Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #3564 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500 |
| Last post | 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 328 — 44 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-26 15:13 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:13 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 15:50 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 16:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-27 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-27 20:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 18:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 12:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 11:27 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-03 17:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 18:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 12:25 -0700
Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 09:43 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 12:35 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:02 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-07-14 08:32 -0400
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-14 07:10 -0700
Re: Forth OO ( was: Re: The Lisp Curse ) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 09:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse arc@vorsicht-bissig.de - 2011-07-12 22:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 03:02 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-27 21:29 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-28 06:55 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 06:17 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 16:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-01 13:41 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:26 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 16:56 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-02 08:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 17:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-03 10:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 20:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 15:45 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 16:19 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 01:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:44 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 19:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-07-07 10:39 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-07-06 21:42 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 10:32 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse marko <marko@marko.marko.marko> - 2011-07-07 22:09 +1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:19 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:08 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 10:33 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-08 05:31 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 17:47 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-07-08 17:23 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-08 15:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:04 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 21:28 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 15:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:14 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 22:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 03:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-12 19:42 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-12 14:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 07:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 07:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-11 20:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 21:24 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-12 18:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 20:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-13 00:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 10:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 19:55 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-07-11 13:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-07-12 21:51 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-09 16:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-11 04:27 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 14:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 11:57 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 21:54 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 18:22 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-01 12:59 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 00:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-01 22:58 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-08 20:44 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-31 10:25 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-08 16:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-10 07:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-10 18:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 03:05 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 07:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-11 10:07 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:32 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:25 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:37 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-11 08:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 18:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-12 01:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-11 10:06 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-11 08:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 11:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-12 18:49 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-12 12:52 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 12:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 15:09 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 04:52 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-15 03:46 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 12:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-15 20:51 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-15 21:56 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 19:50 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse arc <arc@vorsicht-bissig.de> - 2011-08-18 11:38 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-18 07:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-15 06:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-16 05:10 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-16 03:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-18 23:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 06:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 17:14 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 20:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-20 23:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Jeff M." <massung@gmail.com> - 2011-08-21 00:29 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 00:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 01:04 -0700
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 16:12 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-21 13:21 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 10:40 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:56 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:33 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 12:42 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-21 13:30 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 12:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:20 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:15 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-24 00:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-21 13:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-22 10:36 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 22:57 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-22 23:28 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 04:16 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 08:29 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-08-23 14:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:09 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 16:54 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 11:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 17:11 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-23 12:27 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 10:07 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-23 13:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-23 20:30 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-21 13:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-22 01:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-22 17:02 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 07:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 01:03 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-22 22:38 -1000
Hamming numbers (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-22 15:10 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 00:09 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 13:09 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-23 10:41 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-23 17:58 +0000
Re: Hamming numbers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-24 00:25 -0700
Re: Hamming numbers Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201108.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-08-24 07:17 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse vandys@vsta.org - 2011-08-19 17:41 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-19 18:05 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-19 13:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2011-08-19 13:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 15:39 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-19 19:49 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-19 17:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-20 03:54 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2011-08-20 15:20 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-21 14:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 11:47 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-08-22 20:30 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 15:22 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-22 23:34 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-22 22:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-23 20:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-23 15:44 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-23 21:43 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-08-20 08:55 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 10:49 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:03 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-14 07:57 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-12 09:51 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 13:45 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 08:08 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 02:56 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-13 04:35 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-08-12 07:53 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-13 14:13 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-13 13:59 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-14 14:46 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-17 01:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-06-28 03:24 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201106.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-06-28 19:55 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 06:30 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 13:49 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 14:02 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-06-29 15:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 19:45 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-29 22:08 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 10:07 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-06-30 20:44 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 18:08 -0400
Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 20:07 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 22:12 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:01 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 17:59 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 16:33 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:37 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-01 06:07 -0500
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:00 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-01 14:06 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 14:57 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 16:55 +0000
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-01 16:04 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 11:26 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-02 22:10 +0200
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-02 14:36 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-02 21:36 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-02 18:25 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-03 10:53 -0700
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Elko T <nono.black.elko@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 23:41 -0400
Re: Counted vs. terminated strings (Re: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:02 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-02 22:46 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-07-18 01:25 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-06-30 14:44 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 23:24 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-03 12:04 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-03 20:24 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 02:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-04 16:02 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 10:21 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:13 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 12:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 15:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-04 13:23 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 01:45 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 11:34 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 05:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-05 14:28 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:39 -0700
OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 15:36 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:17 -0500
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:53 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-08 17:11 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 12:41 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-08 04:34 -0700
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-10 16:03 +0000
Re: OT: full virtualization (was: The Lisp Curse) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-10 13:06 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-07 00:11 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-06 12:47 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-07 10:07 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Tarkin <tarkin000@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 13:00 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 12:40 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-04 11:15 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-04 15:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 10:16 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 02:23 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 09:54 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 22:33 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 16:28 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 16:18 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-04 15:03 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-05 00:20 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-05 11:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-07-05 09:46 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-05 23:13 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:31 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-05 19:21 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-05 14:57 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:48 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-06 07:38 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:46 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:41 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-07-07 09:12 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-06 09:53 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-07-06 21:45 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-07 14:48 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 20:20 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse coos haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-07-08 04:39 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 23:22 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-07-12 19:35 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 23:37 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-12 05:10 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-12 03:44 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201107.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-07-13 22:06 +0200
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-14 04:01 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-07-07 04:38 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-03 07:34 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 13:25 -0400
Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 18:27 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 17:50 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language vandys@vsta.org - 2011-06-29 22:45 +0000
Re: Forth as implementation language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:04 +0100
Re: Forth as implementation language Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-30 11:42 -0400
Re: Forth as implementation language "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-30 13:12 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 08:38 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-06-29 18:01 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-06-29 12:50 -1000
Re: The Lisp Curse stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-06-30 08:15 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Spam@ControlQ.com - 2011-07-03 15:22 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-30 13:09 +0100
Re: The Lisp Curse "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-06-29 18:31 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-06-29 23:01 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-01 09:42 -0500
Re: The Lisp Curse Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-01 18:49 +0000
Re: The Lisp Curse Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2011-06-29 15:41 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse "Fuschia, President-Elect of the Bright Purplish-Green Council" <fp-eotbp-gc@ibm.com> - 2011-06-29 19:16 -0400
Re: The Lisp Curse Mark Wills <forthfreak@forthfiles.net> - 2011-06-30 00:34 -0700
Re: The Lisp Curse anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-02 17:52 +0000
Page 3 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 17 Next page →
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 19:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16173ff2-f4b6-4fbd-8101-d77b0cf5f14b@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3844 |
On Jul 6, 7:23 pm, Josh Grams <j...@qualdan.com> wrote: > Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > On Jul 6, 8:45?am, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> On 05/07/2011 04:57, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > If FFL can't even get a simple data-structure such as linked-lists to > > work properly > > The FFL's linked lists have worked properly every time I have used them. > What specifically is wrong with them? I've already covered this at length. No FIND-PRIOR, no CLONE-LIST, no mixture of heap and dictionary nodes, no sorting, no conversion between lists and arrays, etc. --- essentially no features at all. And it is slow. > >> I don't think he said that about your novice package, IIRC he said > >> that about the algorithm in your symtab module and proved it with a > >> detailed analysis and experimental results which you've never > >> disputed. The code itself may be of excellent quality but that > >> doesn't make a poor choice of algorithm anything but a poor choice of > >> algorithm. > > > You use the word "prove" pretty loosely! The only argument against > > symtab seemed to be that it wasn't a hash table. > > The argument against symtab was that, given a sequence of definitions > and lookups taken from real codebases (including the source to your > novice package, IIRC), it performed measurably worse than other > algorithms, including some simple hash tables. > > > big.) If you make the table too small, then you have to "stop the > > world" and rebuild the entire table, which is time-consuming. > > People pointed out hash table algorithms for which this is not true. That isn't true. > > There is no way to know if ANS-Forth software will run on a specific > > ANS-Forth system except extensive testing. It is easy to say that a > > test suite will catch all of these problems, but it is much more > > difficult to actually write such a test suite --- doing so requires > > knowledge of the internal workings of Forth to know where the possible > > problems will arise --- which I'm marginal at, as my only > > compiler-writing experience was in Forth-83 rather than ANS-Forth. > > You don't need knowledge of the Forth system, you just have to check > whether your code returns the expected results for a reasonable subset > of the possible inputs -- check all the paths through your code, check > the boundary conditions, and a few random checks of other values. If a > Forth system does something unexpected that causes your code to > misbehave, this will usually catch it. And if a Forth system does > something unexpected that doesn't cause your code to misbehave, you > don't need to care about it. Well, I tested the novice package on the 3 systems mentioned, and I don't think there are any bugs in there. Writing a test suite that could guarantee this, would be a lot of work. > >> Incidentally why didn't you use the Forth 200X structure proposal > >> that has already been accepted? > > > That structure proposal was introduced by David Williams after my > > novice package was released, and he said that it was inspired by my > > novice package: > >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/d... > > For reasons unknown, he changed the name from FIELD to +FIELD > > He "changed the name" because that is the syntax in the Forth200x > structure proposal, which was introduced long before your novice package > was released -- I'm too lazy to look up exactly when it was introduced, > but it was accepted into the standard at the 2007 meeting. > > It was the optimization that was inspired by your novice package, not > the idea of implementing data structures or the syntax. FIELD (or whatever you want to call it) has been in use for decades. The problem all along was that it was typically implemented using the simple CREATE DOES> solution, which is slow as molasses. I thought my FIELD was the first to generate inline code, although it is possible that Pelc did that earlier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 10:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4e158ced$0$13539$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com> |
