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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #9601 > unrolled thread

Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology

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

Contents

  Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2012-02-17 11:32 -0800
    Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 18:31 -0500
      Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-02-18 04:52 -0500
        Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-02-18 08:57 -1000
      Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-18 12:21 -0800
        Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 10:30 -0500
          Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 15:50 -0800
    Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 16:30 -0800
    Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-02-18 05:28 -0500
      Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> - 2012-02-18 11:15 -0800
        Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2012-02-18 15:44 -0500
          Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-19 09:16 +0000
            Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "A. K." <minforth@arcor.de> - 2012-02-19 12:53 +0100
              Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-19 12:47 +0000
                Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 09:12 -0500
                  Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-20 21:43 +0000
                    Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-02-20 18:12 -0500
                      Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-21 23:19 +0000
            Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2012-02-19 08:27 -0500
            Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "P.M.Lawrence" <pml540114@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 06:15 -0800
            Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> - 2012-02-26 05:56 +1100
              Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-02-25 23:39 +0000
                Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-08 19:03 -0800
                  Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-03-09 20:13 +0000
            Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology m II <C@in.the.hat> - 2012-03-29 20:45 -0600
          Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Don McKenzie <5V@2.5A> - 2012-02-26 09:43 +1100
    Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-21 17:12 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#9601 — Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology

Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post at

http://prog21.dadgum.com/128.html

with the above title. I found it on Reddit, where

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ptxal/dont_fall_in_love_with_your_technology/

is the massive discussion he has sparked.
In fair use I quote from his blogpost:

> In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
> Forth has great personal appeal. It's minimalist to the point
> of being subversive, and Forth literature once crackled with
> rightness.

Somehow they got to him. Somehow they "turned" him.

> A decade later, I stuck my head back in and started
> reading. It was the same. The same tinkering with the
> language, the same debates, and the same peculiar
> lack of interest in using Forth to build incredible things.

Oh, please! Wait til you try to pass through a TSA
whole-body imaging machine and the Gestapo goons
start screaming, "Hey everbody! Lookee this! The guy
has Green Zombie Aliens inside his cranium!"

Forth is a Gift. Those who outgrow the Gift of Forth
have lost the ablity to dream the Dream, to realize
their nature as created in the Image and Likeness.

Stephen Spielberg! Here's your next movie:
"The Invasion of the Forth-Snatchers".

The same Forth Renegade also wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/582828eb7efc96bc

http://prog21.dadgum.com/46.html
"The Pure Tech Side is the Dark Side"

http://prog21.dadgum.com/51.html
"How Did Things Ever Get This Good?"

http://prog21.dadgum.com/56.html
"The Recovering Programmer"

http://prog21.dadgum.com/123.html
"Recovering From a Computer Science Education"

http://prog21.dadgum.com/126.html
"Four Levels of Idea Theft"

and a lot of other Forth-genius blog-posts.

Mentifex
--
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9605

On 2/17/12 2:32 PM, Mentifex wrote:
> Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post ...

...
 >> In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.

>> A decade later, I stuck my head back in and started
>> reading. It was the same. The same tinkering with the
>> language, the same debates,...

He's mistaken.  The topics have changed.  I follow it mostly because I 
learn things.  How to do ANS multi-whiles and how to avoid wordlist 
search-order problems with create-does> are just two somewhat recent 
examples.

-Doug

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

#9609

"Doug Hoffman" <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f3ee367$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> On 2/17/12 2:32 PM, Mentifex wrote:
> > Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post ...
...

>  >> In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
>
> >> A decade later, I stuck my head back in and started
> >> reading. It was the same. The same tinkering with the
> >> language, the same debates,...
>
> He's mistaken.  The topics have changed.  I follow it mostly because I
> learn things.  How to do ANS multi-whiles and how to avoid wordlist
> search-order problems with create-does> are just two somewhat recent
> examples.
>

Well, I think the topics have broadened slightly, but otherwise, in general
at least, the topics are the same.  Why do I think that?  I search
comp.lang.forth *alot* for information to use to implement aspects of my
Forth interpreter.  I also search net.lang.forth.  Remember that?  Many of
the topics today are the same as they were a decade ago, two decades ago,
and almost three decades ago.  I see the same conversations with different
people at a different time period with some being more accurate or in depth
than others.  People are still having the exact same problems with Forth
that they've always had.


