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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #12813 > unrolled thread

Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data

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

Contents

  Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-08 21:53 -0400
    Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-06-08 22:07 -0400
    Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-08 16:29 -1000
      Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-08 17:09 -1000
        Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-09 06:45 -0400
          Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-09 06:44 -1000
            Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-11 21:42 -0400
              Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-11 17:57 -1000
                Re: high-level CMOVE> was [Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-12 04:26 -0400
          Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-06-09 22:02 +0200
            Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-09 20:17 -0400
              Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-06-10 02:34 +0200
                Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-06-10 22:34 +0200
                  Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-10 18:18 -0400
                    Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-06-11 02:34 +0200
                    Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-06-11 22:16 +0200
                      Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-11 20:32 -0400
                        Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-11 14:55 -1000
                        Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-06-12 11:01 +0000
                        Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-12 04:58 -0700
                          Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data rugxulo@gmail.com - 2012-06-12 08:21 -0700
                            Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-06-12 10:55 -0500
                            Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-12 09:22 -0700
                              Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data rugxulo@gmail.com - 2012-06-12 11:57 -0700
                                Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-12 14:31 -0700
                                  Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data rugxulo@gmail.com - 2012-06-12 17:43 -0700
                                    Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-12 23:41 -0700
                              Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-13 00:02 -0400
                                Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-12 23:25 -0700
                                  Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-06-22 16:50 -0400
                                    Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-06-23 01:08 +0200
                                    Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data rugxulo@gmail.com - 2012-06-24 05:12 -0700
                                      Re: why certain Forth's are easier to use, was [Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-06-24 18:45 -0400
                                        Re: why certain Forth's are easier to use, was [Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-24 14:03 -1000
                          Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-12 23:59 -0400
                            Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-12 23:29 -0700
                        Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-06-12 22:02 +0200
              Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-06-10 05:34 -0400
      Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailntt.cmm> - 2012-06-09 06:44 -0400
        Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-06-12 18:49 -0700
          Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-06-13 08:32 +0000
            Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-06-13 03:53 -0500
      Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-06-10 11:47 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#12930

Hi,

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:58:46 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote:
> On Jun 12, 1:32 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
> wrote:
> > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> >
> > news:jr5jni$3p6$1@online.de...> Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > > > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> > > >> Me, too.  Maybe blanking out the non-relevant parts as you do
> > > >> would be an easier clue to the Rod Pembertons...
> >
> > > > Why should you need to provide clues?
> >
> > > Because apparently you fail to identify the currently provided clues.
> >
> > Ok, I'm ignoring your apparently intentional failure to comprehend that you
> > implemented DUMP retardedly.  The point remains open: Why should you need to
> > provide clues for anyone?  Why should anyone have to spend ANY time figuring
> > out how a hex dump works?  Hex dumps haven't changed in 30+ years.  When
> > implemented correctly, they're so simple that _anyone_ can understand them.
> > So, why isn't yours implemented correctly?
> >
> > Rod Pemberton
> 
> As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
> systems in my time,

Which ones?

> I can tell you categorically that your assertion
> that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
> plain wrong.

Not "wrong", per se, just different than your experience and preference (apparently).

> And silly;

What the French, toast?

> your posts indicate that you have way less
> than 30+ years of experience,

So? (Why so confrontational?) Sounds a bit condescending. I realize he disagreed a bit with someone else who may be more experienced, but that doesn't mean we have to belittle him. He sure has more experience than I do, at least.

> and very little, if any, spent reading
> dumps.

Please post a textual screen cap or two if you want to clarify, otherwise it's moot.

> When your dump code is written, how will you react when I take the
> opportunity to complain that it's retarded and incorrectly implemented?

You're just stoking the fires here, I don't see the point. His wasn't that offensive a comment, why are you taking it so personally? It's just an opinion.

news://comp.lang.forth is a very active group, but it's a bit sad to see people sometimes jump the gun to yell at others here, esp. the ones who post the most frequently. Again, not to be too cheeky, but "can't we all just get along??"

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

#12931

rugxulo@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:58:46 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 1:32?am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
>> wrote:
>> > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:jr5jni$3p6$1@online.de...> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> >
>> > > > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>> > > >> Me, too. ?Maybe blanking out the non-relevant parts as you do
>> > > >> would be an easier clue to the Rod Pembertons...
>> >
>> > > > Why should you need to provide clues?
>> >
>> > > Because apparently you fail to identify the currently provided clues.
>> >
>> > Ok, I'm ignoring your apparently intentional failure to
>> > comprehend that you implemented DUMP retardedly. ?The point
>> > remains open: Why should you need to provide clues for anyone?
>> > ?Why should anyone have to spend ANY time figuring out how a hex
>> > dump works? ?Hex dumps haven't changed in 30+ years. ?When
>> > implemented correctly, they're so simple that _anyone_ can
>> > understand them.  So, why isn't yours implemented correctly?
>> 
>> I can tell you categorically that your assertion that dumps have
>> always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is plain wrong.
> 
> Not "wrong", per se, just different than your experience and
> preference (apparently).

It's a response to a categorical statement: "you implemented DUMP
retardedly... Hex dumps haven't changed in 30+ years."  So yes, it's
wrong if there exists one DUMP that acts differently.

>> your posts indicate that you have way less than 30+ years of
>> experience,
> 
> So? (Why so confrontational?)

Again, it's a response to a categorical statement.

>> When your dump code is written, how will you react when I take the
>> opportunity to complain that it's retarded and incorrectly implemented?
> 
> You're just stoking the fires here, I don't see the point. His
> wasn't that offensive a comment

I think you need to read it again.

Andrew.

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

#12932

On Jun 12, 4:21 pm, rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:58:46 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 1:32 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
> > wrote:
> > > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>
> > >news:jr5jni$3p6$1@online.de...> Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> > > > > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> > > > >> Me, too.  Maybe blanking out the non-relevant parts as you do
> > > > >> would be an easier clue to the Rod Pembertons...
>
> > > > > Why should you need to provide clues?
>
> > > > Because apparently you fail to identify the currently provided clues.
>
> > > Ok, I'm ignoring your apparently intentional failure to comprehend that you
> > > implemented DUMP retardedly.  The point remains open: Why should you need to
> > > provide clues for anyone?  Why should anyone have to spend ANY time figuring
> > > out how a hex dump works?  Hex dumps haven't changed in 30+ years.  When
> > > implemented correctly, they're so simple that _anyone_ can understand them.
> > > So, why isn't yours implemented correctly?
>
> > > Rod Pemberton
>
> > As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
> > systems in my time,
>
> Which ones?

