Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #3564 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 319 — 44 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:13 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 15:50 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 20:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 18:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 12:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 11:27 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 17:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 18:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 12:25 -0700
Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 09:43 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 12:35 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-14 08:32 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-14 07:10 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 09:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse arc@vorsicht-bissig.de - 2011-07-12 22:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 03:02 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-27 21:29 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 06:55 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 06:17 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 16:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-01 13:41 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:26 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:56 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-02 08:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 17:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-03 10:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 20:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 15:45 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 16:19 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 01:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:44 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 19:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 10:39 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:42 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 10:32 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse marko <marko@marko.marko.marko> - 2011-07-07 22:09 +1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:19 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 10:33 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-08 05:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 17:47 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-07-08 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-08 15:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:04 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 15:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 22:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 03:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-12 19:42 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-12 14:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 07:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 07:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-11 20:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 21:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-12 18:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 20:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-13 00:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 19:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-07-11 13:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-07-12 21:51 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-09 16:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 04:27 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 11:57 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 21:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 18:22 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-01 12:59 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 00:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-01 22:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-08 20:44 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-31 10:25 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-08 16:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-10 07:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-10 18:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 03:05 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 07:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-11 10:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:32 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-11 10:06 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 11:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-12 18:49 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 12:52 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 12:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 15:09 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 04:52 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 03:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 12:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-15 20:51 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 21:56 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 19:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-18 11:38 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-18 07:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 06:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-16 05:10 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 06:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 17:14 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 00:29 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 00:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 01:04 -0700
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 16:12 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-21 13:21 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 10:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:56 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:33 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 12:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-21 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-22 10:36 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 22:57 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-22 23:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 04:16 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 08:29 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 14:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 16:54 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 11:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 17:11 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 12:27 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 13:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 20:30 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-22 01:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 17:02 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 07:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 01:03 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 22:38 -1000
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 15:10 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 00:09 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 13:09 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:41 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 17:58 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-19 17:41 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-19 18:05 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-19 13:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-19 13:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 15:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 19:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 17:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-20 03:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-20 15:20 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-21 14:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:47 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-08-22 20:30 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 23:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 22:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-08-20 08:55 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 10:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:03 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-14 07:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-12 09:51 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 13:45 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 08:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 02:56 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-13 04:35 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:13 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-13 13:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-14 14:46 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-17 01:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 03:24 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-28 19:55 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 06:30 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 13:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 14:02 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-29 15:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 19:45 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 22:08 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 10:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-06-30 20:44 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 18:08 -0400
Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 20:07 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 22:12 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 17:59 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:37 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-01 06:07 -0500
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:00 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-01 14:06 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 14:57 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 16:55 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:04 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-02 22:10 +0200
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 14:36 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:36 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:25 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-03 10:53 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 23:41 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-02 22:46 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-07-18 01:25 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 14:44 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 23:24 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-03 12:04 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-03 20:24 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 02:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-04 16:02 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 10:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 12:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 15:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-04 13:23 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 11:34 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 05:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 14:28 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:39 -0700
OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 15:36 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:17 -0500
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:53 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-08 17:11 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 12:41 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:34 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-10 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-10 13:06 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-07 00:11 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-06 12:47 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 10:07 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 12:40 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 15:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 10:16 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:23 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 09:54 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 22:33 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 16:28 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 16:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-04 15:03 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 00:20 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-05 11:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:46 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-05 23:13 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 19:21 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-05 14:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-06 07:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:46 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-07 09:12 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-06 21:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-07 14:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 20:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-08 04:39 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 23:22 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-12 19:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 23:37 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-12 05:10 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-12 03:44 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-13 22:06 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 04:01 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-03 07:34 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 13:25 -0400
Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 18:27 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 17:50 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 22:45 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-30 11:42 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 13:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 08:38 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 18:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 12:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-06-30 08:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-03 15:22 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:31 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-29 23:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-01 09:42 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-01 18:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-06-29 15:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Fuschia, President-Elect of the Bright Purplish-Green Council" <fp-eotbp-gc@ibm.com> - 2011-06-29 19:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-06-30 00:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
| From | coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-22 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11lwwroyw7gb.1i619au3tegg8.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #5130 |
Op Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:47:48 -0400 schreef Rod Pemberton: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:a4ad1c38-341c-4261-912b-2cfd38eb87f0@t20g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 20, 1:54 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> >> wrote: >>> >>> return((r1*r2)/(r1+r2)); >> >> There are enough parenthesis in there to scare a Lisp programmer! That >> is supposed to be readable? > > Yes. It's no different than what you should've seen in HS algebra... In > fact, you should've seen far more parenthesis in HS algebra than ever used > in Lisp, if you did the homework ... AIR, one problem I solved decades ago > was four pages, double-sided, with at least a half-dozen parens per line. > > > Rod Pemberton Since return is not a function, return (r1*r2)/(r1+r2); would suffice. -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-22 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e633d85-0c5f-4eae-ad9f-f6b0180d016b@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5130 |
On Aug 22, 9:47 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:a4ad1c38-341c-4261-912b-2cfd38eb87f0@t20g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 20, 1:54 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > > wrote: > > > > return((r1*r2)/(r1+r2)); > > > There are enough parenthesis in there to scare a Lisp programmer! That > > is supposed to be readable? > > Yes. It's no different than what you should've seen in HS algebra... In > fact, you should've seen far more parenthesis in HS algebra than ever used > in Lisp, if you did the homework ... AIR, one problem I solved decades ago > was four pages, double-sided, with at least a half-dozen parens per line. > > Rod Pemberton I'm glad I didn't go to your H.S.! And, btw, smooth move on editing out my mention of intermediate-value overflow in C: 100000 200000 par . 66666 ok It is not impossible that our units will be micro-ohms. We are using 32-bit desktop computers after all, so we want to have better precision than we would get with a slide-rule (milli-ohms are 3 digits, which is roughly what you get with a standard 10-incher). Of course, you could rewrite your function to use long ints, but that would significantly slow down the function --- ruining the C programmers' claim that C is *always* faster than Forth (although for a function such as this intended for interactive use, speed is not a practical issue). Also, the function is still not *correct* because there are theoretically valid input parameters that will yet cause overflow --- it is such a hassle to explain in the documentation that large values don't work, even if those large values are impractically large --- but if you don't, some nerd will demand pico-ohm precision for his model railroad and will discover the bug in your software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-22 23:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j2v73u$em8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #5144 |