Rod Pemberton

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

#9615

On 2/17/12 11:52 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Doug Hoffman"<glidedog@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:4f3ee367$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> On 2/17/12 2:32 PM, Mentifex wrote:
>>> Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post ...
> ...
>
>>   >>  In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
>>
>>>> A decade later, I stuck my head back in and started
>>>> reading. It was the same. The same tinkering with the
>>>> language, the same debates,...
>>
>> He's mistaken.  The topics have changed.  I follow it mostly because I
>> learn things.  How to do ANS multi-whiles and how to avoid wordlist
>> search-order problems with create-does>  are just two somewhat recent
>> examples.
>>
>
> Well, I think the topics have broadened slightly, but otherwise, in general
> at least, the topics are the same.  Why do I think that?  I search
> comp.lang.forth *alot* for information to use to implement aspects of my
> Forth interpreter.  I also search net.lang.forth.  Remember that?  Many of
> the topics today are the same as they were a decade ago, two decades ago,
> and almost three decades ago.  I see the same conversations with different
> people at a different time period with some being more accurate or in depth
> than others.  People are still having the exact same problems with Forth
> that they've always had.

Well, Forth is unique in a number of respects. People who come to it 
with a background in other languages and expect the same paradigms will 
inevitably encounter those unique features and be confused by them. The 
fact that c.l.f exists to help with these issues is a good thing, and 
there's no reason to be surprised or embarrassed that these features 
crop up in discussions repeatedly.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#9617

On Feb 17, 5:31 pm, Doug Hoffman <glide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/17/12 2:32 PM, Mentifex wrote:
>
> > Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post ...
>
> ...
>  >> In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
>
> >> A decade later, I stuck my head back in and started
> >> reading. It was the same. The same tinkering with the
> >> language, the same debates,...
>
> He's mistaken.  The topics have changed.  I follow it mostly because I
> learn things.  How to do ANS multi-whiles and how to avoid wordlist
> search-order problems with create-does> are just two somewhat recent
> examples.
>
> -Doug

It's a blog, describing his impressions, not a research paper. Most
often one sees what one is already predisposed to seeing.

Krishna

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

#9628

On 2/18/12 3:21 PM, Krishna Myneni wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:31 pm, Doug Hoffman<glide...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 2/17/12 2:32 PM, Mentifex wrote:
>>
>>> Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post ...
>>
>> ...
>>   >>  In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
>>
>>>> A decade later, I stuck my head back in and started
>>>> reading. It was the same. The same tinkering with the
>>>> language, the same debates,...
>>
>> He's mistaken.  The topics have changed.  I follow it mostly because I
>> learn things.  How to do ANS multi-whiles and how to avoid wordlist
>> search-order problems with create-does>  are just two somewhat recent
>> examples.
>>
>> -Doug
>
> It's a blog, describing his impressions, not a research paper. Most
> often one sees what one is already predisposed to seeing.

Yes.  I forgot to mention that one of the significant new (to me) things 
I've learned here recently includes Literate Programming, and 
specifically how to do it in Forth.

As others have mentioned, there will always be the repetitive questions 
from newbies.

-Doug

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

#9630

On Feb 19, 10:30 am, Doug Hoffman <glide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As others have mentioned, there will always be the repetitive
> questions from newbies.

Sure, and for that, most mature programming language communities have
FAQs or other references that can be used to address such questions.
The FAQ for comp.lang.forth that I see when I Googled for it was last
updated more than a decade ago and while it has some useful
information, most of the entries don't seem to have much relationship
to the actual frequently asked questions in comp.lang.forth.

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

#9606

On Feb 17, 12:32 pm, Mentifex <menti...@myuw.net> wrote:
>
> http://prog21.dadgum.com/123.html
> "Recovering From a Computer Science Education"

>> "Stay out of technical forums unless it's directly
>> relevant to something you're working on."

Ooh.

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

#9611

"Mentifex" <mentifex@myuw.net> wrote in message
news:8e4d1e51-06cc-4003-9530-6e11bb23c2e8@i10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post at
> [...]
> with the above title. I found it on Reddit, where
> [...]
> is the massive discussion he has sparked.
> In fair use I quote from his blogpost:
>
> > In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
> > Forth has great personal appeal. It's minimalist to the point
> > of being subversive, and Forth literature once crackled with
> > rightness.

I agree with him

See my reply to Mr. Doug Hoffman (on c.l.f).