In time order (as I remember) EMAS, VME, George3, MVT, MVS (CICS,
VTAM, TSO), (...passage of time...) dump as implemented in
Win32Forth...

>
> > I can tell you categorically that your assertion
> > that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
> > plain wrong.
>
> Not "wrong", per se, just different than your experience and preference (apparently).

I'm not trying to hair split here, but Rod's assertion that "Hex dumps
haven't changed in 30+ years" is plain wrong. They have, and they
weren't as he "remembers".

>
> > And silly;
>
> What the French, toast?
>
> > your posts indicate that you have way less
> > than 30+ years of experience,
>
> So? (Why so confrontational?) Sounds a bit condescending. I realize he disagreed a bit with someone else who may be more experienced, but that doesn't mean we have to belittle him. He sure has more experience than I do, at least.

I presume to say "X hasn't changed in Y years" if I've been using X
for Y years and if I have evidence. Rod appears to be able to
extrapolate beyond his experience and the evidence too; it's not
belittling to suggest it's silly to make stuff up. Describing Bernd's
dump output as "retarded" is plain rude.

>
> > and very little, if any, spent reading
> > dumps.
>
> Please post a textual screen cap or two if you want to clarify, otherwise it's moot.

Screen caps of Rod not reading a dump? Ask him for one. Or do you mean
this: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/topic/com.ibm.zos.r12.idar100/da6r1008.gif

>
> > When your dump code is written, how will you react when I take the
> > opportunity to complain that it's retarded and incorrectly implemented?
>
> You're just stoking the fires here, I don't see the point. His wasn't that offensive a comment, why are you taking it so personally? It's just an opinion.
>
> news://comp.lang.forth is a very active group, but it's a bit sad to see people sometimes jump the gun to yell at others here, esp. the ones who post the most frequently. Again, not to be too cheeky, but "can't we all just get along??"

Of course. Perhaps you can help me out here; how would you have
responded to the assertion that "dumps haven't changed in 30+ years"
or that *your code is "retarded" and "incorrectly implemented"? Have
we lost the right to call this out?

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

#12936

Hi,

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:22:03 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote:
> On Jun 12, 4:21 pm, rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
> > > systems in my time,
> >
> > Which ones?
> 
> In time order (as I remember) EMAS, VME, George3, MVT, MVS (CICS,
> VTAM, TSO), (...passage of time...) dump as implemented in
> Win32Forth...
 
Thanks, I just wanted to clarify specifically for reference, so somebody would know for sure. (Though I've never heard of most of those!)

> > > I can tell you categorically that your assertion
> > > that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
> > > plain wrong.
> >
> > Not "wrong", per se, just different than your experience and preference (apparently).
> 
> I'm not trying to hair split here, but Rod's assertion that "Hex dumps
> haven't changed in 30+ years" is plain wrong. They have, and they
> weren't as he "remembers".

A lot has changed in 30 years. Almost nothing is the same anymore. It doesn't necessarily mean there isn't some vaguely common way of doing things. Anyways, as a side note, I'll be 33 next month, so clearly I don't have 30+ years of experience.   ;-)

> > > your posts indicate that you have way less
> > > than 30+ years of experience,
> >
> > So? (Why so confrontational?) Sounds a bit condescending. I realize he disagreed a bit with someone else who may be more experienced, but that doesn't mean we have to belittle him. He sure has more experience than I do, at least.
> 
> I presume to say "X hasn't changed in Y years" if I've been using X
> for Y years and if I have evidence. Rod appears to be able to
> extrapolate beyond his experience and the evidence too; it's not
> belittling to suggest it's silly to make stuff up. Describing Bernd's
> dump output as "retarded" is plain rude.
 
Throwing around that "I have xyz experience that you clearly don't have" is very condescending. And while "retarded" isn't exactly politically correct either, it's very common U.S. slang and doesn't have the weight you seem to imply (even if some few hate it). Besides, to be honest, calling someone's *code* "retarded" is not a personal attack. Code and person are separate entities. It's fine to constructively criticize, but constantly pointing out flaws is a bit unwanted.

(And there was one guy here recently whom I remember called Rod P. "sexist" and maybe "racist" too. Was that you? Are you holding a grudge? Sheesh, it's just so overblown, why do people get so angry online? Why is everything so personal to them? Why so much oversensitivity and personal attacks and senseless arguments? Let's not pretend we can "diagnose" everybody's life flaws online, shall we?)

BTW, I'm not immune (nor is uber-famous Linus Torvalds) to calling someone or something "braindead" on occasion, but admittedly it's a bit impolite (and any implied cheekiness / joking mentality is often lost in plain text). I know it's dumb and immature, but (weird example) saying, "Whoever wrote such and such is a lame bastard and should be dragged out into the street and shot" isn't being literal, it's just saying (crudely) that we disagree with them.

> > > and very little, if any, spent reading
> > > dumps.
> >
> > Please post a textual screen cap or two if you want to clarify, otherwise it's moot.
> 
> Screen caps of Rod not reading a dump? Ask him for one. Or do you mean
> this: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/topic/com.ibm.zos.r12.idar100/da6r1008.gif

Yes. It's easier to literally show somebody a dump than randomly say, "It exists ... somewhere."

> > > When your dump code is written, how will you react when I take the
> > > opportunity to complain that it's retarded and incorrectly implemented?

You'd probably be correct! I've written a very minimal dump program in assembly (badly) once or twice, never got around to fixing it. I don't mind being told my code "sucks" because it does! Of course, it's always more constructive to say, "I'd prefer if you did it like this, and here's an example."

