Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth for education Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:18:34 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 92 Message-ID: References: <0d34c96e-d56b-4d85-85f3-7379a3a1eb72@googlegroups.com> <5235eb3d.280545989@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:25852 On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:45:50 -0400, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 19/09/2013 02:02:41, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > [snip] Cutting attributions confuses Ms. Rather... >> I can't believe you don't have some valid complaints. > > I do. > > I'm not fond of TO. > I'm not fond of words that use STATE orwhen compilation and execution > semantics are not clear. > Wordlists and CONTEXT are a bit of a mess. > > Can you help? > No. But, you seriously believe these trivial issues are more of a problem than the other issues that have been cited? Odd. >>>> When it's not how >>>> to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is >>>> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same >>>> conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a >>>> problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their >>>> time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The >>>> dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. >>>> >>>> E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing >>>> new control-flow techniques? (never) >>> >>> Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. >>> When was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the >>> difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language >>> itself? Never. >>> >> >> Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see >> how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object >> classes? >> > > No. [link] > > And before you fire back with "Aha! but it doesn't apply to C!", Didn't I already say that in different words above? Why would I repeat myself here? It appears I guessed the correct language you were referencing too: C++. > please remember; you're "deflecting". That's clearly not the case given this is about Forth in a Forth newsgroup. I've attempted to keep conversion on Forth for this thread. I.e., discussion of C++ by you is deflecting. Yes? > This isn't about C, I stated that too, multiple times. You seem to enjoy circular or reversal style logic, although that never leads to the truth, only to repetition, parrotting, and annoyance. It never exposes the opposite side of the issue, because there is only one truth for each issue. > [This is] about your perception of Forth and what it can do. No, it's about Forth users' valid complaints about Forth which are met with harsh criticism of anyone who attempt to discuss the specific issues complained about. It's as if there is a secret taboo or "blacklist" of acceptable Forth topics, which doesn't include _all_ Forth topics, but there is no copy of this hidden list anywhere. E.g., Hugh cited lack of language structure above, but numerous past attempts to discuss lack of language structure in Forth by me or others past results in hostile criticism claiming the contrary. Both can't be true. These issues can't both be a problem and not be. It doesn't just stem from Hugh, but you, Bernd, Ms. Rather, et. al. Lack of language structure seems to be one of the issues on "the list". You seem to like turnabout as an argumentative style... So, what if I added issues involving CONTEXT or TO to that list? What if I claimed that compilation and execution semantics you think are confusing are entirely clear and don't require discussion and others of note agreed with me? What if I, and maybe others over time, dismissed your concerns as trivial and insignificant, thereby blocking conversation on them? I bet you'd become really irked. Rod Pemberton