> Somehow they got to him. Somehow they "turned" him.

Shouldn't you be quoting "they" instead of "turned" ...  ?

Why is it important that he turned, instead of who inspired it?  Shouldn't
"they" be "demonized" instead of "condeming" his act of "turning"?  It's as
if his newly found truth is a total betrayal to you.  What business is it of
yours to take a stake in the nature of his beliefs?  Shouldn't you be glad
he "sees" the truth now instead of being "blind"?

> Forth is a Gift.

Could you explain what you mean by that?  I.e., "Gift" in what way?
Biblical?  The words in Forth are without order or meaning until *you*
provide it.

I've programmed in over a dozen languages in my lifetime and there isn't one
that I'd remotely consider calling a gift ...  They all take work and time
to use or learn.  C is superb, but it's still flawed.

> Those who outgrow the Gift of Forth
> have lost the ablity to dream the Dream, to realize
> their nature as created in the Image and Likeness.

"Those who outgrow the Gift of Forth" - whatever that means - are either
1) no longer programming or 2) programming in some other language now
which they view as the "new" truth and "way".   So, from your perspective
that implies anyone who was never "possessed" by the "Gift of Forth", say
like a C programmer, never ever had "the ability to dream the Dream, to
realize their nature [...]."  Saying all non-Forth programmers are "without
form, and void" creatively is very offensive.  Don't we all have "free
will"?


Rod Pemberton
PS dropped comp.programming, comp.lang.misc.

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

#9616

On Feb 18, 2:28 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
wrote:
> "Mentifex" <menti...@myuw.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8e4d1e51-06cc-4003-9530-6e11bb23c2e8@i10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post at
> > [...]
> > with the above title. I found it on Reddit, where
> > [...]
> > is the massive discussion he has sparked.
> > In fair use I quote from his blogpost:
>
> > > In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
> > > Forth has great personal appeal. It's minimalist to the point
> > > of being subversive, and Forth literature once crackled with
> > > rightness.
>
> I agree with him
>
> See my reply to Mr. Doug Hoffman (on c.l.f).
>
> > Somehow they got to him. Somehow they "turned" him.
>
> Shouldn't you be quoting "they" instead of "turned" ...  ?

Yes, but then I would sound paranoid.
>
> Why is it important that he turned, instead of who inspired it?
> Shouldn't "they" be "demonized" instead of "condeming" his act
> of "turning"?

http://prog21.dadgum.com/57.html

is where the erstwhile Forther explains
why he does not allow blog-Comments:

> The negativity of online technical discussions
> makes me bitter, and even though I'm sometimes
> drawn to them I need to stay away.

I wanted to go ahead and Comment anyway, using
comp.lang.forth that _he_ was commenting about.
At the same time I want to act out my literary
ambitions by writing an enjoyable c.l.f post

> It's as if his newly found truth is a total
> betrayal to you.  What business is it of yours
> to take a stake in the nature of his beliefs?

None, I guess :-)

> Shouldn't you be glad he "sees" the truth now
> instead of being "blind"?

Yes, you're right.

>
> > Forth is a Gift.
>
> Could you explain what you mean by that?
> I.e., "Gift" in what way? Biblical?

I meant it in the sense of "the Gift of Faith".
Once you lose your Faith in God, you may not
get it back, because it was merely a gift.
Likewise, Netizens who lose their Faith
in Forth may not get it back :-(

> The words in Forth are without order or meaning
> until *you* provide it.

"How aweet it is :-)"
>
> I've programmed in over a dozen languages in
> my lifetime and there isn't one that I'd remotely
> consider calling a gift ...  They all take work and time
> to use or learn.  C is superb, but it's still flawed.

I would call REXX on the Amiga a gift. A program in
REXX could orchestrate the actions of many apps
on the multi-tasking Amiga.

>
> > Those who outgrow the Gift of Forth
> > have lost the ablity to dream the Dream, to realize
> > their nature as created in the Image and Likeness.
>
> "Those who outgrow the Gift of Forth" - whatever that means -
> are either 1) no longer programming or 2) programming in some
> other language now which they view as the "new" truth and "way".

