Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #1242 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-17 00:34 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-04-21 18:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 166 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 00:34 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-17 02:29 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> - 2011-04-18 12:55 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-18 14:45 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-19 09:06 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-18 20:30 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-18 20:33 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de> - 2011-04-19 13:04 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-19 22:09 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-19 23:40 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-20 21:27 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> - 2011-04-20 14:56 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-04-20 22:42 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-20 22:26 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-21 20:51 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2011-04-26 16:40 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-04-26 22:23 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 13:34 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-27 14:48 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 04:07 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 07:38 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 08:10 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-22 12:35 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 08:51 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-23 10:17 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 18:05 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 11:16 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-23 11:26 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 18:07 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 00:10 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 11:38 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 15:13 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 14:07 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:05 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:24 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-22 12:48 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:51 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 17:41 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 18:16 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 18:58 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 19:49 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:02 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-22 06:59 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 01:20 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 21:11 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:16 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:12 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 07:38 +0100
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 00:05 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-25 13:34 +0100
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 08:50 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:11 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:18 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:19 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:43 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 13:17 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:32 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 18:21 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Charles G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2011-04-26 19:36 -0400
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-26 21:05 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 23:36 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-27 08:57 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-28 11:53 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-29 22:21 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-27 17:41 +0100
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-27 09:53 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-26 11:39 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:22 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 17:51 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-23 10:33 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 00:48 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-29 22:24 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 09:44 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 11:36 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 17:08 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 18:11 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 00:49 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-23 03:55 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:47 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-23 11:12 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-30 16:33 +0100
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:03 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-05-02 22:15 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-02 19:15 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-05-04 08:14 +0100
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-04 00:51 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-05-04 22:03 +0100
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-30 03:15 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-05-01 19:04 -1000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-27 22:58 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-28 03:37 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 08:54 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-28 12:12 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 21:34 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-29 02:27 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-29 15:09 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-02 21:47 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 10:49 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 21:57 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 13:28 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 11:01 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:02 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 07:08 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 10:47 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 10:58 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-27 22:39 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 10:43 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-05-05 04:39 -0400