"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3e633d85-0c5f-4eae-ad9f-f6b0180d016b@l2g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > > And, btw, smooth move on editing out my mention of intermediate-value > overflow in C: > > 100000 200000 par . 66666 ok That's not what you mentioned. So, you had a secondary motive ... :) 64-bit Forth? Ok, I'll drop those in for 'ya'. The product overflows 31-bits, 32-bits. "int", "long", "unsigned long" are 32-bits with the compiler I'm using. The code has to be changed to "unsigned long long" (64-bits in this case), or "long long", instead of "int" to not overflow. > It is not impossible that our units will be micro-ohms. > Really? I seriously doubt real-world resistor tolerances are of sufficient quality to come up with resistor values that small. AIR, the so called 1% precision resistors were typically 5% to 10% off. 10% were 20% to 25% off. The lowest two ohm values that a former employer used were 0 ohm (inserted wire jumpers, i.e., wire "resistors") and 1 ohm in 1/8 watt. They used the 1/8 watt to make stinky white smoke when "less than bright" customers decided to apply power to the device's outputs ... Most of their resistors were normal values and wattages. > Of course, you could rewrite your function to use long ints, > but that would significantly slow down the function For one or a few computations? It's likely on the order of microseconds or less ... on an ancient 8086. If it's under 1/2 second, the user won't notice, unless vast quantities of calculations are being performed. Why anyone would need a resister calculator for more than a handful of resistor combinations is beyond me. There are so many standard resistor values, that you only need parallel resistors rarely. > Also, the function is still not *correct* because > there are theoretically valid input parameters that will > yet cause overflow Well, post the correct algo then, and I'll code it up ... ;-) Ha! If you are using integers, then you'll need some large integers for the product to prevent underflow on the division. Otherwise, use floats. Or, perhaps use scaled integers to allow fractional integers, i.e., multiply by 100, 1000, etc. The fractional integers could be used to simulate floats to a certain decimal place. Then, you can do 1/x calculations, scaled, so 100/x, 1000/x, etc. I don't know, maybe, maybe not, too sleepy ... > --- it is such a hassle to explain in the documentation that > large values don't work So, are you saying you don't have checks for out-of-bounds combinations of inputs in your Forth code? Isn't that a serious omission? Isn't that a violation of the physical constraints of slide-rule computations which your Forth programs attempt to mimic? ;-) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-22 22:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66491f59-0392-49d2-9560-66093285b646@y39g2000prd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5149 |
On Aug 22, 9:34 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > And, btw, smooth move on editing out my mention of intermediate-value > > overflow in C: > > > 100000 200000 par . 66666 ok > > That's not what you mentioned. So, you had a secondary motive ... :) I was hoping that you would go ahead and try the parameters that I suggested and discover the problem yourself. > Well, post the correct algo then, and I'll code it up ... ;-) Ha! I did! Ha! The mention of PAR was pedantic --- I don't mean that overflow is a practical problem in PAR, as you are right that nobody really needs great precision for that calculation --- I was just pointing out with a simple example that C has a problem with overflow. Do you understand how */ works? It does a multiplication of two parameters and then it divides the product by a third parameter. The clever part here is that although the parameters are all single- precision the intermediate value (the product aka the numerator) is double-precision. In this way you can avoid single-precision overflow while yet doing single-precision arithmetic (you don't have to upgrade your entire calculation to double-precision). This was Chuck Moore's idea way back when Forth was first invented --- it mattered more in those days because we were using a 16-bit cell and both multiplication and division were done in software --- overflow was more common with the small cell, and upgrading to double-precision arithmetic was more expensive in regard to speed. It still matters on small micro- controllers, although on 32-bit processors it is not such an issue anymore. Read "Starting Forth" in the section about "Star-Slash the Scalar." Note that we also have some other similar functions in ANS-Forth now. See the file CF.4TH in my novice package for software (the only code in the package that was not written by me) that generates rational approximations for use by the scalars. > So, are you saying you don't have checks for out-of-bounds combinations of > inputs in your Forth code? Isn't that a serious omission? Isn't that a > violation of the physical constraints of slide-rule computations which your > Forth programs attempt to mimic? ;-) We don't have checks for out-of-bounds unless we write them ourselves --- same as in C. As for slide-rules, they don't actually overflow (except for the log- log scales) because they don't use absolute numbers. The numbers can be any size that you want --- but you still only get 3 digits of precision, and only if you have good eyesight and a steady hand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-20 08:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lq7y3t.fab@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #5077 |
In article <42341748-9ba7-4da6-9230-e587c9682edb@f1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: <SNIP> > >Of course, if you want to go for super-usability, write a program to >print out a nomogram and then let the user slide a straight-edge >around on the paper to calculate answers instantaneously --- that is >much more user-friendly than forcing the guy to run a program on his >computer. What if he doesn't have a computer? :-) Good question. I'll answer that. I have about 10 computers available in this room and my basement, at least 2 but typically 4 of them running. (around my desk: my server, this machine, my AMD, my Alpha, my notebook) I would have to turn the house upside down to find a straight-edge. Groetjes Albert. -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0fd2163-c96f-4982-a2f3-ac81fcfd5208@k3g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4775 |
On Aug 12, 9:18 am, arc <a...@vorsicht-bissig.de> wrote: > (Let's drop the suggestion that it's just marketing: > I agree Elizabeth is wrong about that being the only factor. > Although it is the obvious one, and one that's more tractable > than others.) Ok great. We agree that EDRs /only if/ was wrong. > You, Keith, seem to be making a very bold claim that in every case, or > almost every case, of one computing technology outdoing another, it's > always ultimately down to intrinsic factors - computing technology Y > is intrinsically inferior to Y, and the market has recognised this, > and therefore has opted for technology Y. I don't understand why you see me as making this claim. Let me quote some of the times I have tried to state my position here: "Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness." "Fortunately it does not /necessarily/ require "substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing" to garner enough users for success. There are numerous examples of this in software and technology products." "I am claiming survival is a crucial piece of evidence that must be rationally and carefully considered when evaluating the "intrinsic virtues" as you call them. That dismissing survival or lack of survival to marketing is a lame, lazy, tired, and irrational excuse." "I'm claiming that when a product /you think/ has better "intrinsic virtues" fails to thrive as well as a product /you think/ has worse "intrinsic virtue" a rational person would carefully re-evaluate their analysis of "intrinsic virtue". They would carefully consider 1) whether they failed to recognize virtues in the thriving product 2) whether they failed to recognize failures in the failing product 3) whether they inaccurately evaluated the value to the market of the virtues in the failing product etc ..." What exactly do you take issue with in those statements? Let me try to boil down my claims to two points: 1) "substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing" is NOT NECESSARY for a good technology to be a market success 2) survival is a highly informative piece of evidence that must be carefully considered when re-evaluating the "intrinsic values" of a product You say you agree with 1. Do you dispute 2? Have I made another claim that you dispute? > You've also claimed that this case is so strong that anyone > who doesn't recognise it is evidencing some kind of cognitive > deficiency. No. I have claimed that the case for 1 above is so strong that anyone who doesn't recognize it isn't paying attention or is willfully being ignorant to /feel/ better. I do not claim that 2 is obvious and I'm hoping that some here will now consider point 2 in the future when /they/ (not I) evaluate their chosen product's "better"ness. > (You've cleaverly weakend your claim to 'if you've been > outcompeted, you might want to consider instrinsic factors' > in your response to me, but that doesn't justify your > condescension) That has /always/ been my position and I have never claimed "that in every case, or almost every case, of one computing technology outdoing another, it's always ultimately down to intrinsic factors" as you put into my mouth. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-13 14:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Aug13.160357@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4784 |
Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>On Aug 12, 9:18=A0am, arc <a...@vorsicht-bissig.de> wrote:
> 2) survival is a highly informative piece of evidence
> that must be carefully considered when re-evaluating
> the "intrinsic values" of a product
Highly informative of what? Programming languages benefit from
network effects, so even if two languages have equal intrinsic value
and, at the start, equal extrinsic factors, some incidential thing
will lead to one being significantly more popular than the other,
because the popularity (or its perception) becomes one of the
extrinsic factors. So popularity (or "survival") is not informative
of anything other than itself.