You have a truly Divine way of expressing yourself :-)

> So, from your perspective that implies anyone who was
> never "possessed" by the "Gift of Forth", say like a C
> programmer, never ever had "the ability to dream the Dream,
> to realize their nature [...]."  Saying all non-Forth
> programmers are "without form, and void"

They are like the empty Universe where
in the Beginning was the Forthword; or:

http://www.nealstephenson.com/command

"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"

> creatively is very offensive.
> Don't we all have "free will"?

http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/FreeWill

yes -- as a function of our available knowledge.

>
> Rod Pemberton
> PS dropped comp.programming, comp.lang.misc.

Thank you for your enlightened opinions and ideas.

Arthur T. Murray

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

#9618

In article 
<59e870a4-a045-4a92-a641-38bea4b3acc3@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
 Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> wrote:

> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"

In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute 
octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.

See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".

Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've 
entered patches at least through the front panel.

-- 
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

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

#9622

Walter Bushell wrote:

> In article
> <59e870a4-a045-4a92-a641-38bea4b3acc3@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>  Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> wrote:
> 
>> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"
> 
> In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
> octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
>
> See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
> 
> Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
> entered patches at least through the front panel.

You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering iron 
to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;> 

When I graduated to switches (my first 6800 project) my codes were in hand 
crafted hex (about 4k of the stuff). Then we got to the ASR33 teletype and 
paper tape (when we got clever and wrote the names of progs on the leader). 
Also liked the way we could programme the magnetic core memory and carry it 
across the factory to plug it into the system that required it. 

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#9623

Am 19.02.2012 10:16, schrieb Paul E. Bennett:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <59e870a4-a045-4a92-a641-38bea4b3acc3@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>>   Mentifex<mentifex@myuw.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"
>>
>> In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
>> octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
>>
>> See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
>>
>> Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
>> entered patches at least through the front panel.
>
> You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering iron
> to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;>
>
> When I graduated to switches (my first 6800 project) my codes were in hand
> crafted hex (about 4k of the stuff). Then we got to the ASR33 teletype and
> paper tape (when we got clever and wrote the names of progs on the leader).
> Also liked the way we could programme the magnetic core memory and carry it
> across the factory to plug it into the system that required it.
>

You made my day, Pa!   :o)

Long-haired students like me tried to do motor control in Forth with a 
SYM-1 board. Admittedly life was easier for us, we didn't use flint 
stones any more.   :o)))

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

#9624

A. K. wrote:

> Am 19.02.2012 10:16, schrieb Paul E. Bennett:
>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <59e870a4-a045-4a92-a641-38bea4b3acc3@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>   Mentifex<mentifex@myuw.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"
>>>
>>> In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
>>> octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
>>>
>>> See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
>>>
>>> Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
>>> entered patches at least through the front panel.
>>
>> You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering
>> iron to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;>
>>
>> When I graduated to switches (my first 6800 project) my codes were in
>> hand crafted hex (about 4k of the stuff). Then we got to the ASR33
>> teletype and paper tape (when we got clever and wrote the names of progs
>> on the leader). Also liked the way we could programme the magnetic core
>> memory and carry it across the factory to plug it into the system that
>> required it.
>>
> 
> You made my day, Pa!   :o)
> 
> Long-haired students like me tried to do motor control in Forth with a
> SYM-1 board. Admittedly life was easier for us, we didn't use flint
> stones any more.   :o)))

Of each age, people become skilled in the tools they have available. When 
training the apprentices that come through my department I like to get them 
to experience some of the older tools as well so that they can really 
appreciate and properly evaluate the more modern ones.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#9626

On 2/19/12 7:47 AM, Paul E. Bennett wrote:


> Of each age, people become skilled in the tools they have available. When
> training the apprentices that come through my department I like to get them
> to experience some of the older tools as well so that they can really
> appreciate and properly evaluate the more modern ones.

You made them do calculations with slide rules?  That is cruel and 
unusual punishment!

-Doug

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

#9634

Doug Hoffman wrote:

> On 2/19/12 7:47 AM, Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> 
> 
>> Of each age, people become skilled in the tools they have available. When
>> training the apprentices that come through my department I like to get
>> them to experience some of the older tools as well so that they can
>> really appreciate and properly evaluate the more modern ones.
> 
> You made them do calculations with slide rules?  That is cruel and
> unusual punishment!