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-05 04:10 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-04-23 09:53 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:59 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-23 16:10 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:47 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 14:23 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-04 01:48 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-04 05:23 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <jpassaniti@ashly.com> - 2011-05-04 11:17 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-05-04 12:03 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:59 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:48 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-22 03:22 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:28 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-22 12:37 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de> - 2011-04-22 20:07 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-22 18:55 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:25 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-24 03:27 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 20:20 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-25 03:24 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-25 11:55 -1000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:45 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-25 21:49 -1000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 02:39 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-26 03:19 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-26 10:01 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-23 03:43 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:53 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 20:27 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-25 03:35 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-26 00:20 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-26 04:02 -0500
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-04-26 22:40 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-25 14:16 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:25 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 02:47 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-26 10:22 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 10:45 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-26 22:19 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-27 21:05 +0200
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 11:44 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-22 11:46 -1000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 08:02 +0100
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:46 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 01:32 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-24 08:36 -1000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 19:43 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 21:07 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-25 11:04 +0000
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:02 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-20 18:17 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:19 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:27 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 16:54 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 17:09 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 17:57 -0700
Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 18:33 -0700
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f44081e2-8302-4a0e-9177-de134d31e0df@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1368 |
On Apr 21, 5:07 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > For top marks, we can reject anything that does much stack > manipulation, and anything that uses the R-stack when it's not > necessary gets disqualified altogether. Aha, hiding a arbitrary exclusion to the main grading criteria until after the fact. Bad pedagogy, that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79e5967c-d0c3-4273-907d-0f906cd1f56a@x10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1373 |
On Apr 21, 10:38 am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > > For top marks, we can reject anything that does > > much stack manipulation, and anything that uses > > the R-stack when it's not necessary gets > > disqualified altogether. > > Aha, hiding a arbitrary exclusion to the main > grading criteria until after the fact. Bad pedagogy, > that. Even worse is pedagogy is everyone eagerly offering solutions to a beginner-level problem to someone (gavino) who should be trying to figure this out on their own. It would have been far better for him to offer whatever solution he did come up with-- or to write up his failure to solve the problem and have people guide him to an answer instead of blurting out solutions. I guess there is some value here in showing gavino that there is more than one way to approach the problem, and I would certainly hope that would instill in him (and everyone else) that there are multiple metrics one can use to judge how good a solution is. Too often in this newsgroup, the singular focus of attention is on one narrow kind of efficiency (most often minimizing execution time), without ever asking if criteria are more important. It's depressing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lk20bu.1d8@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #1374 |
In article <79e5967c-d0c3-4273-907d-0f906cd1f56a@x10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 21, 10:38=A0am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: >> > For top marks, we can reject anything that does >> > much stack manipulation, and anything that uses >> > the R-stack when it's not necessary gets >> > disqualified altogether. >> >> Aha, hiding a arbitrary exclusion to the main >> grading criteria until after the fact. Bad pedagogy, >> that. > >Even worse is pedagogy is everyone eagerly offering solutions to a >beginner-level problem to someone (gavino) who should be trying to >figure this out on their own. It would have been far better for him >to offer whatever solution he did come up with-- or to write up his >failure to solve the problem and have people guide him to an answer >instead of blurting out solutions. > >I guess there is some value here in showing gavino that there is more >than one way to approach the problem, and I would certainly hope that >would instill in him (and everyone else) that there are multiple >metrics one can use to judge how good a solution is. Too often in >this newsgroup, the singular focus of attention is on one narrow kind >of efficiency (most often minimizing execution time), without ever >asking if criteria are more important. It's depressing. Hell no! gavino is not to be taken seriously, so we use him as an excuse to show off, yourself included. This far I find the thread mildly entertaining and mildly enformative. Groetjes Albert > -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3b7840a-fc7c-4328-af06-9c313acd8b12@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1409 |
