Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #5193 > unrolled thread
| Started by | arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.delete-me.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-24 11:12 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-09-06 09:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 134 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.delete-me.de> - 2011-08-24 11:12 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-24 17:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc.deletethis@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-09-01 00:18 +1200
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-01 12:11 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-01 19:51 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201109.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-09-07 02:39 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:36 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-01 19:42 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-02 04:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-02 22:08 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-09-02 18:23 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-03 01:14 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-03 03:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-04 06:58 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-04 09:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-05 20:25 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-06 00:52 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:37 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-09 05:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 08:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-09-09 20:36 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-09 13:09 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:17 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-14 01:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-09-06 07:50 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-06 05:22 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-09-06 13:28 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-06 07:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-06 05:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-06 07:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 08:50 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-09 07:05 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:40 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-12 04:36 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-12 05:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-09-15 21:05 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-09-02 12:58 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-02 22:10 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-09-03 08:55 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-04 06:41 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-09-09 01:28 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:37 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc.deletethis@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-09-05 01:27 +1200
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-09-04 14:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-05 20:23 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-09-05 16:09 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-05 23:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:47 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-10 18:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:38 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:39 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-09-09 08:32 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-09-09 15:24 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-06 00:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-06 03:25 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 05:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-09-08 13:27 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-08 09:15 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-09-08 14:24 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-08 10:11 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-09-08 15:46 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-08 11:45 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-08 10:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-08 12:47 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-14 01:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 13:51 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-09 10:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-09-09 21:03 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-09 12:35 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-09 13:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:36 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-12 06:43 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:38 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-09 10:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-10 03:45 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-09-10 08:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-09-08 16:09 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 13:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 20:04 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:45 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-09 05:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 09:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-09 09:43 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-12 03:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:38 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-19 07:29 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-21 18:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 19:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:30 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-09-12 08:53 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:38 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-09-19 13:57 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:43 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-09 04:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 08:51 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 17:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 22:03 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:45 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 22:46 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 09:56 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-12 06:27 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-12 03:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-12 21:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:41 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 21:32 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-13 22:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-14 00:47 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 13:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-15 00:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 08:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-15 10:40 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:52 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:53 