> > You're just stoking the fires here, I don't see the point. His wasn't that offensive a comment, why are you taking it so personally? It's just an opinion.
> >
> > news://comp.lang.forth is a very active group, but it's a bit sad to see people sometimes jump the gun to yell at others here, esp. the ones who post the most frequently. Again, not to be too cheeky, but "can't we all just get along??"
> 
> Of course. Perhaps you can help me out here; how would you have
> responded to the assertion that "dumps haven't changed in 30+ years"

1). "That's, like, your opinion, man."
2). "So?"
3). "Not really, but who cares."
4). "Okay."
5). "Here's some examples that say otherwise."

> or that *your code is "retarded" and "incorrectly implemented"? Have
> we lost the right to call this out?

It's pointless. There's no reason to argue every little tiny detail. Sure, we're all nerds who focus on minute details, but it really doesn't matter sometimes, e.g. where to put the comment or how to indent the file or line length or other boring bagatela. Just because he says something "sucks" doesn't mean you have to rip him a new one. It may not be the most expressive phrase, but it's far from criminal libel, is it? Lighten up (as I keep telling myself these days).

Q). "How many Forth programmers does it take to change a light bulb?"
A1). "They're too busy arguing over stack comments."
A2). "They can't decide whether to INVERT or NEGATE."
A3). (classic answer) "None, that's a hardware problem."

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

#12943

On Jun 12, 7:57 pm, rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:22:03 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 4:21 pm, rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
> > > > systems in my time,
>
> > > Which ones?
>
> > In time order (as I remember) EMAS, VME, George3, MVT, MVS (CICS,
> > VTAM, TSO), (...passage of time...) dump as implemented in
> > Win32Forth...
>
> Thanks, I just wanted to clarify specifically for reference, so somebody would know for sure. (Though I've never heard of most of those!)
>
> > > > I can tell you categorically that your assertion
> > > > that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
> > > > plain wrong.
>
> > > Not "wrong", per se, just different than your experience and preference (apparently).
>
> > I'm not trying to hair split here, but Rod's assertion that "Hex dumps
> > haven't changed in 30+ years" is plain wrong. They have, and they
> > weren't as he "remembers".
>
> A lot has changed in 30 years. Almost nothing is the same anymore. It doesn't necessarily mean there isn't some vaguely common way of doing things. Anyways, as a side note, I'll be 33 next month, so clearly I don't have 30+ years of experience.   ;-)
>
> > > > your posts indicate that you have way less
> > > > than 30+ years of experience,
>
> > > So? (Why so confrontational?) Sounds a bit condescending. I realize he disagreed a bit with someone else who may be more experienced, but that doesn't mean we have to belittle him. He sure has more experience than I do, at least.
>
> > I presume to say "X hasn't changed in Y years" if I've been using X
> > for Y years and if I have evidence. Rod appears to be able to
> > extrapolate beyond his experience and the evidence too; it's not
> > belittling to suggest it's silly to make stuff up. Describing Bernd's
> > dump output as "retarded" is plain rude.
>
> Throwing around that "I have xyz experience that you clearly don't have" is very condescending. And while "retarded" isn't exactly politically correct either, it's very common U.S. slang and doesn't have the weight you seem to imply (even if some few hate it). Besides, to be honest, calling someone's *code* "retarded" is not a personal attack. Code and person are separate entities. It's fine to constructively criticize, but constantly pointing out flaws is a bit unwanted.

Please fix your newsreader; you are sending excessively long lines.

<quote>
As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
systems in my time, I can tell you categorically that your assertion
that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
plain wrong. And silly; your posts indicate that you have way less
than 30+ years of experience, and very little, if any, spent reading
dumps.
</quote>

To paraphrase accurately; "You [Rod] don't have 30+ years experience.
That's a silly claim to make". Which is not a personal attack; it's an
accurate observation, unlike "retarded".

>
> (And there was one guy here recently whom I remember called Rod P. "sexist" and maybe "racist" too. Was that you? Are you holding a grudge? Sheesh, it's just so overblown, why do people get so angry online? Why is everything so personal to them? Why so much oversensitivity and personal attacks and senseless arguments? Let's not pretend we can "diagnose" everybody's life flaws online, shall we?)

No, that wasn't me, so your observations are entirely misdirected and
inappropriate.

>
> BTW, I'm not immune (nor is uber-famous Linus Torvalds) to calling someone or something "braindead" on occasion, but admittedly it's a bit impolite (and any implied cheekiness / joking mentality is often lost in plain text). I know it's dumb and immature, but (weird example) saying, "Whoever wrote such and such is a lame bastard and should be dragged out into the street and shot" isn't being literal, it's just saying (crudely) that we disagree with them.

Then don't be so crude; the fault lies with you, not me.

>
> > > > and very little, if any, spent reading
> > > > dumps.
>
> > > Please post a textual screen cap or two if you want to clarify, otherwise it's moot.
>
> > Screen caps of Rod not reading a dump? Ask him for one. Or do you mean
> > this:http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/topic/com.ibm.zos....
>
> Yes. It's easier to literally show somebody a dump than randomly say, "It exists ... somewhere."
>
> > > > When your dump code is written, how will you react when I take the
> > > > opportunity to complain that it's retarded and incorrectly implemented?
>
> You'd probably be correct! I've written a very minimal dump program in assembly (badly) once or twice, never got around to fixing it. I don't mind being told my code "sucks" because it does! Of course, it's always more constructive to say, "I'd prefer if you did it like this, and here's an example."
>
> > > You're just stoking the fires here, I don't see the point. His wasn't that offensive a comment, why are you taking it so personally? It's just an opinion.
>
> > > news://comp.lang.forth is a very active group, but it's a bit sad to see people sometimes jump the gun to yell at others here, esp. the ones who post the most frequently. Again, not to be too cheeky, but "can't we all just get along??"
>
> > Of course. Perhaps you can help me out here; how would you have
> > responded to the assertion that "dumps haven't changed in 30+ years"
>
> 1). "That's, like, your opinion, man."
> 2). "So?"
> 3). "Not really, but who cares."
> 4). "Okay."
> 5). "Here's some examples that say otherwise."
>

Only the latter is worth posting; the rest are inaccurate or noise.