On Apr 22, 8:35 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Hell no! gavino is not to be taken seriously, so > we use him as an excuse to show off, yourself > included. I flip back and forth on gavino. Sometimes he seems serious and so the reaction that I (and most people) have is to try to help him. Other times he seems dumber than a rock with an incredible resistance to learning. These days, he seems a /bit/ more serious-- he even appears to be going through the gforth tutorial and has solved some basic problems. Good for him! Unfortunately, I think 95% of the replies in this thread are worthless to him because they are solving the problem without considering the context of the problem. That context is the gforth tutorial, specifically the section on stack manipulation. So right there, solutions that involve stack manipulation are the ones that are obviously highly valued. And if you continue to look at the tutorial, you'll see that colon definitions haven't appeared yet and constants won't appear for several chapters after. So every solution here that created any definition-- colons or constants-- is using syntax and semantics that gavino doesn't even know exists yet. I will disagree that I want to "show off" with gavino. If you go back to my first messages to him-- back three or more years when he first showed up here, I (and lots of other people) made an honest attempt at helping him. There was no sarcasm or mocking or insults. That only started after it was clear that gavino was mindlessly asking the same damn questions, over and over, without any apparent comprehension. It's a rare person in comp.lang.forth who when faced with an impenetrable wall of dumb doesn't eventually break down and let their sarcastic side come out. I have no idea what his problem is, but he seems to run in cycles. And right now, he seems to be at the part of the cycle where he seems to be putting forward some effort, and seems to be wanting to learn. Based on what I've seen, I think he's going to pretty soon find out that Forth isn't the kind of language he really wants to learn, so he'll lose interest and start peppering us all with more "where are the webapps" type messages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 10:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lk3olg.nv3@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #1416 |
In article <e3b7840a-fc7c-4328-af06-9c313acd8b12@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 22, 8:35=A0am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> >wrote: >> Hell no! gavino is not to be taken seriously, so >> we use him as an excuse to show off, yourself >> included. > <SNIP> > >I will disagree that I want to "show off" with gavino. If you go back >to my first messages to him-- back three or more years when he first >showed up here, I (and lots of other people) made an honest attempt at >helping him. There was no sarcasm or mocking or insults. That only >started after it was clear that gavino was mindlessly asking the same >damn questions, over and over, without any apparent comprehension. >It's a rare person in comp.lang.forth who when faced with an >impenetrable wall of dumb doesn't eventually break down and let their >sarcastic side come out. I didn't mean that in a negative way. gavino has inspired you and others to present some pedagogical worthwhile stuff, regardless whether it is of value to gavino. This is a public forum. Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 18:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b90a19d-2386-47db-a7f4-8dc9a80964c3@r4g2000prm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1409 |
On Apr 22, 5:35 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <79e5967c-d0c3-4273-907d-0f906cd1f...@x10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, > John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Apr 21, 10:38=A0am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > >> > For top marks, we can reject anything that does > >> > much stack manipulation, and anything that uses > >> > the R-stack when it's not necessary gets > >> > disqualified altogether. > > >> Aha, hiding a arbitrary exclusion to the main > >> grading criteria until after the fact. Bad pedagogy, > >> that. > > >Even worse is pedagogy is everyone eagerly offering solutions to a > >beginner-level problem to someone (gavino) who should be trying to > >figure this out on their own. It would have been far better for him > >to offer whatever solution he did come up with-- or to write up his > >failure to solve the problem and have people guide him to an answer > >instead of blurting out solutions. > > >I guess there is some value here in showing gavino that there is more > >than one way to approach the problem, and I would certainly hope that > >would instill in him (and everyone else) that there are multiple > >metrics one can use to judge how good a solution is. Too often in > >this newsgroup, the singular focus of attention is on one narrow kind > >of efficiency (most often minimizing execution time), without ever > >asking if criteria are more important. It's depressing. > > Hell no! gavino is not to be taken seriously, so we use him as an > excuse to show off, yourself included. > This far I find the thread mildly entertaining and mildly > enformative. > > Groetjes Albert > > > > -- > -- > Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS > Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. > albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=nhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 11:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Hc-dncKomLHJxS3QnZ2dnUVZ7vOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #1373 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:07?am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > wrote: > >> For top marks, we can reject anything that does much stack >> manipulation, and anything that uses the R-stack when it's not >> necessary gets disqualified altogether. > > Aha, hiding a arbitrary exclusion to the main grading criteria until > after the fact. Bad pedagogy, that. LOL! :-) I would have thought that the teacher would already have stressed the idea that stack manipulation is best avoided. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 11:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Apr23.132648@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #1376 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>I would have thought that the teacher would already have stressed the
>idea that stack manipulation is best avoided.
The point of the exercise is to learn how to use stack manipulation
when it is needed. Oh, and at that point the students don't know the
return stack nor colon definitions (at least if they follow the
tutorial).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2010: http://www.euroforth.org/ef10/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-23 18:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b058e3b-73f4-4eb4-bbcb-760ac089aa26@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1458 |