| In reply to | #3847 |
Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Jul 6, 7:23?pm, Josh Grams <j...@qualdan.com> wrote: >>Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 8:45?am, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> On 05/07/2011 04:57, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>> If FFL can't even get a simple data-structure such as linked-lists to >>> work properly >> >> The FFL's linked lists have worked properly every time I have used them. >> What specifically is wrong with them? > > I've already covered this at length. No FIND-PRIOR, no CLONE-LIST, no > mixture of heap and dictionary nodes, no sorting, no conversion > between lists and arrays, etc. --- essentially no features at all. I think that the need for much of that stuff is (like ALLOCATION) artifacts of your programming style. FIND-PRIOR is a useful factor for sorted insertion or deletion -- it is odd that he left it out, especially since I think it's a one-liner with the facilities provided. Other than that, I don't miss any of the functionality you mentioned. You can mix heap and dictionary nodes; you just have to manage the distinction for yourself, which is no great hardship. Sorting -- if I need things sorted, I generally sort them at insertion time, or use a more appropriate data structure. Needing to convert between lists and arrays is, IMO, an indication that you're using the wrong data structure in the first place. So that's a matter of personal preference, and not necessarily a glaring omission. >>> big.) If you make the table too small, then you have to "stop the >>> world" and rebuild the entire table, which is time-consuming. >> >> People pointed out hash table algorithms for which this is not true. > > That isn't true. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/d07805fd6b8b1925 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_hashing --Josh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dbd65f74-fe90-4d43-8707-2f1ad572b275@em7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3847 |
On Jul 6, 10:01 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > People pointed out hash table algorithms for which this is not true. > > That isn't true. Funny, I did. And others did as well. We pointed out that "hash table" is not a singular thing, and that there are a wide variety of ways to implement them, including models that don't require any rebuilding of the table when the size increases, and models that amortize the cost of rebuilding the tree over time. This is called basic research, Hugh, something you avoid doing because it might show you that the world is a bit larger than you believe it to be. Now, you might truthfully claim that you never saw me or others write about the variety of hash table strategies that don't follow your expectations. In much the same way that a child who doesn't want to hear something painful or upsetting can plug his ears and go "nah nah nah" to mask the truth getting to their ears, you probably hit the "next" button every time I or other people pointed out the flaws in your arguments. Unfortunately, the rest of the newsgroup following along *did* see those messages (and if they didn't, they are free to go back and read them). But that's okay. Let's say that all hash tables in the world were exactly as you describe. Even in that case, symtab *still* loses, mostly because you vastly overestimate the time and memory costs of hash tables. Don't believe me? Then *measure* it and prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 21:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv32u5$k9e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3843 |
On 7/6/11 7:19 PM, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Jul 6, 8:45 am, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: > [...] > >> Incidentally why didn't you use the Forth 200X structure proposal that >> has already been accepted? > > That structure proposal was introduced by David Williams after my > novice package was released, and he said that it was inspired by my > novice package: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/d90c532cae6410f7 Say what!!? Hugh, there are two misattributions in your sentence above. 1) The Forth 200X structure proposal certainly wasn't from me -- its proponent was Stephen Pelc, originating in August, 2006: http://www.forth200x.org/structures.html 2) No proposal of mine was inspired by the novice package. It's clearly stated in the c.l.f. message above, announcing an update of my plainstruct.fs library to version 1.0.1, that the new implementation of the word +FIELD was inspired by you. It was clearly stated in the very first sentence of that and subsequent versions that the library is based on Forth 200x. The current version reverts to the 200x reference implementation of +FIELD. Look, I pay a lot of attention to giving credit for other people's work, and it would distress me to think I haven't been clear enough about provenance in this or any other case. I do have a long history with structures, in several variants, but have never made a proposal for the standard. > For reasons unknown, he changed the name from FIELD to +FIELD --- but > I think the former is more readable and more common, so I am sticking > with it. I don't really care if my code or his is used, as the result > is the same either way --- his is shorter, but whether it is simpler > or not is debatable. I used to use FIELD or FIELD:, but used +FIELD in this case because it has become standard. -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 10:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iv3uf7$pf2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3843 |
On 07/07/2011 00:19, Hugh Aguilar wrote: Phew, thanks for snipping out a lot of what's gone before, presumably you don't dispute the points you omitted. > On Jul 6, 8:45 am, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: >> On 05/07/2011 04:57, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>> I really doubt that anybody has ever used FFL for any application. >>> Just the ugly naming convention alone precludes this. Also, FFL >>> doesn't have any features. For example, the AVL-tree code doesn't >>> provide a way for the programmer to in-order traverse the tree within >>> a selected range. That is the whole point of using a tree rather than >>> a hash table! The linked-list code doesn't provide a way to find the >>> node prior to the node that you are looking for, which is necessary >>> for sorting lists. There is no conversion between lists and arrays. >>> With both the AVL-trees and the lists, there is no way to have nodes >>> of different sizes, and be able to clone the entire data structure. >>> FFL doesn't provide any way to have a mixture of nodes that are in the >>> heap and in the dictionary, which is necessary for shifting some of >>> the work over to compile-time (see how in my slide-rule program I >>> generate some lists at compile-time to reduce the program's run time). >> >> The novice package lacks a lot more functionality than that, the list is >> too long to give here, seehttp://code.google.com/p/ffl/to identify >> what's missing. > > I have seen that list and I am aware that FFL has functionality such > as XML and regex that my novice package lacks. I may add regex (or, > more likely, a parsing-expression-grammar) in the next novice package > upgrade. What I meant is that, for the functionality that does > correspond between the two packages, mine is superior. If FFL can't > even get a simple data-structure such as linked-lists to work > properly, But in response to Josh Gram's request for specific faults you only listed missing functionality, that doesn't make the existing functionality worthless or mean that it doesn't "work properly". It simply means that it is more limited. > then I wouldn't expect them to get something more > complicated such as XML or regex to work properly. That's a non sequitur for the above reason. > >> If they are not novices why should they even look at a package called >> 'the novice package'? Calling it an 'expert package' would be just as >> silly - why classify a library according to the expertise of users? > > I don't know what the big deal is about the name. Well large corporations spend millions on selecting the right name for a product or name change. > I just gave it that > name to indicate that I'm trying to help novices get started. I use > the package myself though, so maybe I was an expert when I wrote it > but a novice when I used it. Of course, Elizabeth Rather has stated > that the novice package was "written by a novice" (yuk! yuk!). I don't remember that, can you provide a link? > >>> In my novice package I have a lot of work-arounds for problems in ANS- >>> Forth. For example, I rewrote ALLOCATE and friends so that I could >>> have ALLOCATION. Obviously, members of the Forth-200x committee >>> (including Stephen Pelc) aren't going to support my novice package, >>> because doing so would be a tacit admission that ANS-Forth has >>> problems. >> >> I think everybody is aware that ANS Forth has some problems e.g. see the >> discussion about FIND elsewhere. I don't think there is a formal Forth >> 200X committee, anyone can comment and vote on proposals for change, >> AFAIK anyone can attend Forth200X meetings and vote. > > Forth-200x is what Leon Wagner says it is; he has the final say. When > I proposed SIZE (later renamed ALLOCATION), I was getting a lot of > support, including from Anton Ertl. Then Leon Wagner killed it, and > the whole matter died immediately. Not even Anton Ertl can buck Leon > Wagner's decisions. I think there are enough independently minded people here to dispute Leon's and Anton's opinions if they are so minded. Forth tends to attract such people. [...] > The point that he was making, is that the > decisions had already been made; the meeting was just a charade > intended to give the people the illusion that they had debated the > matter and that they had lost the debate, but there really was no way > that they