> > or that *your code is "retarded" and "incorrectly implemented"? Have
> > we lost the right to call this out?
>
> It's pointless. There's no reason to argue every little tiny detail. Sure, we're all nerds who focus on minute details, but it really doesn't matter sometimes, e.g. where to put the comment or how to indent the file or line length or other boring bagatela. Just because he says something "sucks" doesn't mean you have to rip him a new one. It may not be the most expressive phrase, but it's far from criminal libel, is it? Lighten up (as I keep telling myself these days).

Based on your choosing to respond to me, I'd say you're a long way
from "lightening up" since the topic seems to have niggled you
considerably.

>
> Q). "How many Forth programmers does it take to change a light bulb?"
> A1). "They're too busy arguing over stack comments."
> A2). "They can't decide whether to INVERT or NEGATE."
> A3). (classic answer) "None, that's a hardware problem."

Your point is?

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

#12948

Hi,

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:31:18 PM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:57 pm, rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Please fix your newsreader; you are sending excessively long lines.

No.
 
> <quote>
> As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
> systems in my time, I can tell you categorically that your assertion
> that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
> plain wrong. And silly; your posts indicate that you have way less
> than 30+ years of experience, and very little, if any, spent reading
> dumps.
> </quote>
> 
> To paraphrase accurately; "You [Rod] don't have 30+ years experience.
> That's a silly claim to make". Which is not a personal attack; it's an
> accurate observation, unlike "retarded".
 
"You're wrong, silly, and have way less experience, judging from all your posts." Yeah, nothing passive aggressive about that.

You want an accurate observation? People in comp.lang.forth like getting riled up. They like being angry. They like arguing, and not in a good way. (But what's the point??) What fun it is reading this newsgroup sometimes (sigh).

> > (And there was one guy here recently whom I remember called Rod P. "sexist" and maybe "racist" too. Was that you? Are you holding a grudge? Sheesh, it's just so overblown, why do people get so angry online? Why is everything so personal to them? Why so much oversensitivity and personal attacks and senseless arguments? Let's not pretend we can "diagnose" everybody's life flaws online, shall we?)
> 
> No, that wasn't me, so your observations are entirely misdirected and
> inappropriate.

You're right, your obvious impertinence towards Rod was completely independent. Sue me for thinking that it was you holding a grudge (as I didn't think someone uninvolved emotionally would react so oddly). In fact, it was a completely different Alex (although you apparently did respond indirectly in the same thread several times). I guess I got my angry Alexs confused.

> > BTW, I'm not immune ... any implied cheekiness / joking mentality is often lost in plain text). I know it's dumb and immature, but ... isn't being literal, it's just saying (crudely) that we disagree with them.
> 
> Then don't be so crude; the fault lies with you, not me.

If a guy is crude and you get offended, who wins? But hey, you got me, I surrender, here's a sticker. Happy?

> > > Of course. Perhaps you can help me out here; how would you have
> > > responded to the assertion that "dumps haven't changed in 30+ years"
> >
> > 1). "That's, like, your opinion, man."
> > 2). "So?"
> > 3). "Not really, but who cares."
> > 4). "Okay."
> > 5). "Here's some examples that say otherwise."
>
> Only the latter is worth posting; the rest are inaccurate or noise.

Everything that is posted in this forum that isn't directly related to Forth programming is noise (e.g. arguments, insults, complaining).

> > > or that *your code is "retarded" and "incorrectly implemented"? Have
> > > we lost the right to call this out?
> >
> > It's pointless. There's no reason to argue every little tiny detail. ... Just because he says something "sucks" doesn't mean you have to rip him a new one. It may not be the most expressive phrase, but it's far from criminal libel, is it? Lighten up (as I keep telling myself these days).
> 
> Based on your choosing to respond to me, I'd say you're a long way
> from "lightening up" since the topic seems to have niggled you
> considerably.

No, I *love* seeing people called names, insulted, and the constant rude arguing. It's so fun, so productive. Here's the stack comment:  ( garbage -- garbage )

> > Q). "How many Forth programmers does it take to change a light bulb?"
> > A1). "They're too busy arguing over stack comments."
> > A2). "They can't decide whether to INVERT or NEGATE."
> > A3). (classic answer) "None, that's a hardware problem."
> 
> Your point is?

http://www.usccb.org/bible/proverbs/15

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

#12957

On Jun 13, 1:43 am, rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:31:18 PM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 7:57 pm, rugx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Please fix your newsreader; you are sending excessively long lines.
>
> No.

Then you'll have no objection if I snip the rest of your off-topic
post.

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

#12954

"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
news:46190bc2-31a2-4110-9a2c-
...

> Of course. Perhaps you can help me out here; how would you have
> responded to the assertion that "dumps haven't changed in 30+ years"
> or that *your code is "retarded" and "incorrectly implemented"? Have
> we lost the right to call this out?

No, you don't...  I'm the victim here.

Bernd Paysan called me RETARDED ("2ft in front of monitor")
and CLUELESS ("easier clue to the Rod Pembertons...").

Shouldn't you have used "the right to call this out" on him?  Where is your
verbal rape of Bernd?  You had two opportunities to rectify his insults.  I
held off responding to his insults until I determined they were intentional
and not an issue of him translating French or Chinese etc into English.

Don't I get "the right to call this out"?   When I did, you attacked me.
Good job!  Did you even read the entire thread first?

I just asked why his DUMP was so different from everything I've seen in over
3 decades.  There was *nothing* insulting in that.  He took offense and
insulted me, not once, but twice.  He seems to take offense at any mention
of bigForth issues.  After it was confirmed that his insults were
intentional and he failed to apologize for them, I insulted him.  That's
fair.  What other method do I have available for correcting his errant
behavior?  What you did to me wasn't.  You had no business responding in the
first place.  You didn't know the context.  If you had read the thread and
not jumped in in the middle, you'd have known that.  If you did know the
context, then you deserve to be harshly insulted too.