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-09-12 20:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-09 07:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-09-14 02:10 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-14 05:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:39 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-14 18:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-15 03:44 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-09-15 06:12 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-15 09:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-16 02:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-19 14:32 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-21 18:28 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-09-15 03:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-09-15 12:58 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-09-15 09:16 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-15 22:36 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-09-19 09:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-09-06 09:17 -0700
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-14 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ee3eab3-fdd9-46d4-b368-705c973fd3d1@24g2000yqr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5744 |
On Sep 14, 3:10 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> writes: > > New requirement: post 2001 ... Do I need to research this for you? > > No, not a new requirement at all. You wrote, for example: > > Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:12:34 -0400 > Message-ID: <j33pgc$lk...@speranza.aioe.org> > > C is used for a reason. Their own language is not used for the same reason. > If their language was as powerful or flexible or portable or whatever as C, > then they wouldn't use C to code it, would they? They'd use their own > language. If they are using C to escape from it, they failed, didn't they? > They're _still_ coding their language in C. > > That says they're using C in the present tense, with your emphasis on > "still", while the actual situation seems to be the opposite. Only 10 more posts to go until this teetering tower reaches the 600 mark! Paul Rubin is doing his part, but Rod seems to have dropped out. In order to encourage Rod to continue, let me remind everybody that the Forth-200x committee is fully on his side. Their stated reason for rejecting my ALLOCATION word was that glibc doesn't provide ALLOCATION (glibc only provides MALLOC and FREE) and therefore Forth can't provide ALLOCATION either. The Forth-200x committee is effectively saying that it is their policy that Forth *always* trail behind C, and the Forth should never have any feature that C lacks. The Forth-200x committee is providing 100% support for Rod's thesis that C is a super- language and that Forth must always be written in C. Perhaps Anton Ertl can elaborate further on C's status as a super-language --- that should get us past the 600 mark! Note to Paul: there is a big difference between a Forth cross-compiler that generates C as an intermediate target language, and a Forth interpreter that is written in C (such as Gforth). C-- was developed for the purpose of being a target language, and for good reason as C lacked a lot of the required features. This is irrelevant however, as no Forth cross-compiler has ever generated C or C-- as a target language and it is unlikely that any ever will. Considering that Anton Ertl is involved in Gforth, I think that we can assume that he is crippling Forth-200x solely for the sake of Gforth --- that he is solely focused on restricting Forth to being a toy interpreter written in C. Stephen Pelc has stated several times that a Forth cross-compiler needs to simulate the target processor at compile-time. Stephen Pelc doesn't know how to write a cross-compiler that generates either assembly-language or C or C-- or anything else. Stephen Pelc is on the Forth-200x committee however, so I think that we can rule out Forth-200x providing any support for cross-compilation. This is where my Straight Forth comes in --- it is inherently a cross-compiler --- it can be implemented to generate C-- or whatever just as easily as it can be implemented to generate assembly language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 03:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c5cd1f7-4daa-4010-8e48-2e6912255958@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5771 |
On Sep 15, 2:50 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 14, 3:10 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> writes: > > > New requirement: post 2001 ... Do I need to research this for you? > > > No, not a new requirement at all. You wrote, for example: > > > Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:12:34 -0400 > > Message-ID: <j33pgc$lk...@speranza.aioe.org> > > > C is used for a reason. Their own language is not used for the same reason. > > If their language was as powerful or flexible or portable or whatever as C, > > then they wouldn't use C to code it, would they? They'd use their own > > language. If they are using C to escape from it, they failed, didn't they? > > They're _still_ coding their language in C. > > > That says they're using C in the present tense, with your emphasis on > > "still", while the actual situation seems to be the opposite. > > Only 10 more posts to go until this teetering tower reaches the 600 > mark! Paul Rubin is doing his part, but Rod seems to have dropped out. > > In order to encourage Rod to continue, let me remind everybody that > the Forth-200x committee is fully on his side. Their stated reason for > rejecting my ALLOCATION word was that glibc doesn't provide ALLOCATION > (glibc only provides MALLOC and FREE) and therefore Forth can't > provide ALLOCATION either. The Forth-200x committee is effectively > saying that it is their policy that Forth *always* trail behind C, and > the Forth should never have any feature that C lacks. The Forth-200x > committee is providing 100% support for Rod's thesis that C is a super- > language and that Forth must always be written in C. Perhaps Anton > Ertl can elaborate further on C's status as a super-language --- that > should get us past the 600 mark! > > Note to Paul: there is a big difference between a Forth cross-compiler > that generates C as an intermediate target language, and a Forth > interpreter that is written in C (such as Gforth). C-- was developed > for the purpose of being a target language, and for good reason as C > lacked a lot of the required features. This is irrelevant however, as > no Forth cross-compiler has ever generated C or C-- as a target > language and it is unlikely that any ever will. Considering that Anton > Ertl is involved in Gforth, I think that we can assume that he is > crippling Forth-200x solely for the sake of Gforth --- that he is > solely focused on restricting Forth to being a toy interpreter written > in C. > > Stephen Pelc has stated several times that a Forth cross-compiler > needs to simulate the target processor at compile-time. Stephen Pelc > doesn't know how to write a cross-compiler that generates either > assembly-language or C or C-- or anything else. Stephen Pelc is on the > Forth-200x committee however, so I think that we can rule out > Forth-200x providing any support for cross-compilation. This is where > my Straight Forth comes in --- it is inherently a cross-compiler --- > it can be implemented to generate C-- or whatever just as easily as it > can be implemented to generate assembly language. Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, Stephen makes a living out of Forth, both give their time freely to support Forth. Remind us all, who are you and what do you do? Is there anyone on clf that you respect?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 06:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fPmdnSqsm98qQOzTnZ2dnUVZ8jWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #5789 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, Stephen makes > a living out of Forth, both give their time freely to support Forth. > Remind us all, who are you and what do you do? Is there anyone on clf > that you respect? FWIW, this is an unreasonable question to ask of anyone here. Many really good Forth programmers have started out as gifted amateurs, and are worthy of respect. Conversely, many professionals and academics aren't up to much. The only thing that matters here should be the quality of one's posts. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c26c5a3-cf49-4f64-a005-2cdf2b21fae5@u19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5792 |
On Sep 15, 12:12 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, Stephen makes > > a living out of Forth, both give their time freely to support Forth. > > Remind us all, who are you and what do you do? Is there anyone on clf > > that you respect? > > FWIW, this is an unreasonable question to ask of anyone here. Many > really good Forth programmers have started out as gifted amateurs, and > are worthy of respect. Conversely, many professionals and academics > aren't up to much. The only thing that matters here should be the > quality of one's posts. > > Andrew. True. I withdraw the question; it was largely rhetorical, and I already have the answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-16 02:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9f4aa63-f87d-4446-ab5f-d02cba75e802@d26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5803 |
On Sep 15, 5:49 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Sep 15, 12:12 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > wrote: > > > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, Stephen makes > > > a living out of Forth, both give their time freely to support Forth. > > > Remind us all, who are you and what do you do? Is there anyone on clf > > > that you respect? > > > FWIW, this is an unreasonable question to ask of anyone here. Many > > really good Forth programmers have started out as gifted amateurs, and > > are worthy of respect. Conversely, many professionals and academics > > aren't up to much. The only thing that matters here should be the > > quality of one's posts. > > > Andrew. > > True. I withdraw the question; it was largely rhetorical, and I > already have the answer. As you can now see, Hugh has answered my question indirectly anyway. What drives him to post personal attacks I don't know. I'm not having difficulty working out why I care, as I've been a victim in the past of something very similar; it's not pleasant to be on the receiving end. I do wish he would stop it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-19 09:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j57hhb$j0q$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5789 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message news:0c5cd1f7-4daa-4010-8e48-2e6912255958@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com... > > Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, > Even so, he has made quite a few errors and erroneous statements. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-19 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <182eb512-cfd1-4e50-bdb2-33f2e7bb00ec@h6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5935 |
On Sep 19, 2:54 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message > > news:0c5cd1f7-4daa-4010-8e48-2e6912255958@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, > > Even so, he has made quite a few errors and erroneous statements. > > Rod Pemberton Due to your heavy snipping, over-pruning and general context removal this looks like a statement about something quite different from the point I was making, especially given your unsupported assertion. Are you using a 300baud modem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 18:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j5doeg$l5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5952 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message news:182eb512-cfd1-4e50-bdb2-33f2e7bb00ec@h6g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 19, 2:54 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message > news:0c5cd1f7-4daa-4010-8e48-2e6912255958@l4g2000vbv.googlegroups.com... > > > > Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, > > > Even so, he has made quite a few errors and erroneous statements. > > Due to your heavy snipping, over-pruning and general context > removal this looks like a statement about something quite > different from the point I was making, especially given your > unsupported assertion. > All relevant context is here. The portion of your comments that I was responding to is here. My comments are here. The point is made for those who comprehend what they read. Do I need to explain it to you? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 03:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b725e4c-9698-4746-9335-5c10a9a2ff62@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5771 |
On Sep 15, 2:50 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 14, 3:10 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> writes: > > > New requirement: post 2001 ... Do I need to research this for you? > > > No, not a new requirement at all. You wrote, for example: > > > Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:12:34 -0400 > > Message-ID: <j33pgc$lk...@speranza.aioe.org> > > > C is used for a reason. Their own language is not used for the same reason. > > If their language was as powerful or flexible or portable or whatever as C, > > then they wouldn't use C to code it, would they? They'd use their own > > language. If they are using C to escape from it, they failed, didn't they? > > They're _still_ coding their language in C. > > > That says they're using C in the present tense, with your emphasis on > > "still", while the actual situation seems to be the opposite. > > Only 10 more posts to go until this teetering tower reaches the 600 > mark! Paul Rubin is doing his part, but Rod seems to have dropped out. > > In order to encourage Rod to continue, let me remind everybody that > the Forth-200x committee is fully on his side. Their stated reason for > rejecting my ALLOCATION word was that glibc doesn't provide ALLOCATION > (glibc only provides MALLOC and FREE) and therefore Forth can't > provide ALLOCATION either. The Forth-200x committee is effectively > saying that it is their policy that Forth *always* trail behind C, and > the Forth should never have any feature that C lacks. The Forth-200x > committee is providing 100% support for Rod's thesis that C is a super- > language and that Forth must always be written in C. Perhaps Anton > Ertl can elaborate further on C's status as a super-language --- that > should get us past the 600 