Groups > comp.lang.forth > #13246 > unrolled thread

doing exercises for starting forth, kinda discouraging, some are easy and some seem text not prepare me for....

Started by	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
First post	2012-06-25 14:09 -0700
Last post	2012-06-26 10:57 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 133 — 22 participants

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

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →

#14258

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2012-07-21 21:25 -0700
Message-ID	<7xa9ysl8w3.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
In reply to	#14180

> Gforth's cross compiler once worked under bigForth and iForth. ... 
> Anyways, it is possible to write a cross compiler in ANS Forth.

The gforth manual wasn't clear on how the cross compiler worked,
and I haven't yet tried figuring it out from the source code.  Does
it implement something like the ANS cross-compiler proposal?

>> I remember thinking the cross-compiling proposal for ANS Forth would
>> make this a lot easier.
> Then you could write your own Forth using a standard cross compiler.

Yes, that is the idea.  Something like eforth could then be completely
self-hosting, bootstrapped from any ANS compiler.

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

#14201

From	Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date	2012-07-20 04:04 -0500
Message-ID	<Rtudnf_3FI2mgpTNnZ2dnUVZ8j-dnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to	#14179

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> I don't really understand why this is a goal.  If your Forth could
>> build itself, why would you want to build it on some other Forth?  
> 
> To solve the chicken-vs-egg problem, I would have thought.

That's never been such a huge problem, IME.

Andrew.

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

#14223

From	"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com>
Date	2012-07-20 08:14 -1000
Message-ID	<WJCdnVHGCrBzApTNnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to	#14201

On 7/19/12 11:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>> I don't really understand why this is a goal.  If your Forth could
>>> build itself, why would you want to build it on some other Forth?
>>
>> To solve the chicken-vs-egg problem, I would have thought.
>
> That's never been such a huge problem, IME.

FORTH, Inc. Forths have been written in Forth since 1970, and we've 
never experienced a need to build in another Forth (nor, AFAIK, have any 
of our customers). I can't think why we would have such a need.

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]

#14236

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2012-07-21 01:28 -0700
Message-ID	<7xliidwm9h.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
In reply to	#14201

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>> If your Forth could build itself, why would you want to build it on
>>> some other Forth?
>> To solve the chicken-vs-egg problem, I would have thought.
> That's never been such a huge problem, IME.

Another reason might be that your Forth is a simple interpreter that you
want to self-host on a small computer for direct use on the target, but
for development purposes you want to also host it on a bigger computer
under a fancier Forth with more debugging stuff, an optimizing native
compiler, etc.

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

#14208

From	Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
Date	2012-07-20 15:02 +0000
Message-ID	<m7gsgf.3ih@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
In reply to	#14174

In article <AoSdnRyPuOGE15XNnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Andrew Haley  <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> In article <wbOdnWwHX40ca5rNnZ2dnUVZ8lSdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>> Andrew Haley  <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>> In article <ju7ifu02cet@enews2.newsguy.com>, WJ <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, the source code for ;S and ?BRANCH is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;s   ( R:w -- )              gforth  semis
>>>>>> ""The primitive compiled by @code{EXIT}.""
>>>>>> #ifdef NO_IP
>>>>>> INST_TAIL;
>>>>>> goto *(void *)w;
>>>>>> #else
>>>>>> SET_IP((Xt *)w);
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>>> condbranch(?branch,f --,f83  question_branch,
>>>>>> ,if (f==0) {
>>>>>> ,:
>>>>>>  0= dup 0=          \ !f f
>>>>>>  r> tuck cell+      \ !f branchoffset f IP+
>>>>>>  and -rot @ and or  \ f&IP+|!f&branch
>>>>>>  >r ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's some m4 in this, some Vmgen, some C, and some Forth.
>>>>>
>>>>>KISS
>>>>>
>>>>>(Keep it simple, stupid.)
>>>>
>>>> I can confirm that m4 is sometimes just the best solution for
>>>> a problem. To generate ciforth's I use m4 to massage assembler
>>>> files.
>>>
>>>Sure, but if your Forth was written in Forth you wouldn't have to do
>>>any of this stuff.
>>
>> A fair comparison would be to require that the result is a windows
>> executable, and the Forth code is acceptable to 4 Forth compilers on
>> Windows.
>> Then I definitely need a whole slew of m4 code.
>
>I don't really understand why this is a goal.  If your Forth could
>build itself, why would you want to build it on some other Forth?  I
>dont think I've ever heard of a Forth in Forth that builds itself on
>*any* Forth.