Rod Pemberton

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

#12955

On Jun 13, 5:02 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
wrote:
> "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46190bc2-31a2-4110-9a2c-
> ...
>
> > Of course. Perhaps you can help me out here; how would you have
> > responded to the assertion that "dumps haven't changed in 30+ years"
> > or that *your code is "retarded" and "incorrectly implemented"? Have
> > we lost the right to call this out?
>
> No, you don't...  I'm the victim here.
>
> Bernd Paysan called me RETARDED ("2ft in front of monitor")
> and CLUELESS ("easier clue to the Rod Pembertons...").

He called you neither.

You have a posting history where you post a bigForth bug report that
turns out not to be a bug, or in this case, failing to interpret the
output from a dump correctly. From Bernd's perspective 2ft in front of
his monitor, the problem you identified and described as a "wacked
out" dump format turned out to be the wetware 2ft in front of your
monitor when he asked for a bug report.

>
> Shouldn't you have used "the right to call this out" on him?  Where is your
> verbal rape of Bernd?  You had two opportunities to rectify his insults.  I
> held off responding to his insults until I determined they were intentional
> and not an issue of him translating French or Chinese etc into English.

Verbal rape? You'll be wanting a trial with a thesaurus as witness
next.

>
> Don't I get "the right to call this out"?   When I did, you attacked me.

Eh? Where did I attack you?

> Good job!  Did you even read the entire thread first?
>
> I just asked why his DUMP was so different from everything I've seen in over
> 3 decades.  There was *nothing* insulting in that.  He took offense and
> insulted me, not once, but twice.  He seems to take offense at any mention
> of bigForth issues.  After it was confirmed that his insults were
> intentional and he failed to apologize for them, I insulted him.  That's
> fair.  What other method do I have available for correcting his errant
> behavior?  What you did to me wasn't.  You had no business responding in the
> first place.

This is Usenet, so it is my business. I didn't "do" anything to you
apart from disagree.

> You didn't know the context.  If you had read the thread and
> not jumped in in the middle, you'd have known that.  If you did know the
> context, then you deserve to be harshly insulted too.
>
> Rod Pemberton

I do apologise for upsetting you by saying that your assertion was
silly. You were simply wrong, and I should have stuck to the facts.

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

#13184

"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
news:df09c1d6-a66f-431c-aac5-50a01b243e27@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 13, 5:02 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
> wrote:
> > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
> > news:46190bc2-31a2-4110-9a2c-
...

> > Bernd Paysan called me RETARDED ("2ft in front of monitor")
> > and CLUELESS ("easier clue to the Rod Pembertons...").
>
> He called you neither.

It's quoted directly above, in quotes, in parenthesis.  I met a guy on
Usenet a few years back who wouldn't read what was in parenthesis ... ever.
Is that you but using an alias?  You seem to have somewhat similar memory
and comprehension issues...  If not, why do you insist on portraying
yourself as a liar?  Everyone can read that.  Do those words mean something
entirely non-English to you?  I.e., is this a comprehension issue on your
part?

> You have a posting history where you post a bigForth bug report that
> turns out not to be a bug, [..]

History?  No...  What history?  I've only posted *ONE* bug complaint
regarding bigForth.  ONE!  Where do you conclude that's a "history" of
complaints about it?  Doesn't that require many more than one to be a
"history" of them?  Have you got me confused with someone else ... ?  It
rally seems like it.  Maybe you lumped some of the complaints by others here
about bigForth into your mental "RP file"...

Or, maybe you mistook my posted comparisons of Win32Forth, bigForth, and
gForth ITC to be complaints ... ?  Those happen to be free Forth's that run
in Windows.  It's easier to test them than use DOS versions of Forth.
That's why I post comparisons with them.  But, this even this assumption
forces me to speculate as to why you perceive me as having a "history" of
complaints about bigForth...  As I've stated, bigForth is much faster than
the other two and Win32Forth has some ANS compliance problems.

Technically, that one "bug" complaint wasn't a "bug" according to the ANS
specification.  But, it is very definately, a compatibility "bug" with
bigForth.  All other Forth's I've tested so far *DO NOT* work the way
bigForth works.  It causes a variety of Forth code from c.l.f. archives to
break.  One can argue, that such code is broken, i.e., non-ANS and that
bigForth isn't, but bigForth is definately in the minority...

> [...] or in this case, failing to interpret the
> output from a dump correctly.

Have you got me confused with someone else?  I did comprehend what wierdness
was going on with bigForth's DUMP.  I even stated so!  Where were you?
Saying I didn't, is a failure of you to comprehend or remember what you
read.  Him stating that I'm the problem is an insult.  DUMP is something so
trivial there is:

1) no need to do things wierdly,
2) should be no reason for it to require an explanation of how it works,
3) should not require someone to spend any time figuring it out,
4) should not cause people to laugh at the apparent stupidity of it, and
5) should not cause anyone should be confused by it.

This is clearly a design choice issue.  He said he inherited DUMP's
definition from the code base he used.

> [...] when he asked for a bug report.

No one was filing a bug report.  So, who cares if he asked for a bug report?
When asked to do so by him, I very clearly stated it wasn't a bug...  I.e.,
no bug report needed.  Why should anyone file a bug report for something
that is not a bug?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Did you not read the
thread?  I get the strong impression you ignored 97% of it.


Rod Pemberton

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

#13187

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> Have you got me confused with someone else?  I did comprehend what
> wierdness was going on with bigForth's DUMP.

I think you have a communication problem.  You said

> PS.  What is up with bigForth's wacked out DUMP?

I'm not a native English speaker, but my understanding of "wacked out" 
is synonymous to "go bananas".  I.e. in non-colloquial terms "totally 
uncomprehensible".

> Him stating that I'm the problem is an insult.

