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: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 03:21:45 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 192 Message-ID: References: <5235eb3d.280545989@news.demon.co.uk> <5O6dnfRAtOK37qDPnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@supernews.com> <5P6dnZRPfda_I6PPnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@supernews.com> 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:26012 On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 05:53:38 -0400, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 06:21:30 -0400, Andrew Haley >> wrote: >>> Rod Pemberton wrote: ... >> Discussing problems leads to the truth, solutions to solve those >> problems, and understanding of those problems by those who wouldn't >> otherwise. > > *Constructively* discussing problems leads to the truth. > > This: > > "Forth is an unstructured programming language. I.e., without > conscious application of structured coding principles, of which many > programmers are completely unaware, it results in 'spaghetti code', > just like the code most programmers created for BASIC." > > ... is not constructive. That's clearly your perception... Discussion of truth must start somewhere. Stating the truth is a good place to start. > No serious poster would have said this. I was 100% serious or I never would've posted it. > It was intended only to irritate. That's your perception. > "Forth is cryptic, Forth has no syntax" is not constructive. > It's just stupid. > Insult. You lost. Although, I wasn't trying to win. I was just stating the truth. How is a space, the only defined syntax, syntax? So, I brought up de facto syntax, which everyone here argues doesn't exist either... If neither exist, how is it stupid and non-constructive to say so? That makes no sense. >> You can't fix things or if you're hiding in a dark locked closet. >> You can't avoid things like metaphorical landmines if you don't know >> where to *not* step. > > Indeed not. But your complaints about Forth are not constructive > because they do not lead anywhere. They never lead anywhere because no one is willing to discuss them. They've been brought up repeatedly. > If you have something specific to say, then we can talk about it. Specific issues have been brought up numerous times in the past. A few were mentioned earlier in the thread, which you still apparently haven't bothered to read to familiarize yourself... > But your complaints are so broad and shallow that there's nothing > to be done. Yes, there is. A change of attitudes is required. Otherwise, the specific issues will never be discussed. >> All these things and more have been posted here, repeatedly, >> over the years. Where were you? > > Here, as you full well know. And while you might have had > constructive reasons to be here before, you don't now. And, you do? It's been a year since you've actually discussed Forth. > You've managed to hack together a Forth implementation, that's true. Same as you. You haven't used your Forth for anything either. At least, you haven't stated so here, if you have. With your ego, it's unlikely you wouldn't have, if you had. So, how are you any different in these regards? >>>> I think a bunch of you have yet to come to grips with the fact that >>>> you're hypocrites. Everyone here cites the problems with Forth that >>>> I mentioned, but whenever anyone attempts to discuss them they get >>>> trashed and blamed. >>> >>> That is not true. >> >> It is true. This has been happening for years, over numerous >> threads and conversations. Certain topics are "taboo", or >> perhaps "hated" is a better word... > > "Pointless" is the word I would choose. > "Blah, blah", "too broad", "pointless", "not detailed" enough... The point remains that certain Forth topics are not being discussed openly in a group that claims to be about Forth. >>> That was incorrect, >> >> It was correct, just as I explained it. >> >>> and Elizabeth cited the section of ANS Forth that said they >>> must be correctly paired. >> >> It doesn't say that. Please feel free to explain where exactly >> you think it does. I already explained my understanding. >> Neither one of you has explained yours. > > The trouble with this is that this isn't a credible question, Where did I ask a question? I don't see a question mark above. > [...] given what you've been told. What was that exactly? Context is being lost. > Elizabeth even quoted chapter and verse, and > you still didn't get it. As stated previously, Ms. Rather didn't explain anything. She quoted a section of text. I explained something. I explained my understanding. > How much more can anyone do? Explain it. Don't quote it. Prove your claim. > You went on to say > >> The requirement is "semantics are incomplete until orig is resolved" >> not what resolves it. > > So, what can resolve an IF? A word that resolves an orig. What words > are those? The control structures that match. > Yes. Unfortunately, those don't have to be ANS defined words as cited in my example with which Ms. Rather agreed wholeheartedly. I'm just curious, did going around and around in circles ever get you anywhere in life? >>>>> If you try Forth and don't like it, fine. Cool. Use a language you >>>>> prefer. What we find annoying is folks who have to hang around >>>>> telling us how awful Forth is, for no apparent reason. >>>> >>>> So, then, you, Alex, Hugh, Bernd, Gerry, rickman, Andrew etc should >>>> all leave. You're all guilty of it. >>> >>> No, we're not. We have not hung around in Language X newsgroup >>> telling people how awful Language X is. That would be pointless >>> and stupid. >> >> Yes, you are. You've all cited concrete examples of Forth's >> weaknesses over the years. > > That's not the same as telling people how awful Forth is. > Citing concrete examples of Forth's weaknesses is not the same as telling people how awful Forth is? ... 1) How exactly do you differentiate between citing weakness and ascribing awfulness? Well, first we must define "awfulness" in the context of a programming language. It's a personification. But, language weakness could be a good definition for it... 2) I don't recall telling people how awful Forth is, however you define "awful" in this context. Having only coded my system in Forth, I'm not sure exactly how I was telling people that Forth is awful. It's clearly illogical to believe I could've stated such with such limited experience coding in Forth, yes? ... I do recall telling people how C is excellent in many ways and sometimes demonstrating that. Those are clearly not the same, unless you have problems differentiating... The other option is to believe I have more experience from implementing an interpreter in C and Forth than you realized, then it wouldn't be illogical, but that would also make my statements about Forth's weaknesses true. That's something you seem to have difficulty accepting. Rod Pemberton