It was pretty easy to port ciforth to OSX. You would magically assume
that you already have your Forth on OSX in order to bootstrap it.
If you OTOH cross build the OSX Forth on a working MS Windows Forth
then you have to study the layout of the executables on OSX.
I use the built in knowledge of the OSX system tools.

No free lunch here.

>
>Andrew.

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]

#14217

From	Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date	2012-07-20 11:24 -0500
Message-ID	<XMGdnXdTEc3LG5TNnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to	#14208

Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> In article <AoSdnRyPuOGE15XNnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
> Andrew Haley  <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> In article <wbOdnWwHX40ca5rNnZ2dnUVZ8lSdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>> Andrew Haley  <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Sure, but if your Forth was written in Forth you wouldn't have to do
>>>>any of this stuff.
>>>
>>> A fair comparison would be to require that the result is a windows
>>> executable, and the Forth code is acceptable to 4 Forth compilers on
>>> Windows.
>>> Then I definitely need a whole slew of m4 code.
>>
>>I don't really understand why this is a goal.  If your Forth could
>>build itself, why would you want to build it on some other Forth?  I
>>dont think I've ever heard of a Forth in Forth that builds itself on
>>*any* Forth.
> 
> It was pretty easy to port ciforth to OSX. You would magically assume
> that you already have your Forth on OSX in order to bootstrap it.

Sure, you need your Forth running on something, but you only have to
do that once.  After that, you just cross-compile.

> If you OTOH cross build the OSX Forth on a working MS Windows Forth
> then you have to study the layout of the executables on OSX.
> I use the built in knowledge of the OSX system tools.

Oh yes, that's true, but once it's done you're free of those system
tools.  There are hybrid approaches such a using native assembler as a
bootstrap loader for a binary if the native formats are so truly
awful.  And, I grant you, they are not nice.

Andrew.

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

#14219

From	vandys@vsta.org
Date	2012-07-20 17:14 +0000
Message-ID	<a6ti0hF16kU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#14217

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> If you OTOH cross build the OSX Forth on a working MS Windows Forth
>> then you have to study the layout of the executables on OSX.
>> I use the built in knowledge of the OSX system tools.
> Oh yes, that's true, but once it's done you're free of those system
> tools.

Having dealt with targeting a.out, COFF, and ELF, my experience is that getting
a loadable executable is not that hard.  Symbol tables and debugging information
so that you can use the system's debug tools add a *lot* of complexity, and
these parts also tend to be the ones which churn with great regularity.

If you want your own self-hosted OS, be sure to look at GRUB.  The multiboot
header makes it trivial to build a bootable image.

-- 
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

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

#14220

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date	2012-07-20 19:45 +0200
Message-ID	<juc5fh$1tk$1@online.de>
In reply to	#14217

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Oh yes, that's true, but once it's done you're free of those system
> tools.  There are hybrid approaches such a using native assembler as a
> bootstrap loader for a binary if the native formats are so truly
> awful.  And, I grant you, they are not nice.

Indeed.  I used this approach in bigForth.  The loader is pretty small, 
and it's C (with a tiny amount of assembler left), but when I started 
this on the Atari ST, it was written in assembler (in Forth).  It also 
provides the Forth kernel with a few essential services like open a 
shared library and getting symbols out of that.

That way you can separate system specific parts from architecture 
specific parts, which makes porting easier.  As Andrew says, the native 
binary formats are all but nice, and I have something better to do than 
create them from Forth.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#13741

From	Arnold Snarb <asnarb@fdip.bad-monkeys.org>
Date	2012-07-09 17:42 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnjvm604.k3j.jenglish@eurydice.office.flightlab.com>
In reply to	#13682

Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> Arnold Snarb wrote:
>> Hugh Aguilar asked:
>> > Is the following statement true or false?
>> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
>> > intelligence."
>>
>> No.  The preceding statement is neither true nor false.
>>
>> Did I pass?
>
> Nope. They either do or they don't. True and false are the only
> possibilities.

There's a third possibility: the statement is meaningless.

> This is not a difficult intelligence test; there are
> only two possible answers, so guessing provides a good chance of
> success --- but your answer has no chance of success because it is
> impossible! Good job --- way to establish a baseline on intelligence!
>
> Maybe it would help if you guys knew that the word "average" means the
> mean --- the sum of the data values divided by the number of data.