were going to get what they wanted. I agree, I've been to enough so-called consultation meetings where the workforce's opinions have been ignored. Perhaps I've worked for different types of companies, in my experience people aren't afraid to voice their opinions, they just get ignored. But this is irrelevant to Forth200X. [...] >>> The only evidence I have that my novice package has been well tested >>> is that I wrote a lot of application code, including the slide-rule >>> program, using the novice package and that software worked. >> >> Unfortunately, in general, running one application doesn't adequately >> test a library. Neither does a test program but it comes a lot closer. >> Does your slide rule program use *every* bit of code in the novice package? >> >>> As I have >>> said, I have never heard of anybody writing any application program >>> using FFL, and I doubt that it could be done anyway --- so FFL has >>> never been tested in the crucible of application-writing. >> >> I see - if you haven't heard of something it has never happened. > > You haven't given me any example of FFL being used in an application > program, so you don't know of any either! No I don't know since I haven't done any sort of survey to find out because I don't really care. The difference between you and me is that I don't use my ignorance to immediately extrapolate that to a statement that no such applications exist. > > Everything in the novice package has been tested; there are no bugs. Few people would have the courage to claim there were no bugs in a significant package of software. That sounds like a challenge - would you care to put some money behind your claim? You'd get a lot of people looking at your novice package then :-) > Not everything has been used in an application though. For example, > when I wrote ASSOCIATION.4TH I intended to rewrite the slide-rule > program to use associations rather than lists, but I never got around > to doing that. Still though, I wrote my associations so that they > could be used in applications. It was my intention to provide features > and interface appropriate to application writing, and not to just > implement the basic data-structure and stop there, without providing > any real way to use it. And that's to your credit. > >>>> 5. Write a small, easily understandable application where your library >>>> is beneficial. Your slide rule program is too large. > > Since you are such a fan of FFL, why don't you write a program that > uses it? You've made another unwarranted jump from my pointing that the FFL does exist to making me a fan of it. I am neither a fan nor an opponent of the FFL, I just know it exists, the same with the novice package. > I will write a corresponding version using the novice > package. Write something that uses linked lists. So I don't think I'll take up your challenge here. [ snipped old symtab vs hashtable argument as I've nothing to add] > >>> On the plus side though, you didn't say that my >>> I'm aware of the concept of Agile development. I don't think that test >>> suites are all that useful for code such as a library that gets >>> written once and isn't changed again >> >> So you never change any code in the novice package - I don't believe >> that is true. You miss some important points of having a decent test >> program e.g. >> - it would enable you to test the package on different ANS Forth >> systems, which would increase confidence that the package was actually >> ANS Forth compliant rather than it just being your opinion based on >> running it on 1 system > > I have tested it on SwiftForth, Gforth and Win32Forth --- that is 3, > not 1. I don't remember seeing that in your documentation, if you've done that why not say so, it's a good point. I too test my stuff on those systems plus VFX, iForth and BigForth, with a test program, which means that any changes can be tested on those systems in seconds. And it is surprising what errors can turn up. > >> - it would enable people like me who have their own ANS Forth system to >> check that the package works on my system without having to examine it >> in detail first. > > The big problem here is that the ANS-Forth standard is too vague. When > you read the document, you notice the word "may" being used an awfully > lot. It is wishy-washy. There are also a lot of parts that are just > confusing, such as the definition of (LOCAL) not explicitly saying > that the local gets initialized. There is no way to know if ANS-Forth > software will run on a specific ANS-Forth system except extensive > testing. Precisely, which is why a good test program is invaluable in saving time, increasing confidence etc. > It is easy to say that a test suite will catch all of these > problems, but it is much more difficult to actually write such a test > suite --- doing so requires knowledge of the internal workings of > Forth to know where the possible problems will arise No it doesn't require a knowledge of the internal workings of an ANS Forth, just a knowledge of ANS Forth even if it is your interpretation of vague ANS Forth specs - if such an interpretation is wrong running a test program on several systems is *more likely* to identify the fact. I have little idea on the internal workings of the 6 systems I test against but they have picked up faults in both my software and some of those systems. > --- which I'm > marginal at, as my only compiler-writing experience was in Forth-83 > rather than ANS-Forth. > > Upgrading the novice package so that it worked on Gforth and not just > SwiftForth, was a pretty big step for me. Upgrading to work on > Win32Forth was easier, as the only issues I ran into were that > Win32Forth supports fewer locals (which is why I commented out > <5ARRAY> and<6ARRAY>) and that there was a bug in FEXPM1 (which I > provided a patch for, thanks to George Hubert). > > I have no idea if my novice package will run on your ANS-Forth system > or not. Provide a link to your system and I will test it when I have > time. If there was a decent test program we wouldn't need to go to that trouble - that's one of the main points for such a program. > I know that my novice package doesn't run on FICL, which is > supposed to be ANS-Forth, but that is due to myriad problems in FICL. > I asked John Sadler to fix the problems, but he said that I should do > this myself and then submit the new version of FICL to him, so I just > ignore FICL until I have some reason to specifically support FICL > (there is a lot of C programming required to get FICL to support the > novice package, and I don't have much interest in C programming). You shouldn't need to, if he claims FICL is fully ANS Forth compatible then the onus is on him to fix it or withdraw/modify the claim. > >> Incidentally why didn't you use the Forth 200X structure proposal that >> has already been accepted? > > That structure proposal was introduced by David Williams after my > novice package was released, and he said that it was inspired by my > novice package: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/d90c532cae6410f7 And if you follow that link you'll see that there is a link to a test program to go with his library file - so I or anyone else could test it immediately on my/any system if so wished. Your statement about the source of the proposal is wrong, see other responses in this thread. > For reasons unknown, he changed the name from FIELD to +FIELD --- but > I think the former is more readable and more common, so I am sticking > with it. I don't really care if my code or his is used, as the result > is the same either way --- his is shorter, but whether it is simpler > or not is debatable. I note that you've snipped out a suggested code improvement to <FIELD> - is that tacit agreement that it was an improvement? > >> On the second point to take one example, you have a word<1array> that >> defines an array and 5 words to operate on it using :name and friends to >> prefix/suffix substrings to the array name. (I've a lot of sympathy for >> wanting a word like :name in the ANS Forth standard as I've wanted it >> myself several times so that's OK). However your technique is not the >> only way to bind several actions to a data structure. Look athttp://excamera.com/sphinx/article-forth-boundmethods.html#forthbound... >> for another way, using CREATE...DOES> funnily enough. The actions >> following DOES> can insert code in-line just as easily as your<1array> >> definition so there should be no speed penalty. > > I have more than one way to implement arrays. I have my<1ARRAY> etc., > and I also have<ARY> which is more robust in that we have only a > single word no matter how many dimensions are in the array, rather > than have a distinct word for each number of dimensions (on the > downside,<ARY> uses more memory and it may be slightly slower). > > I really consider CREATE DOES> to be a horrible and ugly construct, > and I just don't use it. You seem to be in a minority of one there - if anyone disagrees please shout out. If that's your opinon fine, everybody's entitled to one. > Since you seem to like it, why don't you > write something similar to my ARY that is based upon the CREATE DOES> > definer? I might try that when I've a bit more time, I seem to waste it at present replying to long posts on comp.lang.forth :-) > > You'll notice that the common note throughout this post is that I > don't much like being criticized for not having done work, which > nobody else has done either. ISTM that you don't like criticism, full stop. > I put a lot of time and effort into > writing the novice package, so I'm not interested in hearing people > tell me that I should put in more time and effort --- maybe I will, > but I would be a lot more inclined to do so if somebody were to say > something positive about what I've already done (it can't all suck!). No it doesn't, there are lots of good points about it and it is obvious that a lot of work has gone into it - I've never claimed otherwise. One of my points about a test program was that if you write it incrementally during the course of developement it is automatically available at the end. And it is virtually *free* because it takes little more effort to type a test into a file and run it than it does to type it in interpretive mode. Any extra effort is saved many times over when the test is run on other ANS Forth systems. > The internet is full of people who will tell others that their work > sucks, but there is a definite shortage of people who are willing to > put forth any time and effort of their own. I'm really thinking about > jumping to another language where the people aren't so mean. Even the > Lisp community, which is notoriously nasty, is a step up from the > Forth community (mostly because there aren't any commercial Lisp > systems being pushed by salespeople, as we have SwiftForth being > pushed by Elizabeth Rather, so there is no big muckety-muck for the > trolls to flock around). You exaggerate. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | marko <marko@marko.marko.marko> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <4e159fe2$0$3588$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3848 |
