Re: Make Forth Great Again!

Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Date	2017-02-17 11:31 -0800
References	(2 earlier) <87r32znh3d.fsf@nightsong.com> <8dc01dea-cc69-4155-a1ec-238ef94571d0@googlegroups.com> <59c931a4-5ede-48e6-a955-46eb20eb9df6@googlegroups.com> <98fb8277-4e8a-4699-97a1-32195e1b97d8@googlegroups.com> <o87grs$8cb$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID	<a2d6bdbd-d6fa-4b76-8bc5-4eec64be1efc@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Make Forth Great Again!
From	hughaguilar96@gmail.com

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 11:55:40 AM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> On 2/17/2017 12:25 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:03:47 AM UTC-7, lehs wrote:
> >> The greatness of Forth is the inherent idea and it hasn't changed. Of course it can be extended by all means, but will most probably not be the best solution to every new commercial need.
> >>
> >> If you don't like Forth, don't make it to something else! Stop using it!
> >
> > I have heard this many times before --- that the greatness of Forth is that it hasn't changed since the 1970s --- well, I'm friends with a guy who owns a 1967 Pontiac Le Mans that he considers to be an "all-time great car" that will be worth $125,000 after he gets it fixed up...
> >
> > I have also been told many times that I should stop trying to make Forth something that it isn't:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 3:31:46 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 03:15:26 -0800 (PST)
> >> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 00:16:13 UTC, Rod Pemberton  wrote:
> >>> <snipped>
> >>>> Who exactly will use your <SWITCH construct?
> >>>> It's non-standard and there are other constructs which are widely
> >>>> available.
> >>> <snipped>
> >>>
> >>> It's written in standard ANS Forth, so that claim is wrong.
> >>
> >> No, it's not wrong.  CASE is in the standard.  <SWITCH is not.  So,
> >> <SWITCH is non-standard.  Is it ANS Forth compliant?  Yes.
> >>
> >> Rod Pemberton
> >
> > What Rod Pemberton is saying is that Elizabeth Rather determines on a case-by-case basis what code is standard --- my <SWITCH may be ANS-Forth compliant, but it is not ANS-Forth standard because it hasn't been approved by Elizabeth Rather (she doesn't know what a jump-table is, which is why CASE became standard, and why my <SWITCH will never be approved).
> >
> 
> So if switch is not on the Standard but written with ANSI words then 
> it's non- standard code? Then no one can't add any of their own words 
> because they are not ANSI standard code.
> 
> The things said here are so outrageously insane I keep wondering why I 
> look at these post,  forever the optimist I keep hoping for a gem, but 
> there are few here.
> 
> -- 
> Cecil - k5nwa

ANS-Forth is a cult --- all cults are like this --- every argument supporting the cult devolves into utter nonsense pretty quickly.

This is why I say that I'm killing ANS-Forth by writing ANS-Forth code --- if I wasn't writing ANS-Forth code, then the ANS-Forth cult would just sit contentedly on their throne and claim to be the leading experts for Forth who set the standard --- when I write ANS-Forth code however, I get these bizarre arguments against my code that actually just shine a spotlight on ANS-Forth's stupidity.

It just occurred to me that I could rewrite <# # #> etc. so that they work properly --- they would be based on <CSTR ... CSTR> --- I want to release the novice-package, but I keep thinking up these ideas to be added, which is why I keep delaying.

It would really be hilarious if I write <# #> in ANS-Forth and they work properly --- meanwhile, the <# #> in ANS-Forth may or may not return the same address every time, which is utterly stupid, but this is the "standard" implementation --- am I the only person who sees the humor in this? --- what is wrong with people that they don't find this to be funny?

Thread

Make Forth Great Again! djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2017-02-15 13:47 -0800
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-15 22:34 +0000
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-15 13:11 -1000
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 10:54 -0800
      Re: Make Forth Great Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-17 13:09 -0600
        Re: Make Forth Great Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-02-17 13:55 -0800
          Re: Make Forth Great Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 16:37 -0800
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-18 11:54 +1100
      Re: Make Forth Great Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 18:19 -0800
        Re: Make Forth Great Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 19:27 -0800
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 05:06 -0700
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 15:51 -0800
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-15 15:56 -0800
      Re: Make Forth Great Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 16:14 -0800
        Re: Make Forth Great Again! lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 02:03 -0800
          Re: Make Forth Great Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-02-16 02:55 -0800
          Re: Make Forth Great Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 10:25 -0800
            Re: Make Forth Great Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-17 12:55 -0600
              Re: Make Forth Great Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 11:31 -0800
                Re: Make Forth Great Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 16:32 -0800
              Re: Make Forth Great Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 16:09 -0500
                Re: Make Forth Great Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-17 19:39 -0500
      Re: Make Forth Great Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-02-16 01:00 -0800
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-16 06:21 -0600
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-02-16 15:45 +0000
      Re: Make Forth Great Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-16 10:12 -0600
        Re: Make Forth Great Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-16 16:36 +0000
          Re: Make Forth Great Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-16 12:03 -0600
            Re: Make Forth Great Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-02-16 23:08 +0000
            Re: Make Forth Great Again! gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 05:08 -0700
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 08:14 -0800
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! Igor Maznitsa <rrg4400@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 13:43 -0800
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! Elliott Chapin <elliott.chapin@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:26 -0800
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! mentificium@gmail.com - 2017-02-16 15:22 -0800
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-03-03 13:31 -0800
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! Wolf Wejgaard <wejgaard@holonforth.com> - 2017-03-10 01:10 -0800
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-10 09:33 -0800
      Re: Make Forth Great Again! Wolf Wejgaard <wejgaard@holonforth.com> - 2017-03-12 09:00 -0700
        Re: Make Forth Great Again! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-12 20:50 +0000
        Re: Make Forth Great Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-12 19:19 -0400
    Re: Make Forth Great Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-10 13:59 -0600
      Re: Make Forth Great Again! Wolf Wejgaard <wejgaard@holonforth.com> - 2017-03-11 01:14 -0800
  Re: Make Forth Great Again! polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:20 -0800

csiph-web