- 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]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-14 07:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f3de73b-824f-4541-b31f-469cc94b5e82@z7g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4823 |
On Aug 13, 10:03 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > > >On Aug 12, 9:18=A0am, arc <a...@vorsicht-bissig.de> wrote: > >   2) survival is a highly informative piece of evidence > >   that must be carefully considered when re-evaluating > >   the "intrinsic values" of a product > > Highly informative of what?  Programming languages benefit from I gave some examples right above that in the content you snipped. Do try to keep up and think a bit more. Here it is again: > > 1) whether they failed to recognize virtues in the thriving > > product 2) whether they failed to recognize failures in the > > failing product 3) whether they inaccurately evaluated the > > value to the market of the virtues in the failing product etc I'm not going to spoon-feed emotionally attached Forthers as they are not my target. If you actually care you can /easily/ research case studies/histories of successful vs failed products to learn how the evidence of survival shed new and valuable light on the "intrinsic values" of the competing products. > network effects, so even if two languages have equal intrinsic > value and, at the start, equal extrinsic factors It's rarely if ever (I've never seen a case) of "equal" in any meaningful sense. The products offer /different/ trade-offs ie different sets of intrinsic values. What is sometimes quite surprising is which of those intrinsic qualities the market values most highly. Such ex post analysis provides interesting insight into the merits of different design philosophies. > some incidential thing will lead to one being significantly more > popular than the other, because the popularity (or its perception) > becomes one of the extrinsic factors. Mumbo jumbo. > So popularity (or "survival") is not informative of anything > other than itself. Sorry, that is simply so ignorant as to be unworthy of refutation. KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 09:51 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <8bidnVER7ofVGdjTnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #4775 |
On 8/12/11 3:18 AM, arc wrote: > > Let's put this more simply. Given the fact that language X has been > generally more successful in the marketplace than language Y, there are > two possible classes of contributing factors: > > a) intrinsic factors about the languages in question - e.g. X produces > more compact code than Y, X produces faster code than Y, equally > comptent programmers will produce code with less defects in X than they > will in Y, etc. > > b) extrinsic factors about the languages in question - e.g. marketing, > connection with a product that's successful for largely independent > reasons, being commonly taught in schools, etc. > > (there can be mixed cases; you refer to one such in your reply to me -- > the value of intrinsic virtues to the market -- but let's leave those > aside for now. ) > > Forthers claim that C's success over Forth is largely to do with > extrinsic factors. That's an excellent summary. > (Let's drop the suggestion that it's just marketing: > I agree Elizabeth is wrong about that being the only factor. Although > it is the obvious one, and one that's more tractable than others.) The thing is, "marketing" doesn't just mean ads & such. It includes things like product placement, distribution strategies, licensing strategies, etc. Nor is marketing solely intended to create revenue; sometimes it has other objectives. Bell Labs originally developed Unix & C for in-house reasons. By 1973, it had been installed on 16 sites. Bell made the strategic decision to make it publicly available, and unveiled it at a conference that year, followed by subsequent releases over the next several years. This is marketing. Bell's objective was similar to the objectives of Open Source, to offload some of the ongoing development costs by including other parties (especially in universities) who would assist in the development at no cost. And it's expensive, in its way: it means Bell was forgoing any opportunity to recoup the very considerable costs of the original development (a number of man-years of work) as well as continuing development, which they could not entirely offload. Since Bell was a large organization, it could afford to take the long view. The costs of promoting it (in conferences, journals, etc.) were also considerable. Forth was developed at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), also in the early 70's. NRAO was offered the opportunity to develop and propagate it, but beyond sponsoring a couple of papers in astronomy conferences, they determined that marketing Forth (in the sense that Bell marketed Unix/C) was too far outside their mission. That left FORTH, Inc., a startup company with minimal capitalization and two families whose entire income was dependent on revenue. We used relatively inexpensive promotional techniques, such as press releases and articles in computing magazines which we wrote, but we were forced from Day 1 to charge for our services and for our products. But to the marketplace, a system promoted throughout academia by the prestigious Bell Labs has quite a different image and cachet from a system promoted by a small business no one had ever heard of. And that, too, is marketing. ... > Frankly, i'm inclined to doubt the idea that the market always, or > almost always, tracks intrinsic factors. Not because I'm a rabid fan of > alternative technologies, but just because extrinsic factors seem > quite plausible reasons for product uptake or lack thereof. The cases > you've mentioned don't seem very clear cut at all to me. Exactly. Most technology decisions are not based on direct analysis of the technology in question, but on issues such as what you've heard about it (marketing), who else is using it (largely a result of marketing) etc. 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-13 13:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Aug13.154517@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4791 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>That left FORTH, Inc., a startup company with minimal capitalization and
>two families whose entire income was dependent on revenue. We used
>relatively inexpensive promotional techniques, such as press releases
>and articles in computing magazines which we wrote, but we were forced
>from Day 1 to charge for our services and for our products. But to the
>marketplace, a system promoted throughout academia by the prestigious
>Bell Labs has quite a different image and cachet from a system promoted
>by a small business no one had ever heard of. And that, too, is marketing.
And it was successful. Forth did get a lot of exposure (e.g., the
Byte issue of Forth) and a significant number of users (especially in
the early 80s). And while it does not have the biggest market share
and has seen some decline in interest since the early 80s, it still is
around, we still discuss about it and program in it. I think it's a
counterexample to the claim that well-funded marketing is the key to
programming language popularity (it may be true for other technical
areas).
Looking at some of the most popular languages today, I see some that
definitely benefited from marketing (e.g., Java), but also others like
Python and Ruby that certainly had no professional marketing (at least
up to the stage where they were so successful that publishers paid for
books about them). I also see languages like PL/1 and Ada that had a
big and committed organization behind them, but still did not succeed
in the wider public (although they still have their users and (at
least Ada) fans).