What is the average color of all the socks in your sock drawer?
Is it larger or smaller than the average color of socks in the
general population?

Now the Stanford-Binet IQ test is reportedly designed to have a
normal distribution, so I'd say that only about half the people
on Earth have a below-average IQ.  But you didn't ask about IQ --
you asked about "intelligence".

I stand by my original answer.

--Arnold

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

#13749

From	Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com>
Date	2012-07-09 21:02 -0700
Message-ID	<ccb94f19-b47b-4fb6-af9d-d27b146de145@a34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13741

On Jul 9, 10:42 am, Arnold Snarb <asn...@fdip.bad-monkeys.org> wrote:
> Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > Arnold Snarb wrote:
> >> Hugh Aguilar asked:
> >> > Is the following statement true or false?
> >> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> >> > intelligence."
>
> >> No.  The preceding statement is neither true nor false.
>
> >> Did I pass?
>
> > Nope. They either do or they don't. True and false are the only
> > possibilities.
>
> There's a third possibility: the statement is meaningless.
>
> > This is not a difficult intelligence test; there are
> > only two possible answers, so guessing provides a good chance of
> > success --- but your answer has no chance of success because it is
> > impossible! Good job --- way to establish a baseline on intelligence!
>
> > Maybe it would help if you guys knew that the word "average" means the
> > mean --- the sum of the data values divided by the number of data.
>
> What is the average color of all the socks in your sock drawer?
> Is it larger or smaller than the average color of socks in the
> general population?

Well, a good argument can be made that "intelligence" is undefined.
This is what I was saying earlier, but only in regard to smart people.
I said that anything over 100 is good, but that I wouldn't give any
more meaning to it than that. There are a lot of ways to be smart
(your analogy with socks would have worked better if people had socks
other than white --- you should have said shirts instead), and no test
can reduce this to a number. I can't imagine an intelligence test
asking: "Did you invent the Forth language?" --- only one person on
the planet would answer that question correctly! On the other hand,
there is pretty much only one way to be dumb, and this can be tested
for. This is why I said previously that the I.Q. test was primarily
designed to quantify dumbness, and was never intended to test
intelligence. Nobody has ever said that a high I.Q. qualifies a person
for anything. The purpose of the test, was that a low I.Q. could
*disqualify* a person for various things. For example, the military
doesn't want morons on the battlefield because that is considered
unethical (McNamara tried this during the Vietnam War and was strongly
criticized, and the whole plan fell apart).

> Now the Stanford-Binet IQ test is reportedly designed to have a
> normal distribution, so I'd say that only about half the people
> on Earth have a below-average IQ.  But you didn't ask about IQ --
> you asked about "intelligence".

It is utter foolishness to "design" a test for a normal distribution.
The data is either normally distributed, or it conforms to some other
distribution. The data is what the data is --- the test must conform
to the data, not the data to the test. In the case of intelligence,
the data is obviously not normally distributed --- it has a steep
slope on the left side and a gradual slope on the right side. I know
that this is true just by thinking about the subject (my standard
procedure for all questions is to think about the subject inside my
head, and whatever I decide is true is the Truth, and nevermind what
the rest of the world says). This is why I said that taking an I.Q.
test is one of the dumber things that people do --- the only people
who do this are those who have already failed my intelligence test
(the true/false question I asked earlier) --- this Stanford-Binet I.Q.
test isn't very useful if it only samples people who are dumb as a box
of rocks (that is my term for people who fail my test).

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

#13688

From	jfong <jfong@ms4.hinet.net>
Date	2012-07-07 20:29 -0700
Message-ID	<91a813e8-47d3-48eb-835f-d1e2bb7b5218@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13594

> Hugh Aguilar wrote at 05JUL2012:
> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence.

True. According to bell curve, an average person just means an idiot.

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

#13690

From	Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com>
Date	2012-07-07 22:20 -0700
Message-ID	<118daf3d-6e51-4159-ae2a-83bd2329b063@h8g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13688

On Jul 7, 8:29 pm, jfong <jf...@ms4.hinet.net> wrote:
> > Hugh Aguilar wrote at 05JUL2012:
> > Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> > don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> > box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> > Is the following statement true or false?
> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> > intelligence.
>
> True. According to bell curve, an average person just means an idiot.

It is not a bell curve (normal distribution). It is steep on the left
side and gradual on the right side.