Well, I don't think bigForth's dump is totally uncomprehensible.  
Apparently it is for you.  I understand that the argument "I've been 
doing that for 30 years now, and you are the first to complain" is not a 
valid excuse.  Many stupid things have been done for centuries or 
millennias, and at some point, you should just stop being stupid.  
However, it's two-sided: My code is almost 30 years old, and you said, 
you haven't seen such a dump output in the last 30 years.

> This is clearly a design choice issue.  He said he inherited DUMP's
> definition from the code base he used.

Yes, I was not that unsatisfied with this DUMP.  If I was, I would have 
rewritten it.  I've certainly changed a little bit here and there, and 
so at least the things I didn't like are gone.

> When asked to do so by him, I very clearly stated it wasn't a bug... 
> I.e., no bug report needed.

Well, "wacked out" is strong enough to satisfy at least a "minor issue" 
tag in a bug report.  It isn't wrong, it doesn't crash, but it confused 
you.  Your argument that DUMP should not do something unusual, and that 
this is a design decision, has merits.  The assertion that something 
that looks unusual is "apparently stupid" and therefore laughable, 
doesn't.  That's your problem, not mine.

The "should not be unusual" argument is my problem, not yours.  As you 
said, most other Forths do it similar to each other, non-aligned, 
without the header line, and for the casual user of a Forth system who 
doesn't want to get in deeply, a dump should look similar, displaying 
the start address in the first line, 16 bytes per line, separated into 
bytes and groups of 8, and the ASCII subset behind.  It is ok to dump 
the last 16 bytes completely.

So fortunately, while you might think the code was stupid, it was well 
factored, and changing it to do what you want requires *only* to remove 
the header printing+alignment stuff (one screen commented out, one word 
no longer called).  As I have no deep feelings for that code, I just do 
that change.

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

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

#13211

Hi,

On Friday, June 22, 2012 3:50:25 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Alex McDonald" <b...@nospam.rivadpm.com> wrote in message
> news:df09c1d6-a66f-431c-aac5-50a01b243e27@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 13, 5:02 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
> > wrote:
> > > "Alex McDonald" <b...@nospam.rivadpm.com> wrote in message
> > > news:46190bc2-31a2-4110-9a2c-
> ...
> 
> > You have a posting history where you post a bigForth bug report that
> > turns out not to be a bug, [..]
> 
> History?  No...  What history?  I've only posted *ONE* bug complaint
> regarding bigForth.  ONE!  Where do you conclude that's a "history" of
> complaints about it?  Doesn't that require many more than one to be a
> "history" of them?


RIMMER: Constantly fails the exam?  I'd hardly call eleven times "constantly." I mean, if you eat roast beef eleven times in your life, one would hardly say that person constantly eats roast beef.  No, it would be a rare, nay, freak occurrence.


> Or, maybe you mistook my posted comparisons of Win32Forth, bigForth, and
> gForth ITC to be complaints ... ?  Those happen to be free Forth's that run
> in Windows.  It's easier to test them than use DOS versions of Forth.

Hmmm, how so? I know you run both OSes and tools quite often (or at least used to). There are lots of DOS Forths of varying quality and compliance. Heck, even BigForth has (had?) a DOS version, but it is probably still commercial. Though presumably since Bernd has run 64-bit OS since a few years, as he told me in an email once, I guess it's a bit much to expect he still concern himself with it. (Not even sure if it used DJGPP v1 or v2 as I think he called it "GO32", which usually means older v1. At least less old GForth 0.5.0 was v2. Okay, enough rambling ....)

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

#13227 — Re: why certain Forth's are easier to use, was [Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data]

<rugxulo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dcc33207-a702-454e-b5a1-07a61eb99020@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 3:50:25 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

<OT stuff moved to end>

> > Or, maybe you mistook my posted comparisons of Win32Forth,
> > bigForth, and gForth ITC to be complaints ... ?  Those happen to
> > be free Forth's that run in Windows.  It's easier to test them than
> > use DOS versions of Forth.
>
> Hmmm, how so?
>

There are a few reasons.

1) My collection of DOS Forth's are all in a big directory, organized.
But... I still have to list the directories, determine if the Forth is a
.com or .exe and determine which .com and .exe's aren't Forth.  Then, I
progressively run the found applications from a command prompt.  I don't use
them enough to remember their names or migrate all the applications to a
single directory and rename them.  For Windows, I've got three point and
click GUI icons, installed by the program's installer.  I could create
shortcuts for the DOS versions, but again, that's doing work for something
of low use.  So, since I haven't been annoyed enough to do so yet ...

2) The Windows Forth's are ANS or somewhat ANS.  ANS has a word, called
INCLUDED, which allows you to easily load normal text files of Forth code.
This allows for easier testing.  I think many of the older DOS Forth's are
block or screen based, but I haven't confirmed.  I.e., I'm not going to load
code via blocks or screens.  So, I'd have to type the code in by hand.  And,
since I've been coding my interpreter, I haven't yet determined if the other
Forth spec.'s provide a similar mechanism to INCLUDED or if the old Forth's
have a way to load files instead of blocks or screens.

3) The old DOS Forth's have a variety of quirks, functionality and naming
differences, and unsupported Forth words.  That's true even for Forths that
follow the early Forth standards (fig, 79, 83).  ANS Forth's are more
standard, or better at standard compliance.  That could be due to the ANS
standard, or that could be due to John Hayes' test-suite.  Since fig-Forth,
Forth-79, and Forth-83 were standards too, I suspect the latter, i.e., the
test-suite.  In fact, the old Forth's have a enough differences that I've
been testing them on a variety of issues and keeping the test results to
help ensure "typical behavior" for my interpreter.  I'm only about half-way
through testing the various issues I'm interested in.  I've posted some of
the results here in other threads.

> There are lots of DOS Forths of varying quality and compliance.

True.

> Heck, even BigForth has (had?) a DOS version, but it is probably still
> commercial. Though presumably since Bernd has run 64-bit OS since
> a few years, as he told me in an email once, I guess it's a bit much to
> expect he still concern himself with it. (Not even sure if it used DJGPP
> v1 or v2 as I think he called it "GO32", which usually means older v1.
> At least less old GForth 0.5.0 was v2. Okay, enough rambling ....)
...

