Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: why bother with standards ? Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:57:43 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <2012111916035398607-chrishinsley@gmailcom> <7x1uffy8fu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <0d81a977-952a-4bd7-ad59-d0ce32582a9d@googlegroups.com> <7xhaobo7d7.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xk3t4zwoo.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <50b74de2.323490974@192.168.0.50> <7xwqx4tjb9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <50b7a412.345554913@192.168.0.50> <7xsj7s44an.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2bb50837-e92c-43d3-85e3-d36b84bc97b7@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com> <08aad214-299b-41ef-9ff8-63269d549b9b@googlegroups.com> <1531041.t244WW6Rqv@sunwukong.fritz.box> <9d1ab6e5-7e5f-422c-bdfe-5ec30ecbf4b2@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2001 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2001 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:17872 "Alex McDonald" wrote in message news:d151be2c-ba58-4c6e-82ee-c9bb714957e2@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 7:39 pm, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > On Dec 3, 3:49 pm, Hugh Aguilar > > wrote: ... > > > ... that famous book by Abrash in 1990, had only one > > > reference to Forth --- his description of a Forth > > > programmer who didn't know that data had to be word > > > aligned on the 8088. This was very typical --- you > > > never heard Forth mentioned at all, except as an example > > > of utter incompetence. > > > This was actually a gaff on my part --- I meant the 8086, the > > 80286, and everything else --- the 8088, however, was the > > only member of the x86 family that didn't need data to be > > word-aligned, because it had an 8-bit data-bus and had to do > > two accesses for a 16-bit value no matter whether the datum > > was word-aligned or not. In general though, even if > > you expected your program to run on an 8088, you still > > word-aligned your data just in case it might later get run on > > one of the mighty 16-bit chips --- the IBM-PC with its wimpy > > 4.77Mhz 8088 actually compared badly to the Commodore-64 > > in speed, and everybody moved to the 80286 as soon as they > > could. > Well, Alex was saying something, but this entire post is to Hugh. Well, Hugh, I never actually compared them. At the time, PCs weren't even on the "radar" of most people with home computers. Back then, it was Apple II's, C64's, TS1000's, Amiga's, Atari ST's, etc. x86 PC's lacked any ability in the areas of sound and video. Nobody wanted one of them. They were basically text only. So, people only used them at work, or for accounting at home, if their work discarded one ... Next, all the innovative computer companies went bankrupt. So, x86 PC's won the PC wars by default. I think it was the mid 1990's before I actually used one. It was then and only then that companies start manufacturing graphics capable video cards for gaming for x86 clone PC's. Even so, it still took x86 PC video cards some years to catch up to graphics of the Amiga 1000's from 1987 ... Fortunately, performance accelerated around the time of the DX2 line of 486's just when the graphics cards became useful for gaming. > > Nobody caught my gaff! You guys aren't even good at being > > trolls --- you should have pounced on that! > > Only you is paying you any attention. Your average post is so > full of errors of fact, it rapidly becomes an exercise in > diminishing returns in point out your many mistakes. It would > be quicker and easier congratulating you on getting something > right. Well, Alex pounced on you at your provocation! So, I guess, you got what you wanted. ;-) Although, Alex didn't correct you. So, I'm not sure if he actually knows what "errors of fact" your posts are "so full of" ... That said, there are probably only four, maybe six, people here who would know something non-Forth, like x86. I do. I saw it. I just didn't feel like correcting something so trivial and utterly obsolete. It would've been a one word post. Anyhow, you're just not going to run code on something older than a 486DX2, unless you're a fool or a fanatic. Older processors are valuable collectors items now, working or not, but far more so if working. So, any pre-486 knowledge is purely trivia, unless it's still valid on modern x86. But, 1) this is so deep into the thread, I'm just skimming now, not really reading anymore ... Every time I do read, I have to come to your defense because of the abundance of ignorance around here on non-Forth computing issues. And, 2) you've also posted a bunch of long posts, semi-rants really, deep in various threads, on ancient x86 and ancient MS-DOS Forth history, recently. I.e., the posts are good for newbs or alt.folklore.computers ... So, I doubt anyone here is reading them and enjoying the nostalgia. Rod Pemberton