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

#13692

From	jfong <jfong@ms4.hinet.net>
Date	2012-07-07 23:26 -0700
Message-ID	<42a5686c-b843-40de-9faf-d291f860a55e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13690

Hugh Aguilar wrote at 08JUL2012 PM 01:20:03:
> On Jul 7, 8:29 pm, jfong <jf...@ms4.hinet.net> wrote:
> > > Hugh Aguilar wrote at 05JUL2012:
> > > Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> > > don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> > > box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> > > Is the following statement true or false?
> > > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> > > intelligence.
> >
> > True. According to bell curve, an average person just means an idiot.
> 
> It is not a bell curve (normal distribution). It is steep on the left
> side and gradual on the right side.

Yea, you are right. I forget the bell curve can only happen in nature. In a democracy society, those powerful "elected" idiots has more weight to influence the curve in a way to enhance their advantage.

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

#13722

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date	2012-07-09 01:01 +0200
Message-ID	<jtd3g7$5r4$1@online.de>
In reply to	#13692

jfong wrote:
> Yea, you are right. I forget the bell curve can only happen in nature.
> In a democracy society, those powerful "elected" idiots has more
> weight to influence the curve in a way to enhance their advantage.

Actually, as "average" is defined as 100 in IQ tests, and the tests are 
also normed for bell curve results and standard deviation of 15 or 16 
points (norming differs slightly here, 16 points means that 0/200 is 6 
sigma), the majority of the people on earth have an above-average IQ 
(i.e. >100), due to the Flynn effect (IQ rises, worldwide, over 
generations).  Only when the tests are normed, the average IQ divides 
the population into two pretty equal halves (statistically speaking).

However, the "population" is systematically distorted, by not testing 
severely demented patients; and for children, the IQ is relative to 
other children of the same age, not to the general population.  Given 
this distortion, the majority of the population has a below-100 IQ (not 
age-adjusted).  When you take this unadjusted IQ curve, it looks like 
what Hugh describes: not a bell curve, but something bent to the left.  
It's not because there are many idiots out there, it's because there are 
many children out there.

I've only done two sort-of IQ tests, one was as young child - the tester 
said "he's pretty advanced for three and a half" - to which my mother 
responded "he's two and a half".  The other was part of the check for 
military services, and I did score 100%.  Whatever that means in terms 
of IQ I have no idea ("result out of bound error"), but the tester 
explained us the Flynn effect:  The year before, only 5 persons scored 
100% (and I have no idea if that was in Munich, or all over German).  
The year I took the test, I was number 42 to score 100%, and it was 
quite late in that year.  The "number 42" makes it easy for me to 
remember that thing.  I later met a guy who scored 100% the next year, 
and he remembered to have a three-digit number of scoring 100%.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#13727

From	Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk>
Date	2012-07-09 00:54 -0700
Message-ID	<c11b3fd5-0ecc-4d55-bdfb-f9876bfc4c15@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13722

On Jul 9, 12:01 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> jfong wrote:
> > Yea, you are right. I forget the bell curve can only happen in nature.
> > In a democracy society, those powerful "elected" idiots has more
> > weight to influence the curve in a way to enhance their advantage.
>
> Actually, as "average" is defined as 100 in IQ tests, and the tests are
> also normed for bell curve results and standard deviation of 15 or 16
> points (norming differs slightly here, 16 points means that 0/200 is 6
> sigma), the majority of the people on earth have an above-average IQ
> (i.e. >100), due to the Flynn effect (IQ rises, worldwide, over
> generations).  Only when the tests are normed, the average IQ divides
> the population into two pretty equal halves (statistically speaking).
>
> However, the "population" is systematically distorted, by not testing
> severely demented patients; and for children, the IQ is relative to
> other children of the same age, not to the general population.  Given
> this distortion, the majority of the population has a below-100 IQ (not
> age-adjusted).  When you take this unadjusted IQ curve, it looks like
> what Hugh describes: not a bell curve, but something bent to the left.
> It's not because there are many idiots out there, it's because there are
> many children out there.
>
> I've only done two sort-of IQ tests, one was as young child - the tester
> said "he's pretty advanced for three and a half" - to which my mother
> responded "he's two and a half".  The other was part of the check for
> military services, and I did score 100%.  Whatever that means in terms
> of IQ I have no idea ("result out of bound error"), but the tester
> explained us the Flynn effect:  The year before, only 5 persons scored
> 100% (and I have no idea if that was in Munich, or all over German).
> The year I took the test, I was number 42 to score 100%, and it was
> quite late in that year.  The "number 42" makes it easy for me to
> remember that thing.  I later met a guy who scored 100% the next year,
> and he remembered to have a three-digit number of scoring 100%.
>
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/

The number 42 is relevant, as any reader familiar with Douglas Adams
will attest.