> [...] as he told me in an email once [...]

Yeah, you shouldn't have mentioned that.  Now, I will wonder if you're a
just proxy for him on Forth related questions like this one...  Ha!  ;-)

> I know you run both OSes and tools quite often (or at least used to).

Yes.  Still do.

<OT>
A while back, my video card died.  It was about the last one you could've
bought that was supported by WinSE.  It's not available anymore.  I bought
one that I thought would still work with the last video drivers for that
chipset for WinSE, but it doesn't.  I might be able to pick up one other one
might work with WinSE or might not, but I'm debating doing so, i.e.,
preserve my main system/task the risk of spending more money on another
video card, or move on/upgrade Linux or perhaps WinXP etc.  So, now I'm
planning on rebuilding one computer, downgrading it to all fully WinSE
supported hardware, and building another that I've had parts for, for a few
years now, and adding the newer, WinSE incompatible, components to it...  I
intend to install Linux (yet again) on the "new" one.  Actually, I'd like
both a 32-bit and 64-bit Linux for testing purposes.  It's time to start
learning 64-bit x86.  It'll probably be VectorLinux, maybe Arch, maybe
SliTaz...  I won't be trying any of the other Linux's (...sounds wierd...
Linuxes?  Linai's?  Linace's?) that I've tried over the years (Redhat,
Slackware, Puppy, HiStar, Phlack, RIP, LFS, ...).  I've read some good stuff
on Ubuntu ...  WinSE *will not* boot from an external USB, even with NUSB
installed.  IIRC, the last time I installed VectorLinux, it didn't fully
boot via an external USB harddisk either.  AIR, it would boot from the USB,
but would hang somewhere in the boot process when accessing the USB after it
had been accessing it just fine for a while... :-(  But, IIRC, I got it to
boot from DOS using Loadlin.  So, I may still need a minimal DOS partition
or boot device, maybe a bootable USB stick, or floppy compact flash IDE
adapter...  Although, I did get that adapter for a different machine.
Hopefully, I'll be able to start checking how well some of my GCC code for
DJGPP compiles on Linux, which has been on the "to do" list for many years
now.
</OT>


> RIMMER: [...]

<OT>
By "rimmer", did you mean the sound of cymbal high hat, i.e., off the cymbal
rim, or a missed shot in basketball, i.e., off the basket rim, or was that a
reference to the character ("Constantly fails the exam?") on the obscure,
now decades old, TV show called Red Dwarf?  That character's name was a play
on the real meaning of that word.  He was an exceptional "kiss ass".  This
is what "rimmer" means (NSFW):

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rimmer

Wow, first Cheers! by that other guy, and now Red Dwarf by you...

What's next?  ... Fawlty Towers?  ... the A-team?  ... SuperFriends?  ...
Starsky & Hutch?  ... Dark Shadows?  ... Munsters?  ... Felix the Cat?  ...
Scooby Doo?  ... Are You Being Served? ... the Choad or T'nuk characters in
Tripping the Rift?  Etc.  I guess, sometimes you just need to look at things
backwards ... er, read ...  That won't explain Choad though.  It's on the
same website (still NSFW).  Yes, I can pull obscure TV shows
"out of the hat" too...
</OT>


Rod Pemberton

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

#13228 — Re: why certain Forth's are easier to use, was [Re: Hayes Core SEEBUF test - size of data]

On 6/24/12 12:45 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 3) The old DOS Forth's have a variety of quirks, functionality and naming
> differences, and unsupported Forth words.  That's true even for Forths that
> follow the early Forth standards (fig, 79, 83).  ANS Forth's are more
> standard, or better at standard compliance.  That could be due to the ANS
> standard, or that could be due to John Hayes' test-suite.  Since fig-Forth,
> Forth-79, and Forth-83 were standards too, I suspect the latter, i.e., the
> test-suite.  In fact, the old Forth's have a enough differences that I've
> been testing them on a variety of issues and keeping the test results to
> help ensure "typical behavior" for my interpreter.  I'm only about half-way
> through testing the various issues I'm interested in.  I've posted some of
> the results here in other threads.

Although the Hayes test suite is a tremendous asset, I think the main 
reason that ANS Forths are more consistently compliant is that the 
standard is just plain a better standard.

Both Forth83 and Forth79 were products of a couple of one- or two-day 
meetings consisting of a dozen or so people, whereas the Forth94 TC was 
the product of representatives from 40 organizations (ranging from small 
consultancies to IBM, Ford Motor Co., NIST, and other significant 
professional user organizations) plus a number of very experienced 
individual implementers and users, meeting 4x/year for 6 years. Neither 
Forth79 nor Forth83 attempted to standardize enough facilities to make a 
fully useful system. Count the number of words defined, the number of 
pages of pages of syntactic requirements, rationale, count anything you 
like, ANS Forth is simply a more thorough and more mature job.

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]

#12953

"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
news:b4663ce9-899b-4050-9d17-3fecf4de5a24@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 12, 1:32 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
> wrote:
> > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:jr5jni$3p6$1@online.de...
...

> > > Because apparently you fail to identify the currently provided clues.
> >
> > Ok, I'm ignoring your apparently intentional failure to comprehend that
> > you implemented DUMP retardedly. The point remains open: Why should
> > you need to provide clues for anyone? Why should anyone have to spend
> > ANY time figuring out how a hex dump works? Hex dumps haven't
> > changed in 30+ years. When implemented correctly, they're so simple
> > that _anyone_ can understand them.  So, why isn't yours implemented
> > correctly?
>
> As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
> systems in my time, I can tell you categorically that your assertion
> that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
> plain wrong.

Sorry, that doesn't correlate with my experience.  I have a wide range
of experience, from PCs to mainframes.

> And silly; your posts indicate that you have way less
> than 30+ years of experience,

Liar.  You don't know how much experience I have, but I have what I stated.

> and very little, if any, spent reading dumps.