mark! > > Note to Paul: there is a big difference between a Forth cross-compiler > that generates C as an intermediate target language, and a Forth > interpreter that is written in C (such as Gforth). C-- was developed > for the purpose of being a target language, and for good reason as C > lacked a lot of the required features. This is irrelevant however, as > no Forth cross-compiler has ever generated C or C-- as a target > language and it is unlikely that any ever will. Considering that Anton > Ertl is involved in Gforth, I think that we can assume that he is > crippling Forth-200x solely for the sake of Gforth --- that he is > solely focused on restricting Forth to being a toy interpreter written > in C. > > Stephen Pelc has stated several times that a Forth cross-compiler > needs to simulate the target processor at compile-time. Stephen Pelc > doesn't know how to write a cross-compiler that generates either > assembly-language or C or C-- or anything else. Stephen Pelc is on the > Forth-200x committee however, so I think that we can rule out > Forth-200x providing any support for cross-compilation. This is where > my Straight Forth comes in --- it is inherently a cross-compiler --- > it can be implemented to generate C-- or whatever just as easily as it > can be implemented to generate assembly language. (apologies if double posted, gg playing up) Anton is a professor of CS with an active Forth project, Stephen makes a living out of Forth, both give their time freely to support Forth. Remind us all, who are you and what do you do? Is there anyone on clf that you respect?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4e71f582.36055263@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #5771 |
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:50:31 -0700 (PDT), Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: >Stephen Pelc has stated several times that a Forth cross-compiler >needs to simulate the target processor at compile-time. Stephen Pelc >doesn't know how to write a cross-compiler that generates either >assembly-language or C or C-- or anything else. The MPE cross compilers speak for themselves. You can measure the code quality for yourself. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 09:16 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ftWdnVs3JvZh0-_TnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #5797 |
On 9/15/11 2:58 AM, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:50:31 -0700 (PDT), Hugh Aguilar > <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Stephen Pelc has stated several times that a Forth cross-compiler >> needs to simulate the target processor at compile-time. Stephen Pelc >> doesn't know how to write a cross-compiler that generates either >> assembly-language or C or C-- or anything else. > > The MPE cross compilers speak for themselves. You can measure the > code quality for yourself. > > Stephen > > Indeed, MPE has been producing cross-compilers used professionally for over 20 years, as has FORTH, Inc. MPE and FORTH, Inc. jointly developed and published the proposed standard for cross-compilers based on their work. 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 | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-15 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdb64bdc-49f2-4071-bc25-5375bb003871@t29g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5809 |
On Sep 15, 1:16 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > On 9/15/11 2:58 AM, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:50:31 -0700 (PDT), Hugh Aguilar > > <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Stephen Pelc has stated several times that a Forth cross-compiler > >> needs to simulate the target processor at compile-time. Stephen Pelc > >> doesn't know how to write a cross-compiler that generates either > >> assembly-language or C or C-- or anything else. > > > The MPE cross compilers speak for themselves. You can measure the > > code quality for yourself. > > > Stephen > > Indeed, MPE has been producing cross-compilers used professionally for > over 20 years, as has FORTH, Inc. MPE and FORTH, Inc. jointly developed > and published the proposed standard for cross-compilers based on their work. We have hit the 600 mark! That is a record for the longest thread on comp.lang.forth completely devoid of technical information. As for Pelc's cross-compiler, he has stated many times that it is necessary to simulate the target processor on the host processor at compile-time. That is dumb! How could you compile into C-- or whatever if you are doing this? Can you imagine what real programmers think of the Forth community when they hear a member of the Forth-200x committee say this? You know --- there is a reason why nobody in the greater programming community takes Forth seriously. Jeff Fox told me that he had read that document you mention, and he told me that it was not worthwhile for me to read --- you don't have anything to teach me --- I may very well be the only living member of comp.lang.forth who knows how to write a Forth cross-compiler (Jeff Fox being dead now). Testra did talk to Forth Inc. about your company writing a cross- compiler for the MiniForth, but they hired me to do it instead --- this is because you would have failed, and failed expensively --- but I succeeded. Forth Inc. has a long history of expensive failures --- Jeff Fox told me about how you took $40,000 from Chuck Moore and delivered some bug-ridden garbage that he threw away as worthless. Now your website brags about your having been associated with Chuck Moore --- but I notice that Chuck Moore doesn't brag about having been associated with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-19 09:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j57hir$j3h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5771 |
"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2ee3eab3-fdd9-46d4-b368-705c973fd3d1@24g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > > Only 10 more posts to go until this teetering tower reaches the 600 > mark! Paul Rubin is doing his part, but Rod seems to have dropped out. > > In order to encourage Rod to continue, let me remind everybody that > the Forth-200x committee is fully on his side. Their stated reason for > rejecting my ALLOCATION word was that glibc doesn't provide > ALLOCATION (glibc only provides MALLOC and FREE) and > therefore Forth can't provide ALLOCATION either. The Forth-200x > committee is effectively saying that it is their policy that Forth > *always* > trail behind C, and the Forth should never have any feature that C lacks. > The Forth-200x committee is providing 100% support for Rod's thesis > that C is a super-language and that Forth must always be written in C. > Perhaps Anton Ertl can elaborate further on C's status as a super-language > --- that should get us past the 600 mark! > Albeit warped, you do have a sense of humor ... Are we up to 700? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-06 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <773936ce-25dd-4515-9351-82968bd6cd39@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5528 |
On Sep 4, 6:27 am, arc <arc.deletet...@vorsicht-bissig.de> wrote: > But you know all of that, yet still say 'C is the God language', and > that's why I'm confused. > I often pray that my code doesn't hit a compiler bug. -Brad
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web