Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: EXIT THEN
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:35:10 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <20170201173510.47748cee@_>
References: <o5jrct$1r41$1@gioia.aioe.org> <40682dd5-ba45-4b07-bd5c-7974b1119e78@googlegroups.com> <42c0521f-942a-43ca-8a08-2381f93b0a13@googlegroups.com> <ac62337f-01ff-4991-8eb6-f9c20e8ee77a@googlegroups.com> <gNOdne5hOIdpXxTFnZ2dnUU7-IOdnZ2d@supernews.com> <76c35132-352c-4325-ab31-70cf664c8a7e@googlegroups.com> <7c3a6cc5-17dd-4139-930d-77e96ab816b7@googlegroups.com> <o6jf6g$i0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <15e0edde-b0f6-4811-bb32-55144c6751de@googlegroups.com> <o6jkk9$cbe$1@dont-email.me> <18b39753-758c-4f06-8dd8-c50225d5eddc@googlegroups.com> <o6miuv$92l$1@dont-email.me> <asGdnZ-6O8XH-A3FnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@supernews.com> <ce47b668-325f-4ace-80ee-b70e979f4941@googlegroups.com> <20170131191658.0ab3342f@_> <7c8fac28-6ad2-4b1e-9637-3305fd3a7b8a@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ZTD62cW/Uw8bymX5ok+0NA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:54590

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:00:17 -0800 (PST)
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:


> You said that my <SWITCH construct is non-standard --- that is not
> true --- it was written in standard ANS-Forth.

It is true.  It's not in the ANS standard, i.e., non-standard.  It is
ANS compliant.

> The reason why no ANS-Forth programmer will use <SWITCH is because
> doing so shines a spotlight on the stupidity of Eaker's CASE that
> Elizabeth Rather put in ANS-Forth. 

No, the reason why no ANS-Forth programmer or anyone else will use
<SWTICH is because:

1) It's non-standard.  It's simply not in the standard.
2) You admitted it sucks.
3) No one has an implementation of it.

> What I said, which you snipped, was:

I quoted the relevant part.  You admitted it sucks implying that even
you wouldn't use it.  Why does "table entries" and "standalone colon
definitions" matter in regards to it sucking?  Irrelevant.

> > b) Andrew is perceived by Hugh as not being able to code, but Hugh's
> > opinion in this regard, given a), is likely to be worthless.  Should
> > the guy who admitted he writes crappy code be judging others?  
> 
> My <SWITCH isn't "crappy code" ---

HA> "it isn't very good"

Um, please make up your mind(s) ...  It either is or it isn't.  This is
a binary choice, not a plurality of gray areas.

> I said that Andrew Haley is not capable of writing <SWITCH --- I
> didn't mean that he is incapable at a technical level ([...]) --- I
> meant that he is incapable at a political level.

What? ...

> What I'm saying, is that the "the measure of a man" is honesty ---
> this is what Andrew Haley lacks --- he purposely misled the
> novice-class students (which only worked on students who didn't
> already know C or any other language that has a SWITCH that generates
> a jump-table), because he is a shameless brown-noser and his only
> desire was to please Elizabeth Rather.

...

> Eaker's CASE being in ANS-Forth makes the entire Forth community look
> stupid --- this is Elizabeth Rather's fault --- also the fault of her
> sycophants who continue to defend CASE for over two decades despite
> the fact that it is an obvious blunder.

So, there is no other reason than that?  That's it?

So, the ease of implementation of Eaker's CASE versus a jump table for
interpreted Forth's was not a consideration for deciding to use nested
IF ELSE THEN constructs instead of a jump table?


Rod Pemberton