Gerry Jackson wrote: > I think there are enough independently minded people here to dispute > Leon's and Anton's opinions if they are so minded. Forth tends to > attract such people. I'd say you have to be *independently minded* to use forth. Otherwise you would just go with the flow, like the rest of the world, which is running just fine :-( The *independently minded* feature of forth programmers means we will have much conflict, hopefully constructive and we won't just blame the library. proverb or curse, we are living in interesting times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 09:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wbedne2hL93jXYjTnZ2dnUVZ8k6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3848 |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > I think there are enough independently minded people here to dispute > Leon's and Anton's opinions if they are so minded. Forth tends to > attract such people. Oh, definitely. The rest of the TC can vote them down. The reason some people are influential is that they are persuasive: they make good arguments for what they want. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7dbb5b6-eada-4d03-9354-0af5a318a1c3@p19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3848 |
On Jul 7, 3:32 am, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 07/07/2011 00:19, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > But in response to Josh Gram's request for specific faults you only > listed missing functionality, that doesn't make the existing > functionality worthless or mean that it doesn't "work properly". It > simply means that it is more limited. I would not have been able to use the FFL linked-list implementation to write my slide-rule program --- therefore it does not work properly. What good is a library that lacks crucial features? I would rather just write my own from scratch than add to theirs and eventually end up rewriting the entire thing anyway. > > I just gave it that > > name to indicate that I'm trying to help novices get started. I use > > the package myself though, so maybe I was an expert when I wrote it > > but a novice when I used it. Of course, Elizabeth Rather has stated > > that the novice package was "written by a novice" (yuk! yuk!). > > I don't remember that, can you provide a link? http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/6272567c0df5bf0c > > Everything in the novice package has been tested; there are no bugs. > > Few people would have the courage to claim there were no bugs in a > significant package of software. That sounds like a challenge - would > you care to put some money behind your claim? You'd get a lot of people > looking at your novice package then :-) This isn't the first time that somebody has suggested that I pay people to use my software --- that is the exact opposite of me being a professional Forth programmer! For the record, when I originally posted the novice package publicly, I was motivated by altruism --- not that that matters now. > > I have tested it on SwiftForth, Gforth and Win32Forth --- that is 3, > > not 1. > > I don't remember seeing that in your documentation, if you've done that > why not say so, it's a good point. I too test my stuff on those systems > plus VFX, iForth and BigForth, with a test program, which means that any > changes can be tested on those systems in seconds. And it is surprising > what errors can turn up. It is mentioned in there somewhere. I remember that I had to tell people to use the patch file on Win32Forth to fix the FEXPM1 bug (that bug most likely has been fixed in the latest release of Win32Forth, so the patch file is no longer necessary, although I haven't tested the latest release so I don't know). > > The big problem here is that the ANS-Forth standard is too vague. When > > you read the document, you notice the word "may" being used an awfully > > lot. It is wishy-washy. There are also a lot of parts that are just > > confusing, such as the definition of (LOCAL) not explicitly saying > > that the local gets initialized. There is no way to know if ANS-Forth > > software will run on a specific ANS-Forth system except extensive > > testing. > > Precisely, which is why a good test program is invaluable in saving > time, increasing confidence etc. > > > It is easy to say that a test suite will catch all of these > > problems, but it is much more difficult to actually write such a test > > suite --- doing so requires knowledge of the internal workings of > > Forth to know where the possible problems will arise > > No it doesn't require a knowledge of the internal workings of an ANS > Forth, just a knowledge of ANS Forth even if it is your interpretation > of vague ANS Forth specs - if such an interpretation is wrong running a > test program on several systems is *more likely* to identify the fact. I > have little idea on the internal workings of the 6 systems I test > against but they have picked up faults in both my software and some of > those systems. Writing this test suite is a lot more difficult than you seem to believe. The reason is that you have to predict what bugs may crop up in systems that you haven't tested yet. For example, I originally wrote MACRO: to look up each word's xt and compile it, and to stop doing this when it came to the semicolon. That worked fine under SwiftForth. Then, it failed under Gforth because semicolon doesn't have an xt value --- a classic "WTF???" moment for me. I can't predict things like this. Of course, Anton Ertl says that this is obvious and that I should have known ahead of time that Gforth's semicolon wouldn't have an xt value, and that my failure to predict this is just more evidence of what a bad Forth programmer I am. Here is the thread: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/c0fe67c350a5cec3 > > I have no idea if my novice package will run on your ANS-Forth system > > or not. Provide a link to your system and I will test it when I have > > time. > > If there was a decent test program we wouldn't need to go to that > trouble - that's one of the main points for such a program. Why don't *you* write the novice-package test suite? Seriously! A benefit of doing this, is that you would get the novice package running on your ANS-Forth system. BTW, you never did give me a link where I can download your ANS-Forth system --- it is publicly available, isn't it? > > I know that my novice package doesn't run on FICL, which is > > supposed to be ANS-Forth, but that is due to myriad problems in FICL. > > I asked John Sadler to fix the problems, but he said that I should do > > this myself and then submit the new version of FICL to him, so I just > > ignore FICL until I have some reason to specifically support FICL > > (there is a lot of C programming required to get FICL to support the > > novice package, and I don't have much interest in C programming). > > You shouldn't need to, if he claims FICL is fully ANS Forth compatible > then the onus is on him to fix it or withdraw/modify the claim. FICL is pretty much dead. There hasn't been any work done on FICL in a long time. If I do upgrade FICL so that it will compile and run my novice package, I won't submit any of this to John Sadler, but will just keep it for my own use --- I'm tired of submitting code to the public domain, which is a thankless job typically resulting in me being called a donkey. > > For reasons unknown, he changed the name from FIELD to +FIELD --- but > > I think the former is more readable and more common, so I am sticking > > with it. I don't really care if my code or his is used, as the result > > is the same either way --- his is shorter, but whether it is simpler > > or not is debatable. > > I note that you've snipped out a suggested code improvement to <FIELD> - > is that tacit agreement that it was an improvement? I didn't tacitly agree that his code was an improvement. My FIELD works just fine. Note that in my source-code I have this comment: \ FIELD aligns the offset that it was given, so the new field will be aligned. \ FIELD also aligns the size of the field so the new-offset is aligned. This is the record size if this is the last field. \ The record size should be aligned so that in an array of records, each record is aligned (assuming the array is aligned). He isn't aligning his fields like this, so mine is better --- although it would be an easy matter for him to add the necessary alignment, in which case we are back to comparing them for readability. > > I really consider CREATE DOES> to be a horrible and ugly construct, > > and I just don't use it. > > You seem to be in a minority of one there - if anyone disagrees please > shout out. If that's your opinon fine, everybody's entitled to one. > > > Since you seem to like it, why don't you > > write something similar to my ARY that is based upon the CREATE DOES> > > definer? > > I might try that when I've a bit more time, I seem to waste it at > present replying to long posts on comp.lang.forth :-) Be sure to use CREATE DOES> when you write your version! > > You'll notice that the common note throughout this post is that I > > don't much like being criticized for not having done work, which > > nobody else has done either. > > ISTM that you don't like criticism, full stop. I'm okay with thoughtful and polite criticism. I do however think it inappropriate to be told that my software "sucks" and that I "pulled it out of my ass" and so forth. Elizabeth Rather disagrees: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/c37b473ec4da66f1 The reason why I can't now back down on symtab, is because doing so is an admission that symtab sucks, that everything I have ever written sucked, and that everything I ever will write will suck. This is Elizabeth Rather's world --- a world in which I am required to suck --- a world that I will never become a part of. Elizabeth Rather is never going to win, in the sense that I admit that my novice package sucks. I may switch over to programming on another language than Forth though, so she will be the winner in that sense. This has been her goal since the 1970s and continuing today --- that Forth Inc. will own Forth entirely --- that everybody else will give up programming in Forth and switch to another language, because they down't want to suck any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 10:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iv6it0$3el$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3874 |