- 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]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-13 08:08 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <xtadnXpzX4M4INvTnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #4822 |
On 8/13/11 3:45 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather"<erather@forth.com> writes: >> That left FORTH, Inc., a startup company with minimal capitalization and >> two families whose entire income was dependent on revenue. We used >> relatively inexpensive promotional techniques, such as press releases >> and articles in computing magazines which we wrote, but we were forced >>from Day 1 to charge for our services and for our products. But to the >> marketplace, a system promoted throughout academia by the prestigious >> Bell Labs has quite a different image and cachet from a system promoted >> by a small business no one had ever heard of. And that, too, is marketing. > > And it was successful. Forth did get a lot of exposure (e.g., the > Byte issue of Forth) and a significant number of users (especially in > the early 80s). And while it does not have the biggest market share > and has seen some decline in interest since the early 80s, it still is > around, we still discuss about it and program in it. I think it's a > counterexample to the claim that well-funded marketing is the key to > programming language popularity (it may be true for other technical > areas). You may be unaware that FORTH, Inc. had a fairly active professional marketing campaign through the 80's and 90's. Starting Forth was part of that. Not, unfortunately, what you would call "well-funded", but we did what we could. Magazine articles don't just arise from some reporter's interest; virtually all of them are placed by a professional PR agent or backed by a respected academic or professional organization. Many of the articles were sabotaged by typesetters who couldn't bear things that looked like punctuation being separated from what looked like text by spaces, and tended to generate rubbish for code examples. However, the fact that Unix/C had been widely adopted throughout academia in the 70's not only produced a legion of people who knew C but also led to the perception that C was "professional" and Forth was "hobbyist", and we were never quite able to overcome that. > Looking at some of the most popular languages today, I see some that > definitely benefited from marketing (e.g., Java), but also others like > Python and Ruby that certainly had no professional marketing (at least > up to the stage where they were so successful that publishers paid for > books about them). I also see languages like PL/1 and Ada that had a > big and committed organization behind them, but still did not succeed > in the wider public (although they still have their users and (at > least Ada) fans). Yes, as I said in my initial tirade on this subject, marketing doesn't guarantee success, but lack of it can pretty well guarantee failure. And "marketing" isn't confined to commercial marketing, either. Python, for example, was developed by the highly-respected CWI in the Netherlands, also the source of Algol 69, so their publications were well-circulated and read. 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 | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-14 02:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5879201819f9ec358d45f95272e08c9e@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #4822 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Looking at some of the most popular languages today, I see some that > definitely benefited from marketing (e.g., Java), but also others like > Python and Ruby that certainly had no professional marketing (at least > up to the stage where they were so successful that publishers paid for > books about them). Interesting that those three languages you mentioned are scripting languages (byte-compiled, not native)..and.... > I also see languages like PL/1 and Ada that had a big and committed > organization behind them, but still did not succeed in the wider public > (although they still have their users and (at least Ada) fans). PL/I has succeeded in many ways. It's still used enough on IBM that IBM pays a staff quite a lot of money to keep the compiler upgraded from year to year. It has its fans, although if you don't work on the mainframe you probably haven't had a chance to see why it's so good. It's still here with us since around 1964 so it's hard to say it hasn't succeeded. I suppose it depends on what you mean by that word and what the people who developed it meant. IBM doesn't care about selling zillions of copies, that's a PC business model. They care about big margins and big support dollars and they succeeded with PL/I. Ada has also succeeded in its niche although it's been pushed out a bit lately. The problem there is companies selling mostly to government contractors who pass the high price of admission back to the US taxpayers. There is a very good free as in beer compiler available on the PC (Windows and Linux) but that hasn't helped since C and C++ make life simpler when programming on OS written in C and C++ (UNIX/Linux, and Windows).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-13 04:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vN-dnfsnAsHs2NvTnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #4775 |
arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> wrote: > Forthers claim that C's success over Forth is largely to do with > extrinsic factors. This Forther doesn't. In some of the areas C is used, it's a better choice than Forth would be. Not all of them: in many areas, Forth would be a better choice. The most important issue, though, is that of a lingua franca. By all accounts the original lingua franca was a terrible language, but it was good enough and everyone spoke it. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d56b19e5-5886-419d-9d35-56edba7e82d5@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4772 |