Try and get your youngsters in the habit of doing some mathematics in their 
head (just an approximation) so that they can at least check the detailed 
answer given by the possibly errant software. I also include some work with 
relay circuits and they get some time with simple PLC's as well. The tasks 
require that they also think about failure modes of what they are asked to 
control. They can eventually graduate to the modern tools like Eclipse and 
but from a much better grounded viewpoint.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#9636

On 2/20/12 4:43 PM, Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/12 7:47 AM, Paul E. Bennett wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Of each age, people become skilled in the tools they have available. When
>>> training the apprentices that come through my department I like to get
>>> them to experience some of the older tools as well so that they can
>>> really appreciate and properly evaluate the more modern ones.
>>
>> You made them do calculations with slide rules?  That is cruel and
>> unusual punishment!
>
> Try and get your youngsters in the habit of doing some mathematics in their
> head (just an approximation)

I agree that if there was any redeeming value to using a slide rule it 
was gaining the ability to mentally estimate.  I was an undergrad when 
the mass change to pocket calculators occurred.  At first we noticed 
that hour(s) of homework time was saved.  Manual (slide rule) 
calculation was slave labor, not a learning experience.  Then came the 
question of whether or not to allow calculators on tests.  It didn't 
take long for teachers to realize that by focusing on proper set-up of 
the equations and keeping the math trivial that students were learning 
what really mattered.

As for my kids, they are grown, educated, and working engineers.  The 
tools they used in college, such as Wolfram's Mathematica, were far 
superior to my lowly HP-35.  Along the way in their education I would 
often quiz them to see how the "system" was doing in teaching them. 
They weren't quite as good at estimating as I would have liked, but I 
believe they had a better understanding of the underlying math and 
physics than I did at their ages.

-Doug

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

#9655

Doug Hoffman wrote:

> As for my kids, they are grown, educated, and working engineers.  The
> tools they used in college, such as Wolfram's Mathematica, were far
> superior to my lowly HP-35.  Along the way in their education I would
> often quiz them to see how the "system" was doing in teaching them.
> They weren't quite as good at estimating as I would have liked, but I
> believe they had a better understanding of the underlying math and
> physics than I did at their ages.

If they get in the right ball-park then that is usually a good enough 
estimate.

One of my colleagues, who was for quite a while the chief engineer until his 
promotion, could perform quite complex calculations of cryogenic heat  
transfer loads in his head and be in the right ball-park. I don't claim to 
be that good but manage to get in the right ball-park on my electronic 
calculations. I manage to get the apprentices up to reasonable speed at this 
too. This sort of ability is useful when you are asked for a quick "out of 
thin air" figure for something in a topic you are dealing with. For some 
youngsters it is an un-discovered art.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#9625

In article <9qbt1bFureU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Walter Bushell wrote:
> 
> > In article
> > <59e870a4-a045-4a92-a641-38bea4b3acc3@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"
> > 
> > In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
> > octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
> >
> > See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
> > 
> > Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
> > entered patches at least through the front panel.
> 
> You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering iron 
> to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;> 
> 
> When I graduated to switches (my first 6800 project) my codes were in hand 
> crafted hex (about 4k of the stuff). Then we got to the ASR33 teletype and 
> paper tape (when we got clever and wrote the names of progs on the leader). 
> Also liked the way we could programme the magnetic core memory and carry it 
> across the factory to plug it into the system that required it.

What you had hex? We had to use octal for a confuser with 16 bit words.

Before that we had to multiply by rubbing sticks together.

-- 
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

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

#9627

Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <59e870a4-a045-4a92-a641-38bea4b3acc3@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Mentifex <mentifex@myuw.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"
> >
> > In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
> > octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
> >
> > See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
> >
> > Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
> > entered patches at least through the front panel.
>
> You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering iron
> to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;>

My first day on the job, they asked me to help change the fan belt on
a Burroughs B6700. I thought they were kidding, like sending the new
guy to get a long felt want from stores, but it turned out that there
was indeed a fan to circulate the warm air into the air conditioned
area, and it needed a fan belt because the fan had to be close to the
electronics but the electric motor driving it had to be further away
in the housing to avoid interference. P.M.Lawrence.

>
> When I graduated to switches (my first 6800 project) my codes were in hand
> crafted hex (about 4k of the stuff). Then we got to the ASR33 teletype and
> paper tape (when we got clever and wrote the names of progs on the leader).
> Also liked the way we could programme the magnetic core memory and carry it
> across the factory to plug it into the system that required it.
>
> --
> ********************************************************************
> Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
> Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
> Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
> ********************************************************************

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web