On 07/07/2011 22:08, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Jul 7, 3:32 am, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: >> On 07/07/2011 00:19, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>> Of course, Elizabeth Rather has stated >>> that the novice package was "written by a novice" (yuk! yuk!). >> >> I don't remember that, can you provide a link? > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/6272567c0df5bf0c > So she did, that was gratuitously rude of her in that particular case, most uncharacteristic I would have thought. >>> Everything in the novice package has been tested; there are no bugs. >> >> Few people would have the courage to claim there were no bugs in a >> significant package of software. That sounds like a challenge - would >> you care to put some money behind your claim? You'd get a lot of people >> looking at your novice package then :-) > > This isn't the first time that somebody has suggested that I pay > people to use my software --- that is the exact opposite of me being a > professional Forth programmer! You misunderstand me, I was, with tongue firmly in cheek, suggesting a prize for finding a bug. That's different to paying people to use it. [...] >>> The big problem here is that the ANS-Forth standard is too vague. When >>> you read the document, you notice the word "may" being used an awfully >>> lot. It is wishy-washy. There are also a lot of parts that are just >>> confusing, such as the definition of (LOCAL) not explicitly saying >>> that the local gets initialized. There is no way to know if ANS-Forth >>> software will run on a specific ANS-Forth system except extensive >>> testing. >> >> Precisely, which is why a good test program is invaluable in saving >> time, increasing confidence etc. >> >>> It is easy to say that a test suite will catch all of these >>> problems, but it is much more difficult to actually write such a test >>> suite --- doing so requires knowledge of the internal workings of >>> Forth to know where the possible problems will arise >> >> No it doesn't require a knowledge of the internal workings of an ANS >> Forth, just a knowledge of ANS Forth even if it is your interpretation >> of vague ANS Forth specs - if such an interpretation is wrong running a >> test program on several systems is *more likely* to identify the fact. I >> have little idea on the internal workings of the 6 systems I test >> against but they have picked up faults in both my software and some of >> those systems. > > Writing this test suite is a lot more difficult than you seem to > believe. The reason is that you have to predict what bugs may crop up > in systems that you haven't tested yet. Not at all, you don't have to know with manual tests and it's the same with a test program (see below). For example, I originally > wrote MACRO: to look up each word's xt and compile it, and to stop > doing this when it came to the semicolon. That worked fine under > SwiftForth. Then, it failed under Gforth because semicolon doesn't > have an xt value --- a classic "WTF???" moment for me. I can't predict > things like this. You don't have to know that GForth works like that when you write the test. Say you're developing it on SwiftForth, you have a test program that includes tests on MACRO: and it works on SwiftForth. Some time later when doing a portability test you run it on GForth and it unexpectedly fails. You say WTF and find out why. You discover that it a problem with an xt, reluctantly concede that GForth is correct according to the ANS Forth spec. and amend your code accordingly. As you did, albeit without a test program. You don't need to know in advance how GForth works, you just get an unpleasant surprise, and believe me, with portability testing that often happens. On the other hand when you try a test program on FICL, you find it fails and you discover FICL's at fault - so you do what you did and report it. If the author chooses to do nothing about it you either work around the FICL fault or shrug your shoulders and say "who cares, there are plenty of other ANS Forth systems around" and forget about FICL. In neither case do you need to know in advance how GForth or FICL work. [...] >>> I have no idea if my novice package will run on your ANS-Forth system >>> or not. Provide a link to your system and I will test it when I have >>> time. >> >> If there was a decent test program we wouldn't need to go to that >> trouble - that's one of the main points for such a program. > > Why don't *you* write the novice-package test suite? Seriously! A > benefit of doing this, is that you would get the novice package > running on your ANS-Forth system. Sorry I don't have the time to write a test suite for you. One of the points I made before was that if you incrementally do it *during* development you have it for little cost at the end. Writing one at the end when you are confident everything works is dull tedious work and rarely gets done, like documentation. An instance of this was when I wrote my Forth system in the early 2000's, I was astonished and disappointed to find there was no test suite available for the whole of ANS Forth, just one for the core words (the origin of the Hayes tester). So I wrote my own incrementally and eventually made it available (it's still not comprehensive). It found errors in every Forth system I tried it on, not many errors and not significant in most cases. In turn some systems identified a few errors and weaknesses in my test programs. I corrected those and made the tests available (see FLAG) and AFAIK this is the only bit of Forth software I've written that's ever been used for real. I believe even the commercial Forths now routinely use it. > > BTW, you never did give me a link where I can download your ANS-Forth > system --- it is publicly available, isn't it? No it isn't, there are many ANS Forths available that are better than mine so I never bothered to release my feeble offering (and lay myself open to justifiable criticism if the truth be told!). In my view if a system is made available then there is an obligation on the author to maintain it, I didn't want to do that. Possessing my own system allows me to experiment with different ideas. Also I had the idea of writing a Forth that was more or less ANS Forth but without all the legacy crap that tends to get in the way when writing applications - a bit like your idea of a new standard - but the motivation has sort of drifted away. BTW how is your standard progressing? > [...] > I'm tired of submitting code to the > public domain, which is a thankless job It can certainly be thankless. [...] >> >> I note that you've snipped out a suggested code improvement to<FIELD> - >> is that tacit agreement that it was an improvement? > > I didn't tacitly agree that his code was an improvement. My FIELD > works just fine. Note that in my source-code I have this comment: > No, no I was asking about the code I wrote that was at the end of my last post but one. [...] >>> I really consider CREATE DOES> to be a horrible and ugly construct, >>> and I just don't use it. >> >> You seem to be in a minority of one there - if anyone disagrees please >> shout out. If that's your opinon fine, everybody's entitled to one. >> >>> Since you seem to like it, why don't you >>> write something similar to my ARY that is based upon the CREATE DOES> >>> definer? >> >> I might try that when I've a bit more time, I seem to waste it at >> present replying to long posts on comp.lang.forth :-) > > Be sure to use CREATE DOES> when you write your version! Of course, but I'm not promising to attempt it in the near future. > >>> You'll notice that the common note throughout this post is that I >>> don't much like being criticized for not having done work, which >>> nobody else has done either. >> >> ISTM that you don't like criticism, full stop. > > I'm okay with thoughtful and polite criticism. I do however think it > inappropriate to be told that my software "sucks" and that I "pulled > it out of my ass" and so forth. I agree with you, it was wrong of him to use those terms, there are politer ways of expressing those opinions. Elizabeth Rather disagrees: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/c37b473ec4da66f1 > > The reason why I can't now back down on symtab, is because doing so is > an admission that symtab sucks, that everything I have ever written > sucked, and that everything I ever will write will suck. This is > Elizabeth Rather's world --- a world in which I am required to suck > --- a world that I will never become a part of. > > Elizabeth Rather is never going to win, in the sense that I admit that > my novice package sucks. I may switch over to programming on another > language than Forth though, so she will be the winner in that sense. No don't do that, if you are comfortable programming in Forth stick with it, we have few enough people writing Forth code as it is. > This has been her goal since the 1970s and continuing today --- that > Forth Inc. will own Forth entirely --- that everybody else will give > up programming in Forth and switch to another language, because they > down't want to suck any more. I don't think so. My advice to you would be to just put your grievances against John Passaniti and Elizabeth Rather down to experience, move on and don't raise the matter again. Continually raising the matter only rebounds on yourself, because it provokes replies and keeps the issues alive. After all you didn't need to mention John Passaniti and Elizabeth Rather at all in our discussion here, but you did and it has raised the usual flurry of responses. It may be hard but forget about it and move on. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 05:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zpydnUYxVeXzQYvTnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #3882 |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 07/07/2011 22:08, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >> On Jul 7, 3:32 am, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> On 07/07/2011 00:19, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>>> Of course, Elizabeth Rather has stated >>>> that the novice package was "written by a novice" (yuk! yuk!). >>> >>> I don't remember that, can you provide a link? >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/6272567c0df5bf0c > > So she did, that was gratuitously rude of her in that particular > case, most uncharacteristic I would have thought. In context it was a fair comment, as you can see. It's exactly the sort of code that enthusiastic Forth programmers write before they "get it": much too complex and full of unnecessary features. Many people go through this stage; Elizabeth is sure to have seen it many time. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 17:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iv7cak$5tc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3884 |
On 08/07/2011 11:31, Andrew Haley wrote: > Gerry Jackson<gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> On 07/07/2011 22:08, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>> On Jul 7, 3:32 am, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> On 07/07/2011 00:19, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>>>> Of course, Elizabeth Rather has stated >>>>> that the novice package was "written by a novice" (yuk! yuk!). >>>> >>>> I don't remember that, can you provide a link? >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/6272567c0df5bf0c >> >> So she did, that was gratuitously rude of her in that particular >> case, most uncharacteristic I would have thought. > > In context it was a fair comment, as you can see. Not really, if you take the wider context I think it was well known then that Hugh had worked professionally with Forth and so wasn't a novice. > It's exactly the > sort of code that enthusiastic Forth programmers write before they > "get it": much too complex and full of unnecessary features. Many > people go through this stage; Elizabeth is sure to have seen it many > time. True but I bet she didn't put down genuine novices like that, perhaps she was retaliating. Anyway many of us write non-optimal code or make mistakes at times. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <97osp6Fvk3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3890 |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> ... Anyway many of us write non-optimal code or make
> mistakes at times.
I've found it easier to write bad code in Forth than in any other language.
Even after I'm ramped up and think I'm fully in the Forth "groove", I've all
too often come back to my code and asked "what was I thinking?". I'm sure at
least part of it is that Forth is the most malleable language I've ever used.