I'd guess it's probably a few years worth of my life now ...

> When your dump code is written, how will you react when I take the
> opportunity to complain that it's retarded and incorrectly implemented?

Your reaction is out of context.  Go back and READ the ENTIRE thread,
which you clearly FAILED to do.

I'm was victim of multiple, intentional Bernd Paysan insults prior to my
retaliatory insults which were after he failed to apologize for his insults.


Rod Pemberton

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

#12956

On Jun 13, 4:59 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
wrote:
> "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b4663ce9-899b-4050-9d17-3fecf4de5a24@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...> On Jun 12, 1:32 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
> > wrote:
> > > "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> >news:jr5jni$3p6$1@online.de...
>
> ...
>
> > > > Because apparently you fail to identify the currently provided clues.
>
> > > Ok, I'm ignoring your apparently intentional failure to comprehend that
> > > you implemented DUMP retardedly. The point remains open: Why should
> > > you need to provide clues for anyone? Why should anyone have to spend
> > > ANY time figuring out how a hex dump works? Hex dumps haven't
> > > changed in 30+ years. When implemented correctly, they're so simple
> > > that _anyone_ can understand them.  So, why isn't yours implemented
> > > correctly?
>
> > As someone who has chewed over a fair few dumps from a variety of
> > systems in my time, I can tell you categorically that your assertion
> > that dumps have always been as you describe for the last 30+ years is
> > plain wrong.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't correlate with my experience.  I have a wide range
> of experience, from PCs to mainframes.

Ah well, we'll just have to put it down to the experience of not
seeing.

>
> > And silly; your posts indicate that you have way less
> > than 30+ years of experience,
>
> Liar.  You don't know how much experience I have, but I have what I stated.
>
> > and very little, if any, spent reading dumps.
>
> I'd guess it's probably a few years worth of my life now ...
>
> > When your dump code is written, how will you react when I take the
> > opportunity to complain that it's retarded and incorrectly implemented?
>
> Your reaction is out of context.  Go back and READ the ENTIRE thread,
> which you clearly FAILED to do.
>
> I'm was victim of multiple, intentional Bernd Paysan insults prior to my
> retaliatory insults which were after he failed to apologize for his insults.
>
> Rod Pemberton

Addressed elsethread.

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

#12938

Rod Pemberton wrote:
> Hex dumps haven't changed in 30+ years. 

I actually didn't write this code.  It is inherited from VolksForth, and 
was written in 1984ish.  Thus it is 28 years old code, untouched apart 
from minor modifications.  I'm sufficiently happy with what I got, 
therefore I didn't change it.

Gforth's dump was then rewritten from scratch (by Jens Wilke), and it 
looks different.  It is almost 20 years old.  It starts at the address 
you give it and blanks out the part of the last line which is not 
specified to be dumped.  However, it does not print a header, so you 
have to count the bytes yourself.

So yes, hex dumps are like Forth systems: If you have seen one hex dump, 
you have seen ... one hex dump.  If you want to have the same dump in 
all Forth systems you use, go write it yourself.  The Unix approach at 
this probably would be to have a dump command with the following 
options:

--aligned       Start at an aligned addres
--alignment=xx  Start at a user-specified alignment
--binary        Dump binary (1:1 copy, identical to TYPE)
--blankout      blank out values outside the dump range
--help          Print this help page
--int           Put 8 instead of 2 hex digits together
--littleendian  Dump right-to-left, useful for little endian systems
--long          Put 16 instead of 2 hex digits together
--octal         Dump octal instead of hex
--shortline     Dump only 8 bytes per line
--utf8          Dump UTF-8 chars as such
--word          Put 4 instead of 2 hex digits together

For further reading, make "man od".  Yes, it's octal dump, and it has a 
-x option for hex.

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

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

#12846

On 6/9/12 8:17 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Well, it's not a bug.  It's just really strange.  I've never seen anything
> like that.
>
> Instead of DUMPing starting at the address passed to it, DUMP starts at some
> other address...

> Next, it marks the DUMP'd address with "\/" and "V" for data and text

PowerMops does the same as above, including starting at an aligned 
address.  The standard says the display format of DUMP is implementation 
dependent.

-Doug

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

#12825

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message
news:TpCdnU2_irpsKU_SnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On 6/8/12 3:53 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

> > MOVE moves CELLS, not CHARS, [...]
>
> Incorrect. ANS MOVE moves "address units", which on most processors
> (e.g. x86) means bytes, which is usually equivalent to CHARs. There
> exist cell-addressed devices, in which case MOVE would move those, but
> it's a move in *address space*.
>

Ok, so an "address unit" is the machine's address unit, not Forth's CELL.

That makes this the same exact issue as C has with it's char's, C bytes, and
addressable units.

Sigh, I'm not sure why that didn't occur to me...

Now, it's time to rewrite MOVE and ERASE all code that uses them.


Rod Pemberton

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

#12949

On Jun 9, 6:44 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
wrote:
> Ok, so an "address unit" is the machine's address unit, not Forth's CELL.

When you have an address, adding one to it points to the following
address unit.

It is normally the machine addressing, mostly octet bytes, sometimes
words on word addressed processors.

> That makes this the same exact issue as C has with it's char's, C bytes,
> and addressable units.

It wouldn't be surprising, as there are common types of address to
data relationships to be solved:

Formally,
   1 address unit = or < 1 character = or < 1 cell

But most commonly:
   1 address unit = 1 character < 1 cell

I have the compiler tokens [1chars=1] to flag dependent code:

[UNDEFINED] [1chars=1] [IF]
   1 CHARS 1 = CONSTANT [1chars=1] IMMEDIATE
[THEN]

Normally the [ELSE] branch should include a .( ) warning, since I
don't have any cell-addressed or nybble-addressed implementations to
bench test that a presumed to be portable version actually is.

I've never heard of Forth94 implementation for a bit-addressed nybble-
addressed system, so I would be happy to have that:
   1 byte =|< 1 address unit =|< 1 char =|< 1 cell

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web