On Aug 12, 7:49 am, arc <a...@vorsicht-bissig.de> wrote: > Keith H Duggar wrote: > > On Aug 11, 6:06 am, arc <a...@vorsicht-bissig.de> wrote: > >> Keith H Duggar wrote: > >> > On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Elizabeth D Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > >> >> The great myth in technology is that "if you build a better mousetrap > >> >> the world will beat a path to your door." In other words, technical > >> >> superiority will win on its merits. That is not true. Technical > >> >> superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, > >> >> and well-funded marketing campaign behind it. > > >> > That claim is also a myth; and, it has been debunked on numerous > >> > occasions in various debates between various obscure superiority > >> > complex communities (Forth, Lisp, Lisp Machine, etc) and the more > >> > pragmatic thriving communities (C, Lua, Unix, etc). > > >> > The myth is trotted out, along with various pejorative phrases such > >> > as "Worse Is Better", by those communities to make themselves feel > >> > better about themselves. > > >> > Fact is many technologies die with vast marketing behind them and > >> > many thrive and gain popularity with no "substantial, dedicated, and > >> > well-funded marketing." Fact is that survival is highly informative > >> > and should be rationally and seriously considered when objectively > >> > evaluating a technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness. > > >> You're using a lot of evolutionary language here. Do you equate > >> 'surviving and thriving' with ' "better"ness '? It sounds as if you do. > > > No. I am claiming survival is a crucial piece of evidence that > > must be rationally and carefully considered when evaluating the > > "intrinsic virtues" as you call them. That dismissing survival > > or lack of survival to marketing is a lame, lazy, tired, and > > irrational excuse. > > OK. So my second guess is correct, yes? I was mislead by your > statement 'technology's overall fitness aka "better"ness' - I thought > by 'fitness' you meant evolutionary fitness, which doesn't necessary > track intrinsic virtue. I see. Yes that was poor and misleading phrasing on my part. I did not mean to say survial == "better"ness. I mean to say that when evaluating overall "better"ness one should consider market survival as a crucial data point. > > I'm claiming that when a product /you think/ has better "intrinsic > > virtues" fails to thrive as well as a product /you think/ has worse > > "intrinsic virtue" a rational person would carefully re-evaluate > > their analysis of "intrinsic virtue". They would carefully consider > > 1) whether they failed to recognize virtues in the thriving product > > 2) whether they failed to recognize failures in the failing product > > 3) whether they inaccurately evaluated the value to the market of > > the virtues in the failing product etc ... > > OK. I suppose if your product has failed you might want to consider > those things. But that doesn't rule out: > > 4) whether they failed to market the product appropriately. Agreed. > does it? After all, better marketing increases a product's fitness, > surely. If it doesn't, you might want to go and explain to Apple and > Microsoft (and every successful firm and politician on the planet) that > they've wasted a huge stack of money over the years. Sure. "Great" marketing (ie "substantial, dedicated, and well-funded") or even some marketing can help. My only claim is that it is not /necessary/. > I do agree with you (against Elizabeth) that marketing is not the only > explanation for product failure. There are many more extrinsic factors > that can contribute to a product's demise. We could also add: > > 5) whether the product is sufficiently similar to other products on the > market to make transition easy. > > I'm no expert in Forth's history, but that could have a lot to say about > it. C is quite similar to its immediate forbears, the incumbents of the > day (such as FORTRAN), whereas Forth is a bit different. It certainly does. As another example, familiarity partly explains Lua's rapid success and market acceptance. > 6) whether the successful product is strongly connected with other > successful products in a way the unsuccessful product isn't. > > C was (and is) strongly connected to Unix, and there was a demand for a > flexible, multi-platform, multi-user operating system at the time. > There was a big incentive to learn C in order to work with Unix. > AFAIK, there were no comparably successful products that required the > use of Forth. Agreed. > Now, 4, 5, and 6 are plausible enough reasons for the difference in > uptake of one product over another, aren't they? Do you have any reason > to dismess these in favour of 1, 2 and 3? > > Notice, incidentally, what I am doing here: I have given a plausible > account of how 5 and 6 may have contributed to Forth's lack of success, > and I have invited you to provide reasons to show why this wouldn't be > the case. You've not connected 1-3 with Forth specifically, or, > indeed, with any product - you've only spoken in generalities. In fact, > you've scarcely provided anything resembling an argument - instead, > you've offered insults and you've banged the tired old 'products > always succeed because they're just better!' drum, which has been > repeated at least as often as 'we failed because of insufficient > marketing', and equally fails at being reasoned analysis. > > (just for the record, I don't think Forth is necessarily better than C, > and I don't especially care, either, so no need for the emphasized '/you > think/'s.) I agree with you entirely. I even partially agree with your characterization of my tone here. The reason for that tone? Simple, I am not interested in debating points you raised above because they have been debated /numerous/ times in many, many contexts. My only goal is to point out, casually without proof, that the /only if/ direction of EDRs universal claim "Technical superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing campaign behind it." is a non-sense, bs, feel good excuse that has been debunked multiple times. Heck, EDR herself even gives one example in nearby thread Elizabeth D Rather wrote: > FORTH83 mandated implementation details such as return > addresses, stack widths (only 16 bits!), layout of definitions, > etc. In the Forth94 process, we realized that this was a > terrible mistake, and took the firm step towards specifying > behavior, not implementation. Wow ... FORTH83 embodies /at least one/ "terrible mistake"; but, you know, it's all because of marketing ... > >> Keith - you're not one of those people who go around bursting > >> people's balloons, are you? > > > If they are filled with mindless stale air, absolutely. > > Let me get this straight. You think Forth adherents are delusional > people who don't accept facts, filled with mindless stale air, > desperately clinging to their cherished belief that 'marketing' rather > than technical flaws (again, it might help if you mentioned what you > think these are) are the cause of the downfall of their language, the > only thing left they have to make themselves '/feel/ better'. No not all "Forth adherents", just some, perhaps even a small subset. > So what exactly do you think you're doing? There's no point > in offering us a reasoned argument; because according to your > assessment we won't recognise one when we see one, nor accept > the outcome [1] , We might be swayed by appeals to emotion, I > suppose, but insulting us probably isn't a good way to achieve > that goal. You have mistakenly project or somewhere I have mistakenly implied a /universal/ claim about /all Forthers/. That is not