In fact, it's the most malleable language I'm aware of, with the possible
exception of Mint:
http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/mint/
Which is basically a simple reduction grammar on top of a very Forth-like
virtual machine. And how many people have even *heard* of Mint? :->
--
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spam@ControlQ.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 15:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1107081532210.20739@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #3891 |
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, vandys@vsta.org wrote: > Date: 8 Jul 2011 17:23:50 GMT > From: vandys@vsta.org > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > Subject: Re: The Lisp Curse > > Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> ... Anyway many of us write non-optimal code or make >> mistakes at times. > > I've found it easier to write bad code in Forth than in any other language. > Even after I'm ramped up and think I'm fully in the Forth "groove", I've all > too often come back to my code and asked "what was I thinking?". I'm sure at > least part of it is that Forth is the most malleable language I've ever used. > In fact, it's the most malleable language I'm aware of, with the possible > exception of Mint: > > http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/mint/ > > Which is basically a simple reduction grammar on top of a very Forth-like > virtual machine. And how many people have even *heard* of Mint? :-> > Actually, I owned a copy of the first edition of the book (a brown hardcover IIRC) ... purchased back in 198x or thereabouts ... but I'd forgotten more than I previously knew about it 8-). I never programmed in it, but was interested in interpreters at the time ... Rob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 21:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iv7nso$ivg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3891 |
On 08/07/2011 18:23, vandys@vsta.org wrote: > Gerry Jackson<gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> ... Anyway many of us write non-optimal code or make >> mistakes at times. > > I've found it easier to write bad code in Forth than in any other language. > Even after I'm ramped up and think I'm fully in the Forth "groove", I've all > too often come back to my code and asked "what was I thinking?". I'm sure at > least part of it is that Forth is the most malleable language I've ever used. > In fact, it's the most malleable language I'm aware of, with the possible > exception of Mint: > > http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/mint/ > > Which is basically a simple reduction grammar on top of a very Forth-like > virtual machine. And how many people have even *heard* of Mint? :-> > I've never heard of it, a quick scan of the pdf document indicates it is very Forth like. It's interesting that this link http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/showlanguage2.prx?exp=5867 indicates that MINT's forerunners date back to 1972. This must be about the same time as Forth started. Is there any known connection between the two or is it a case of similar languages being developed independently? -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0a809b4-d54b-42b6-94ff-3fe4d575493d@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3890 |
On Jul 8, 12:47 pm, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > True but I bet she didn't put down genuine novices like that, > perhaps she was retaliating. Anyway many of us write non-optimal > code or make mistakes at times. One of the problems some people have when looking at history is ignoring the predicates. Hugh tries to do his best to make it appear that I said "symtab sucks" (and other comments) as an off-the-cuff comment to cut him down, without any analysis. And yep, if you look at *later* messages (well after he decided to create various diversions from his inability to defend his design), you can certainly see that phrase used. But here's the first time I wrote that, in a message that included quite a lot of analysis (and as part of a thread where others had come to similar conclusions): > So your symtab sucks if one cares about the amount > of memory used-- a hash table clearly wins because > your overhead grows faster than than a hash table's. The statement that "symtab sucks" was specifically about the memory performance. It's a statement about design, not code, and not a personal attack on Hugh. Hugh didn't like that I (and others) had taken a serious look at symtab, found his claims about it's optimality were not defended (or even supported with measurement), and so he started to genericize my (and others) evaluation as a personal attack. And now, he takes other statements I (and others) have made-- usually also narrowly focused on specific technical faults of questionable design-- and pretends they are just sniping attaacks on him. You are of course free to believe whatever you like. You're also free to actually go back and see for yourself what was actually written and when, and considering Hugh's increasingly erratic behavior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iv7p8c$r3q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3893 |
On 08/07/2011 18:34, John Passaniti wrote: > On Jul 8, 12:47 pm, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: >> True but I bet she didn't put down genuine novices like that, >> perhaps she was retaliating. Anyway many of us write non-optimal >> code or make mistakes at times. > > One of the problems some people have when looking at history is > ignoring the predicates. Hugh tries to do his best to make it appear > that I said "symtab sucks" (and other comments) as an off-the-cuff > comment to cut him down, without any analysis. And yep, if you look > at *later* messages (well after he decided to create various > diversions from his inability to defend his design), you can certainly > see that phrase used. But here's the first time I wrote that, in a > message that included quite a lot of analysis (and as part of a thread > where others had come to similar conclusions): > >> So your symtab sucks if one cares about the amount >> of memory used-- a hash table clearly wins because >> your overhead grows faster than than a hash table's. > > The statement that "symtab sucks" was specifically about the memory > performance. It's a statement about design, not code, and not a > personal attack on Hugh. Yes and I made that point in an earlier post that you may have missed. After Hugh indicated that you had said his "novice package sucks" I wrote: "I don't think he said that about your novice package, IIRC he said that about the algorithm in your symtab module and proved it with a detailed analysis and experimental results which you've never disputed. The code itself may be of excellent quality but that doesn't make a poor choice of algorithm anything but a poor choice of algorithm." > Hugh didn't like that I (and others) had > taken a serious look at symtab, found his claims about it's optimality > were not defended (or even supported with measurement), and so he > started to genericize my (and others) evaluation as a personal > attack. And now, he takes other statements I (and others) have made-- > usually also narrowly focused on specific technical faults of > questionable design-- and pretends they are just sniping attaacks on > him. Yes and in an earlier post in this thread I pointed out to him how he had distorted statements I made into attacks on him. > > You are of course free to believe whatever you like. You're also free > to actually go back and see for yourself what was actually written and > when, and considering Hugh's increasingly erratic behavior. You can see what I believe from my quote above, I can remember the history fairly accurately so you don't need to get nowty about it. I just think its unfortunate that terms like "sucks" are unnecessarily used in a technical context. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-09 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8cd4308-16a1-497b-9ee7-01fddc92974e@t7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3899 |
On Jul 8, 4:28 pm, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > You can see what I believe from my quote above, I can remember > the history fairly accurately so you don't need to get nowty > about it. I just think its unfortunate that terms like "sucks" > are unnecessarily used in a technical context. So are you one of those few people on the planet who has never used "sucks" to indicate disapproval of something? You've never said "this restaurant sucks" or "my car's gas efficiency sucks" or "Windows sucks" or "he's a great singer but his songwriting sucks" or any number of infinite variant forms? If so, congratulations on being in the small set of hyper-genteel people who serve as models for characters in a Jane Austen novel. I fail to see why a "technical context" changes anything, especially given that "sucks" wasn't offered alone, but with a detailed analysis of *why* it... sucked. Of course, the actual words used don't matter. It really wouldn't have mattered what I wrote or how I wrote it. I could have given a cold, dispassionate, purely technical evaluation of symtab without a hint of emotion or personality in it. Hugh would have reacted largely the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 10:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ivbqh5$164$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3912 |