On Apr 23, 4:26 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > >I would have thought that the teacher would already have stressed the > >idea that stack manipulation is best avoided. > > The point of the exercise is to learn how to use stack manipulation > when it is needed. Oh, and at that point the students don't know the > return stack nor colon definitions (at least if they follow the > tutorial). > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs:http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard:http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2010:http://www.euroforth.org/ef10/ I got it finally but its bit tricksy adn the 2swap and 2dup really helped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-24 00:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd187bd3-0f97-428d-b495-69f02ee69e71@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1458 |
On Apr 23, 3:26 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > >I would have thought that the teacher would already have stressed the > >idea that stack manipulation is best avoided. One could say that Forth programs are all about stack manipulation. This is generally accepted. Although many people would then simplify your statement that Forth is best avoided. That is also generally accepted by the majority of programmers. Excessive and unnecessary stack manipulation, described by the term "stack juggling" is indeed a terrible thing and should be avoided. Some people say they hate Forth because it is all stack juggling but it is little different than saying Forth is best avoided altogether by people who don't know how to write decent code in Forth. > The point of the exercise is to learn how to use stack manipulation > when it is needed. I suppose you mean the exercise in the gforth tutorial in the name of this thread. That's why I said "2DUP OVER" was wasteful and unnecessary stack manipulation when "OVER" would do. It is also why I said the stack manipulation should take place at compile time so that only cell of the stack is needed at runtime for the examples. > Oh, and at that point the students don't know the > return stack nor colon definitions (at least if they follow the > tutorial). Then the techniques that Marcel and I showed to compile less code and use only one stack position at runtime were trying to move understanding past those first interpreted sequence exercises. Of course I think of it like taking a semester to teach people stuff they could learn in a day if there is a need to stretch the teaching out quite a bit. I suspect we might have been reminding other people of aspects of Forth factoring rather than just addressing what Gavino needed in his next lesson. Best Wishes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xbozz5u1n.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #1368 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > : cube ( n - n^3) dup dup * * ; ok > 17 dup cube dup . * . 4913 83521 ok Of course that uses a slot on the return stack to call cube. > 17 dup 2dup * * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok That uses 4 stack slots and the fancy 2dup word. How about: 17 dup dup * over * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 15:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k-2dnVKpM8VmEi3QnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #1377 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> : cube ( n - n^3) dup dup * * ; ok >> 17 dup cube dup . * . 4913 83521 ok > > Of course that uses a slot on the return stack to call cube. Not necessarily: there's nothing in standard Forth that says it must. And even if it does, so what? If I were judging I might allow extra points for discovering a factor and giving it a good name. >> 17 dup 2dup * * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok > > That uses 4 stack slots and the fancy 2dup word. How about: > > 17 dup dup * over * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok Is there a shortage of stack slots? Why not 17 dup dup dup * * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok I can't see what OVER does that's to be preferred over DUP. However, it's stil just four noise words, so still full marks! IMO, YMMV... :-) Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xoc3z9uuv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #1379 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> 17 dup dup * over * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok > Is there a shortage of stack slots? Why not Well, I thought Forth was often associated with memory-starved embedded cpu's. The GA processors have 10 data stack levels and 9 return stack levels if I understand it right, but maybe it's actually just 8 levels each. Of course they also haves no multiplier and no OVER... > 17 dup dup dup * * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok That also uses 4 slots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 15:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68f7cfd9-017a-4970-9935-dc0ed69cc912@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1380 |
On Apr 21, 1:07 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > The GA processors have 10 data stack levels and 9 return stack > levels if I understand it right, That is correct. Because they are not an array of random access memory they are much faster than ram. Because they do not require decoding register bit fields in the opcodes they are faster than general purpose registers of the same geometry. Instructions are decoded while data is read from the stack registers and operated on by the alu units then results are written back in about 1.5ns in the first GA chips. There are about a dozen internal steps to a 1.5ns opcode so stack access to or from the stack is a tiny fraction of that. > but maybe it's actually just 8 levels each. Each have eight circular stack register at the bottom of that stack so that stack overflow and stack underflow are not possible. One can overwrite what is on the stack or copy things from the stack without using DUP as the last eight will repeat. You can use this for things like pattern fills with 2,4 or 8 items. > Of course they also haves no multiplier and no OVER... Sorry. There is a multiplier as you have been told before when you were arguing with Dr. Montvelishky about the DSP in his 3D vision programs. It is one cycle per bit per processor. That's a maximum of 144 bits in one cycle on a GA144. If you are multiplying a 16-bit number by an 8-bit number it takes eight steps. Sorry. The instruction set can be learned in a few minutes with or without a Forth background. There is indeed an OVER instruction. It is named OVER. > > 17 dup dup dup * * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok > > That also uses 4 slots. Not counting how many stack cells are used by print (.) or * or the command interpreter when done interactively. Best Wishes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d746eac6-78c7-45b8-85a7-874bd79938e6@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1381 |