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

#13806

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-07-10 21:13 -0700
Message-ID	<62f0fff4-8802-4ac0-a22e-cd0654d88f77@g4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13722

On Jul 8, 4:01 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> jfong wrote:
> > Yea, you are right. I forget the bell curve can only happen in nature.
> > In a democracy society, those powerful "elected" idiots has more
> > weight to influence the curve in a way to enhance their advantage.
>
> Actually, as "average" is defined as 100 in IQ tests, and the tests are
> also normed for bell curve results and standard deviation of 15 or 16
> points (norming differs slightly here, 16 points means that 0/200 is 6
> sigma), the majority of the people on earth have an above-average IQ
> (i.e. >100), due to the Flynn effect (IQ rises, worldwide, over
> generations).  Only when the tests are normed, the average IQ divides
> the population into two pretty equal halves (statistically speaking).
>
> However, the "population" is systematically distorted, by not testing
> severely demented patients; and for children, the IQ is relative to
> other children of the same age, not to the general population.  Given
> this distortion, the majority of the population has a below-100 IQ (not
> age-adjusted).  When you take this unadjusted IQ curve, it looks like
> what Hugh describes: not a bell curve, but something bent to the left.
> It's not because there are many idiots out there, it's because there are
> many children out there.
>
> I've only done two sort-of IQ tests, one was as young child - the tester
> said "he's pretty advanced for three and a half" - to which my mother
> responded "he's two and a half".  The other was part of the check for
> military services, and I did score 100%.  Whatever that means in terms
> of IQ I have no idea ("result out of bound error"), but the tester
> explained us the Flynn effect:  The year before, only 5 persons scored
> 100% (and I have no idea if that was in Munich, or all over German).
> The year I took the test, I was number 42 to score 100%, and it was
> quite late in that year.  The "number 42" makes it easy for me to
> remember that thing.  I later met a guy who scored 100% the next year,
> and he remembered to have a three-digit number of scoring 100%.
>
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://bernd-paysan.de/

I'd say you are smart if you made your own forth and chip.

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

#13317

From	"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm>
Date	2012-06-28 04:14 -0400
Message-ID	<jsh3m4$75i$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#13309

"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95d8b294-b341-4ff5-aaa5-a6f872ee0170@googlegroups.com...
...

<OT>

> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.

Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?

Are you part of some group that attempts to protect the integrity of the
word "genius"?

What vested interest could you possibly have in his claim?

Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying, but can't or won't
call them a liar?  And, just how do or would you know he is a liar?  Maybe
he is, or he truly believes he is a genius.

What's the frame of reference?  A guy of average intellect in a mental
institution could probably, legitimately, consider himself to be a genius.
A guy of slightly above average intellect in a prison ...  Etc.

His claim matters to him.  Getting others to accept the claim matters to
him.  Maybe he is.  Maybe he isn't.  Maybe he's insane.  Maybe he just needs
some attention.  Who really cares?

Even if someone here _could_ prove they're as brilliant as Albert Einstein,
no one here would believe it...  I'm not going to believe it.  You're
definately not...  So, what's the point in attempting to have him justify
his claim?

You have the choice of unconditionally accepting his claim, or
unconditionally rejecting it, or conditionally accepting it, or
conditionally rejecting it.  Proof is not required for your personal
decision or judgement.  Proof may change your decision, if it was
conditional.  But, once you've made your decision, is there any further
need to discuss his claim with him?


Rod Pemberton

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

#13333

From	marko <marko@marko.marko>
Date	2012-06-28 21:08 +1000
Message-ID	<4fec3b20$0$44724$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#13317

Rod Pemberton wrote:

> "John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:95d8b294-b341-4ff5-aaa5-a6f872ee0170@googlegroups.com...
> ...
> 
> <OT>
> 
>> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.
> 
> Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
> 
> Are you part of some group that attempts to protect the integrity of the
> word "genius"?
> 
> What vested interest could you possibly have in his claim?
> 
> Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying, but can't or
> won't
> call them a liar?  And, just how do or would you know he is a liar?  Maybe
> he is, or he truly believes he is a genius.
> 
> What's the frame of reference?  A guy of average intellect in a mental
> institution could probably, legitimately, consider himself to be a genius.
> A guy of slightly above average intellect in a prison ...  Etc.
> 
> His claim matters to him.  Getting others to accept the claim matters to
> him.  Maybe he is.  Maybe he isn't.  Maybe he's insane.  Maybe he just
> needs
> some attention.  Who really cares?
> 
> Even if someone here _could_ prove they're as brilliant as Albert
> Einstein,
> no one here would believe it...  I'm not going to believe it.  You're
> definately not...  So, what's the point in attempting to have him justify
> his claim?
> 
> You have the choice of unconditionally accepting his claim, or
> unconditionally rejecting it, or conditionally accepting it, or
> conditionally rejecting it.  Proof is not required for your personal
> decision or judgement.  Proof may change your decision, if it was
> conditional.  But, once you've made your decision, is there any further
> need to discuss his claim with him?
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton


My guess would be flash-backs to 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/fdb1917d6ee1c8cb

6 years later and we are possibly making a start on forth.  Every group is 
the same, bodybuilding groups consider gavin scheutte a troll, even the 
geodesic dome group from 1997 thought the same.  I can't find a positive 
reference to gav_comedy or any of the aliases.

Links available if you want them, this is serial behaviour.  

I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has 
been legendary, with little payoff.  

Ball is *still* in your court gavino.  I'm not convince you "get it" at all.

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

#13375

From	quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2012-06-29 14:04 -0700
Message-ID	<3ed6f0e6-5609-4d67-9c8f-0f8d512e346c@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#13333

On Jun 28, 4:08 am, marko <ma...@marko.marko> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > "John Passaniti" <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:95d8b294-b341-4ff5-aaa5-a6f872ee0170@googlegroups.com...
> > ...
>
> > <OT>
>
> >> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.
>
> > Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
>
> > Are you part of some group that attempts to protect the integrity of the
> > word "genius"?
>
> > What vested interest could you possibly have in his claim?
>
> > Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying, but can't or
> > won't
> > call them a liar?  And, just how do or would you know he is a liar?  Maybe
> > he is, or he truly believes he is a genius.
>
> > What's the frame of reference?  A guy of average intellect in a mental
> > institution could probably, legitimately, consider himself to be a genius.
> > A guy of slightly above average intellect in a prison ...  Etc.
>
> > His claim matters to him.  Getting others to accept the claim matters to
> > him.  Maybe he is.  Maybe he isn't.  Maybe he's insane.  Maybe he just
> > needs
> > some attention.  Who really cares?
>
> > Even if someone here _could_ prove they're as brilliant as Albert
> > Einstein,
> > no one here would believe it...  I'm not going to believe it.  You're
> > definately not...  So, what's the point in attempting to have him justify
> > his claim?
>
> > You have the choice of unconditionally accepting his claim, or
> > unconditionally rejecting it, or conditionally accepting it, or
> > conditionally rejecting it.  Proof is not required for your personal
> > decision or judgement.  Proof may change your decision, if it was
> > conditional.  But, once you've made your decision, is there any further
> > need to discuss his claim with him?
>
> > Rod Pemberton
>
> My guess would be flash-backs to 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/f...
>
> 6 years later and we are possibly making a start on forth.  Every group is
> the same, bodybuilding groups consider gavin scheutte a troll, even the
> geodesic dome group from 1997 thought the same.  I can't find a positive
> reference to gav_comedy or any of the aliases.
>
> Links available if you want them, this is serial behaviour.
>
> I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has
> been legendary, with little payoff.
>
> Ball is *still* in your court gavino.  I'm not convince you "get it" at all.

What are you babbling about?

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

#13387

From	"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com>
Date	2012-06-29 12:20 -1000
Message-ID	<o4-dnfZmRcjft3PSnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to	#13375

On 6/29/12 11:04 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:08 am, marko <ma...@marko.marko> wrote:
...
>> I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has
>> been legendary, with little payoff.
>>
>> Ball is *still* in your court gavino.  I'm not convince you "get it" at all.
>
> What are you babbling about?
>

He means he's looking forward to seeing that you are actually working 
through one of the books on Forth and learning how to use it 
effectively. So am I.

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]

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →

csiph-web

doing exercises for starting forth, kinda discouraging, some are easy and some seem text not prepare me for....

Contents

#14258

#14201

#14223

#14236

#14208

#14217

#14219

#14220

#13741

#13749

#13688

#13690

#13692

#13722

#13727

#13806

#13317

#13333

#13375

#13387