On 09/07/2011 23:25, John Passaniti wrote: > On Jul 8, 4:28 pm, Gerry Jackson<ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: >> You can see what I believe from my quote above, I can remember >> the history fairly accurately so you don't need to get nowty >> about it. I just think its unfortunate that terms like "sucks" >> are unnecessarily used in a technical context. > > So are you one of those few people on the planet who has never used > "sucks" to indicate disapproval of something? You've never said "this > restaurant sucks" or "my car's gas efficiency sucks" or "Windows > sucks" or "he's a great singer but his songwriting sucks" or any > number of infinite variant forms? Yes I'm one of probably several million people in Britain who have never used "sucks" in that way. It's apparently American slang dating from about 1971 http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/english-idioms-sayings/6917-something-sucks.html and somewhere else I read that it didn't become common for several years after that. I think you're just demonstrating a form of american insularity there. > If so, congratulations on being in > the small set of hyper-genteel people who serve as models for > characters in a Jane Austen novel. I showed this to my wife and she nearly died laughing - the idea of someone describing me as genteel! Really John, if that weak bit of sarcasm is the best argument you can muster you're below form today. > I fail to see why a "technical > context" changes anything, especially given that "sucks" wasn't > offered alone, but with a detailed analysis of *why* it... sucked. You don't see that using a term, that is offensive or vulgar to many people is likely to be emotive, raise the temperature and provoke equally offensive responses? Amazing. > > Of course, the actual words used don't matter. It really wouldn't > have mattered what I wrote or how I wrote it. I could have given a > cold, dispassionate, purely technical evaluation of symtab without a > hint of emotion or personality in it. Hugh would have reacted largely > the same. Depressingly, you're probably correct there. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 22:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f283769-448f-4481-9b11-5719ba340e92@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3920 |
On Jul 10, 5:14 am, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > Yes I'm one of probably several million people in Britain who > have never used "sucks" in that way. It's apparently American > slang dating from about 1971 [...] and somewhere else I read > that it didn't become common for several years after that. > > I think you're just demonstrating a form of american insularity there. Fascinating. So I guess the professional colleagues I've had over the years from England who have used "sucks" to express displeasure with something, both in spoken and written conversation, were infected by American idioms? It's kind of funny that when meeting these fine people, we've had plenty of mutual amusement at each other's use of language (for example, when a British engineer offered to "knock up" me in the morning on our way to a conference). But "sucks" never needed explanation or translation. Seems the dividing lines between American, Canadian, British, and Australian English is fairly fluid, because I can find "sucks" in every on-line slang dictionary for every major English-speaking country. Some of these references go the extra mile (or is it kilometer for you?) and attempt etymologies that reference everything from a sex act to the reaction people have eating lemons to how weasels suck the contents from eggs. But like many idioms, the origins often have little to do with how it is actually used. Possibly more interesting is how some people interpret "sucks" as offensive or vulgar. Now of course, this doesn't apply to Hugh, since his outrage was artificial; it was an attempt to latch on to *anything* he could as a smoke-screen against the technical failings of symtab's design. But for others, I wonder what aspect of their socialization leads to the assumption of a prurient interpretation of "sucks" when in context there was nothing that would imply that, and when "sucks" is understood to be a common idiom that means some shade of "not good"? What causes their minds to rush there, when that doesn't make any sense? > You don't see that using a term, that is offensive or vulgar to > many people is likely to be emotive, raise the temperature and > provoke equally offensive responses? Amazing. Yes, there are indeed people in the world who would find "sucks" to be offensive or vulgar. These are people who think etymology matters more than usage, who ignore the context of words, and who have a problem with the dynamic nature of the English language. Oh, and these people are often crashing bores at parties and the reason the rest of us engage in tedious self-censorship to avoid upsetting their false civility. If comp.lang.forth was a scholarly journal or professional association, I would not have used "sucks." Not because it's necessarily inappropriate, but because in such contexts, it's far more fun (and funny) to come up with droll constructions like "the memory performance of symtab relative to hash tables proves to be sub-optimal for real-world datasets, but has excellent performance otherwise." Or maybe, "the author of symtab offers a non-traditional metric for the algorithm's effectiveness based on sheer repetition of claims." Or possibly, "by prioritizing for cumulative frequency over locality of reference, symtab demonstrates optimal performance suited for an exotic use-case that has yet to be discovered." Or, I suppose, one could just say it sucks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-11 03:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae7c034f-010e-4f71-953f-17e16918a81a@a11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3952 |
On Jul 11, 6:02 am, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 5:14 am, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > wrote: > > > Yes I'm one of probably several million people in Britain who > > have never used "sucks" in that way. It's apparently American > > slang dating from about 1971 [...] and somewhere else I read > > that it didn't become common for several years after that. > > > I think you're just demonstrating a form of american insularity there. > > Fascinating. So I guess the professional colleagues I've had over the > years from England who have used "sucks" to express displeasure with > something, both in spoken and written conversation, were infected by > American idioms? It's kind of funny that when meeting these fine > people, we've had plenty of mutual amusement at each other's use of > language (for example, when a British engineer offered to "knock up" > me in the morning on our way to a conference). But "sucks" never > needed explanation or translation. Seems the dividing lines between > American, Canadian, British, and Australian English is fairly fluid, > because I can find "sucks" in every on-line slang dictionary for every > major English-speaking country. Some of these references go the extra > mile (or is it kilometer for you?) and attempt etymologies that > reference everything from a sex act to the reaction people have eating > lemons to how weasels suck the contents from eggs. But like many > idioms, the origins often have little to do with how it is actually > used. > > Possibly more interesting is how some people interpret "sucks" as > offensive or vulgar. Now of course, this doesn't apply to Hugh, since > his outrage was artificial; it was an attempt to latch on to > *anything* he could as a smoke-screen against the technical failings > of symtab's design. But for others, I wonder what aspect of their > socialization leads to the assumption of a prurient interpretation of > "sucks" when in context there was nothing that would imply that, and > when "sucks" is understood to be a common idiom that means some shade > of "not good"? What causes their minds to rush there, when that > doesn't make any sense? > > > You don't see that using a term, that is offensive or vulgar to > > many people is likely to be emotive, raise the temperature and > > provoke equally offensive responses? Amazing. > > Yes, there are indeed people in the world who would find "sucks" to be > offensive or vulgar. These are people who think etymology matters > more than usage, who ignore the context of words, and who have a > problem with the dynamic nature of the English language. Oh, and > these people are often crashing bores at parties and the reason the > rest of us engage in tedious self-censorship to avoid upsetting their > false civility. > > If comp.lang.forth was a scholarly journal or professional > association, I would not have used "sucks." Not because it's > necessarily inappropriate, but because in such contexts, it's far more > fun (and funny) to come up with droll constructions like "the memory > performance of symtab relative to hash tables proves to be sub-optimal > for real-world datasets, but has excellent performance otherwise." Or > maybe, "the author of symtab offers a non-traditional metric for the > algorithm's effectiveness based on sheer repetition of claims." Or > possibly, "by prioritizing for cumulative frequency over locality of > reference, symtab demonstrates optimal performance suited for an > exotic use-case that has yet to be discovered." > > Or, I suppose, one could just say it sucks. This has come up before as a discussion point (as I'm sure you will remember) over the phrase "carnal knowledge". There are many phrases that will offend someone somewhere. I've stopped paying attention, since what I consider offensive is not what others consider offensive, and vice versa. One of my favourite IT online newspapers, The Register (affectionately known as El Reg), uses the phrase "titsup" regularly, as in this recent headline; "$8.5bn Skype goes titsup again - including website". An American publication might use the word "offline" or "down". Is titsup offensive? I don't think so, but my transatlantic colleagues find it disturbing. Discussions like this simply lead down language cul-de-sacs. With apologies to my French friends for mentioning buttocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web