On Apr 21, 2:05 pm, foxchip <f...@ultratechnology.com> wrote: > Sorry. There is a multiplier as you have been told before > when you were arguing with Dr. Montvelishky about the > DSP in his 3D vision programs. Maybe it was when you were arguing with him about the DSP in his hearing enhancement program. > It is one cycle per bit per processor. That's a maximum > of 144 bits in one cycle on a GA144. If you are multiplying > a 16-bit number by an 8-bit number it takes eight steps. I should have said that's 144 18x1 bit multiplies or 2592 bits of multiply per cycle. Best Wishes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lk20w6.1pn@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #1383 |
In article <d746eac6-78c7-45b8-85a7-874bd79938e6@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> wrote: > >I should have said that's 144 18x1 bit multiplies or >2592 bits of multiply per cycle. Intel would love that! Counting bops (bit operation per second). They do a floating 60 bit mantissa multiply in a 330 pS cycle on a single core. That is a whopping 36000 bit-multiplications in a 330 pS cycle for a 10 core machine. Lest than 10 femtoseconds per bit. We're near the Plank limit! > >Best Wishes P.S. For the less informed: Intel doesn't do a 60 bit 60 multiply bit by bit. There is some serious entanglement and sophistication. -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-22 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1235960-bee0-4ebb-ab4e-017dbc779635@e25g2000prf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1410 |
On Apr 22, 4:48 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >I should have said that's 144 18x1 bit multiplies or > >2592 bits of multiply per cycle. > > Intel would love that! Counting bops (bit operation per second). > They do a floating 60 bit mantissa multiply in a 330 pS cycle > on a single core. > That is a whopping 36000 bit-multiplications in a 330 pS cycle > for a 10 core machine. Lest than 10 femtoseconds per bit. > We're near the Plank limit! What Intel loved more was hiring Chuck Moore to teach hardware design classes to their engineering staff and to license some of this patents to make their chips perform better. I don't think Intel competes in the $.10 processor market or cares much about it. Well sure. But to be fair and not do too much watermelon to grape comparisons one should pick a 100KHz four-bit CMOS chip for comparison to a c18 or about 300,000 c18 to compare to a big Intel chip. Plus c18, like Forth itself, shines best on integer math not floating point and was not designed for floating point. The biggest differences beside thousands of times difference in cost and power usage in your comparison would be on real-time and embedded application where the deep pipelines and multi-level caches make the big chips lose terribly on performance when interrupts or context switches take unpredictable amounts of time that may vary by hundreds of times in speed. The important thing with the freight train is that they can haul a lot at high speed for their cost even it they take an hour to get up to speed or slow down for curves. The important things with the small stuff is low cost and low power and the agility and ease of programming that comes from being small and simple. If you think a multi-thousand dollar multi-watt chip would be good for low cost, low power agile applications you don't understand them. If you think a tiny chip with minimal cost and power usage would be good for hauling a hundred freightcars of coal you don't understand them either. The biggest conceptual problem for understanding embedded processing is people with only exposure to desktop computing methods. > P.S. For the less informed: Intel doesn't do a 60 bit 60 multiply > bit by bit. There is some serious entanglement and sophistication. P.P.S and that's also why big CPUs have cost as much as $3000 each in lots of 5000. Many chips today to use multiply step instructions rather than full one-cycle multiply circuits that might be much larger than the rest of the chip. And Forth has a forty year history of showing how floating point was not needed in many of the places where other programmers assumed that floating point was needed. I have used floating point outside of Forth. In my twenty-five years of professional Forth programming I have never needed to use floating point for anything. Chuck has not had to use floating point for anything in the last twenty-five years. Best Wishes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xaafjqfs1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #1381 |
foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> writes: >> Of course they also haves no multiplier and no OVER... > Sorry. There is a multiplier as you have been told before... Well, there is no way to multiply something by 17 in one instruction, There is the 1-bit multiply step opcode +* which I wouldn't call a multiplier in the usual sense of the term. > There is indeed an OVER instruction. It is named OVER. Whoops! Yes you are right, opcode 1A. I was actually thinking of the absence of SWAP, which is implemented using OVER, rather than the other way around. I somehow confused the two. It's of course discussed here: http://greenarrays.com/home/documents/greg/cf-code-library.htm > Not counting how many stack cells are used by print (.) > or * or the command interpreter when done interactively. Very good points.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 18:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <054bfa78-7dfd-41fc-bf84-96fe99227fd4@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1380 |
On Apr 21, 5:07 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > >> 17 dup dup * over * dup . * . 4913 83521 ok > > Is there a shortage of stack slots? Why not > > Well, I thought Forth was often associated with memory-starved embedded > cpu's. The GA processors have 10 data stack levels and 9 return stack > levels if I understand it right, but maybe it's actually just 8 levels > each. Of course they also haves no multiplier and no OVER... Yeah, but which of the solutions proposed would fail to fit 8 data stack levels? I don't know the details of the hardware multiply nor whether the * routine would use one or two more data stack levels, but why would it use 5?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-21 18:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xhb9rgi74.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #1390 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> writes: > Yeah, but which of the solutions proposed would fail to fit 8 data > stack levels? The idea is that the code is called from other code that is already using stack space. > I don't know the details of the hardware multiply nor whether the * I mentioned the GA chip only as an example of a Forth platform that has very limited stack depth. The code I posted wasn't claimed to be GA code. I think Elizabeth has posted that most Forth programs (including complex apps on larger machines) don't use more than around 30 stack levels. By that standard, it seemed better to use 3 instead of 4 in the exercise if that doesn't result in bloating up the code some other way. But you guys are the experts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web