my intent. There is a subset responsible for propagating the same old tired excuses now and many times in the past. My purpose is only to provide a small counterbalance by simply point those excuses are bs. Anyone who wants to learn more can google and think for themselves. > I'm having difficulty making sense of your actions - it > seems to me that you must be as mad as us, trying tactics > that are sure to fail to achieve an outcome you believe is > impossible. Either that, or you've just come down to poke > the monkeys at the zoo. See above. Mostly I want open minded readers to know there is a possibility that EDR is simply spouting "feel good" tired old excuses for failure. > Or, is it that you too need to feel better about yourself > and the choices that you've made? Strange that you should > need to defend yourself to us, given that you've apparently > backed winners. Yes, mostly by pure luck I backed some "winners". The only thing that makes me feel is lucky. > Explain yourself, sir. I don't want innocent casual readers to be mislead into thinking Forth's lack of success, if there is a lack of success, is only because of "marketing". That might send them down blind allys wasting the finite resources of the world. > [1] At any rate, Andrew, Alex and I are certainly having difficulty > discerning much of an argument in your utterances. Because, it seems, both of you mistakenly determined I was here to create yet another debate on the history and merits of Forth. That has been done to death. I'm only posting to call bs on EDRs non-sense universal claim "Technical superiority will win if and only if there is a substantial, dedicated, and well-funded marketing campaign behind it." From what I can see, you actually agree that the universal only if claim above is non-sense? KHD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-13 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Aug13.161318@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4772 |
arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> writes:
>5) whether the product is sufficiently similar to other products on the
>market to make transition easy.
Note that similarity can be a benefit or a disadvantage.
E.g., Magic/L was a Forth-based language with Algol-style syntax
(i.e., more similar to Algol-family languages like C than Forth), but
it's dead.
Another example: Modula-2 became relatively successful for a while,
but was eventually replaced by other Algol-family languages like Turbo
Pascal, C, C++, or Java.
>C was (and is) strongly connected to Unix, and there was a demand for a
>flexible, multi-platform, multi-user operating system at the time.
The interesting thing is that Forth and Unix offered many of the same
features in the beginning; in particular, Forth was (and, in some
systems, still is) a flexible, multi-platform, multi-user operating
system.
- 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]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-13 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xmxfdc9iw.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #4824 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > The interesting thing is that Forth and Unix offered many of the same > features in the beginning; in particular, Forth was (and, in some > systems, still is) a flexible, multi-platform, multi-user operating > system. I'd would expect that any reasonable "flexible, multi-user OS" would have to incorporate pre-emptive multitasking and interprocess memory protection at minimum. I thought Forth traditionally used cooperative multitasking in a single address space, which is fine for many types of concurrent applications but not for timesharing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-14 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Aug14.164650@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #4838 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> The interesting thing is that Forth and Unix offered many of the same
>> features in the beginning; in particular, Forth was (and, in some
>> systems, still is) a flexible, multi-platform, multi-user operating
>> system.
>
>I'd would expect that any reasonable "flexible, multi-user OS" would
>have to incorporate pre-emptive multitasking and interprocess memory
>protection at minimum.
Unix did not get memory protection before 3BSD in 1979. As mentioned,
they really offered many of the same features in the beginning;
divergence in features came later.
As for pre-emptive vs. cooperative multitasking: If the programmers on
Unix could refrain from destroying other processes' memory, they
probably could also refrain from monopolizing the CPU.
>I thought Forth traditionally used cooperative
>multitasking in a single address space, which is fine for many types of
>concurrent applications but not for timesharing.
Forth and early Unix were used for time-sharing, so a single address
space and cooperative multitasking obviously was fine for
time-sharing. Today, we have higher expectations of OSs (or lower
expectations of applications:-); the original Unix would flop today.
- 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]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-17 01:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x62lwwib8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #4879 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
> Unix did not get memory protection before 3BSD in 1979.
I think you mean virtual memory. The PDP-11 versions had memory
protection much earlier. E.g. Ritchie and Thompson 1974:[1]
The user-memory part of an image is divided into three logical
segments. The program text segment begins at location 0 in the
virtual address space. During execution, this segment is
write-protected and a single copy of it is shared among all
processes executing the same program. At the first hardware
protection byte boundary above the program text segment in the
virtual address space begins a non-shared, writable data segment,
the size of which may be extended by a system call.
Consider also that the setuid bit was patented in 1972. Setuid
would have made no sense if there was no memory protection.
> As for pre-emptive vs. cooperative multitasking: If the programmers on
> Unix could refrain from destroying other processes' memory, they
> probably could also refrain from monopolizing the CPU.
Of the even older PDP-11/20 version, Ritchie wrote:[2]
Back around 1970-71, Unix on the PDP-11/20 ran on hardware that not
only did not support virtual memory, but didn't support any kind of
hardware memory mapping or protection, for example against writing
over the kernel. This was a pain, because we were using the machine
for multiple users. When anyone was working on a program, it was
considered a courtesy to yell "A.OUT?" before trying it, to warn
others to save whatever they were editing.
