes counter to their own, or simply
poking a hole in their inflated egos.  So no, when one of those people
calls me troll, or when they try to create smokescreens by citing
completely irrelevant facts about me I'll certainly discount it.

> Oh, poor baby ...  I interfered in his argument.  Boo hoo!
> You post something *blatantly stupid* or failed to label
> it as "sarcastic" and expect people to *not* respond to it
> just so you can *win* your argument?

Thanks Rod for being the style editor for comp.lang.forth!  I had made
the obviously flawed assumption that intelligent people would see my
message to Anton as sarcastic and so didn't need to explicitly
attribute it as such.  Thanks for pointing out that there are stupid
people who need such clues.  Gosh, I was completely unaware of that
fact that there are stupid people in the world.  Thanks for valiantly
protecting the newsgroup; I know you're clearly a busy guy and your
huge throbbing brain has better things to do.

> So ...
>
>   WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Three reasons.

First are all the reasons I've stated before.  In short, I've been
using Forth and Forth-like languages for years in my work, primarily
during system bring-up, automated testing, and as a "back door" in
deployed systems for field diagnostics.  I wish the community would
have gotten its collective shit together years ago and I could have
had stronger justification to use the language less marginally.  But
hey, that's just how things were, are, and will probably continue to
be.  So I'm here to continue to see how Forth evolves.

Second, I enjoy the occasional posts that shed new insight into
Forth.  For example, when Joy first started to formalize the notions
of concatenative languages it helped me to see Forth from a functional
language perspective.  And I'm always fascinated by what Charles Moore
is doing (even if it isn't directly applicable to my work).  This
newsgroup has a handful of people who are exploring interesting edges
of the language and software engineering.  So I'm here to see those
kinds of cutting edge, quirky, or unusual perspectives.

And third, I have always been pretty up-front about a character flaw
that I have:  I have a pathological need to go after people who are
self-important, who think repetition of a position increases it's
worth, who think that a link to Wikipedia is a replacement for
experience, who clearly suffer from Dunning-Kruger, and an assortment
of other issues.  I haven't drawn the Venn diagram for you, but you
can probably guess what sets I'd put you in.

> But, you're not just argumentative, you're angry ...
> hostile ... extremely hostile ... near to hatred.  Yes,
> hatred is the correct level of anger intensity.  [...]

YOU GOT THAT!  I'M FREAKIN' ANGRY!  I BURN WITH THE HEAT OF A THOUSAND
SUNS!  CAPS-LOCK CAN'T EXPRESS THE SHEER RAGE THAT LIGHTS UP EVERY
FIBER OF MY BEING!  THE CONSTANT SOUND TRACK IN MY MIND IS A STREAM OF
NORWEGIAN DEATH METAL AT 110dB!  MY SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE READING IS
200!  WHEN I PLAY SCRABBLE, I ONLY PLAY HARD-CORE OBSCENITIES (and two
letter words like "QI")!  YOU CAN REMOTELY TELL MY HEART RATE BY
LOOKING AT THE VEINS IN MY NECK!  FURY IS MY MIDDLE NAME (well, not
legally, BUT I'M WORKING ON THAT)!

Well, you just brought up a fourth reason why I love being in
comp.lang.forth.  It's because of the ridiculous caricatures of me
that people like you come up with.  It usually starts with someone
like you taking a premise to ridiculous extremes and mixing in your
favorite stereotypes.  The best part is that I don't have to do
anything.  People like you who obsess will Google your fingers off,
trying to find whatever random factoids you can about me.  You toss
away the details that don't fit your premise, and amplify the details
that do.  In the end, it's a crazy fun-house mirror of me, and I
invite you to continue to come up with more.  At the very least, it
provides amusing dinner conversation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11778 — TypoForth (was: Message-not-understood and stack effects)

John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> writes:
>Would it be better to actually permute the
>characters and then look up in the dictionary on each permutation, or
>should I encode the dictionary differently to make such lookups fast?

Given our experiences with case insensitivity in Gforth, I suggest
storing the word in the original form in the dictionary: There are
good uses for the original form of the name, and I think that's even
truer for your case.  Then use a permutation insensitive comparison; I
guess you know that trying out all permutations is much less efficient
in many cases than some other approaches.

>> I think you still miss the issue:
>
>Apparently so.  Apparently the issue is that you don't want to
>question your own premise.

Your lack of arguments is compelling.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web