[A substory: at some point several were sitting around working
away. Bob Morris asked, almost conversationally, "what are the
arguments to ld?" Someone told him. We continued typing for the
next minute, as a thought began to percolate, not quite to the top
of the brain-- in other words, not quite fast enough. The terminal
stopped echoing before anyone could stop and say "Hold on Bob, what
is it you're trying to do?"]
They later bought a special board (described in same place) to add
memory protection to the 11/20.
I'd say an OS with no protection can't support software development
concurrently with other stuff, so it's not really general-purpose.
It's more like a wrapper for a multi-task application.
> Forth and early Unix were used for time-sharing, so a single address
> space and cooperative multitasking obviously was fine for
> time-sharing. Today, we have higher expectations of OSs (or lower
> expectations of applications:-); the original Unix would flop today.
If giants like Thompson and Ritchie needed memory protection, most of
the rest of us would have no chance without it ;-).
[1] http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cacm.pdf
[2] http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 03:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ibKdnWYFUvc1EpTTnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3593 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > From the "Lisp Curse" article: > > "Real Hackers have also known, for a while, that C and C++ are not > appropriate for most programs that don't need to do arbitrary > bit-fiddling." > > Wow, some people just truly hate C don't they? I guess belittling a > successful HLL language is one way to make your unwise decision to > use an another unpopular, unsuccessful one seem less grating. Eh? Surely the comment is simply true, or at the worst a reasonable opinion. I can't see that there's any hatred there. > What's really telling though is that none of the people who hate C > seem to hate other Algol derived languages such as BASIC and Pascal, > nor Pascal derivatives: Algol W, Modula, Modula-2, Oberon, Prolog, > nor C derivatives: C++, Java, Objective-C. What is that: > irrationality, or hate? ISTM that Forth and Lisp programmers seem > to use the word "feel" alot, instead of "think"... Would you say > this is true? No. I think your imagination is running away. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-28 19:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1e406776cc6779c8ac4f6231c24dbffa@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #3593 |
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "Real Hackers have also known, for a while, that C and C++ are not > appropriate for most programs that don't need to do arbitrary > bit-fiddling." > > Wow, some people just truly hate C don't they? Yes, we do. But what you quoted doesn't sound hateful to me, maybe you're projecting? ;-) > I guess belittling a successful HLL language is one way to make your > unwise decision to use an another unpopular, unsuccessful one seem less > grating. That's not much of an argument unless you sell software. How popular or successful a language (implementation) is has nothing to do with how good it is. C was used to write UNIX (yes I know not the original UNIX clunker, just the next few decades of clunkers) so if you want to work in that environment it's a top choice. Other OS were written in other languages so whatever they're written in is a top choice. Companies sell this or that and people are basically sheep so they do what they're told and believe what companies tell them. How does popularity relate to how good something is? Not at all. C and C++ are not HLL. You really ought to know better. > What's really telling though is that none of the people who hate C seem to > hate other Algol derived languages such as BASIC and Pascal, nor Pascal > derivatives: Algol W, Modula, Modula-2, Oberon, Prolog, nor C derivatives: > C++, Java, Objective-C. C isn't ALGOL derived more than any HLL with control structures is ALGOL derived. That is way too general. And BASIC has nothing to do with ALGOL at all. If people like Pascal then it's either because they're mindless structured programming groupies or because they grew up on Turbo Pascal which I've heard is really great but have never used. The original Pascal was a one-pass teaching compiler so anybody who thinks the language is good obviously doesn't code for his day job. The rest of the Wirth-originated languages are just him trying to fix the screwups he made in his original designs and for his groupies just like Apple fanboys will always buy Macs and iPhones even when they're all looks and no go. Nobody uses any of the Wirth languages for work. C++? Abomination. Java? For people who can't code and want to write bad code cross platform. Objective C? Never heard of it. ALGOL? I liked ALGOL 68 for academic work but it's not practical for commercial coding. Ada is, and it's much better than C, C++, Java, or almost anything else. It's somewhat ALGOL derived. I hate C and I like ALGOL, PL/I, assembler, FORTRAN and basically anything designed before 1970. Never used Forth but it looks interesting. I wouldn't call it readable and I don't buy the false argument once you know Forth it's readable. There are readable languages like Ada that any programmer can read. I could also claim APL is readable because I can read it. That doesn't make it readable, and it's not. Neither is Forth. Lisp is only a little better. > What is that: irrationality, or hate? ISTM that Forth and Lisp > programmers seem to use the word "feel" alot, instead of "think"... Would > you say this is true? Lisp is interesting but not very practical and they haven't grown it in a controlled way. There are too many quirks and too many ways to do one thing, just because the people involved in developing it are strange and they're afraid to break backward compatability (misplaced concern IMHO). People love or hate their niche languages just like people love or hate sports teams. Why is it ok for sports but not ok for programming? If you say sports is based on opinion and programming is based on facts then you missed the answer. Both are based on opinions because nobody can agree on the facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web