Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Hayes tester fails
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 10:30:04 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <op.w9i30el65zc71u@localhost>
References: <lah624$s2s$2@speranza.aioe.org> <2014Jan8.155803@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <lam1un$vdf$1@speranza.aioe.org>
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:27812

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 05:49:54 -0500, Ed <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> It is my observation Forthers place too much faith in the Hayes tester.

Really?

IMO, most here don't or haven't seem interested in the Hayes tester or
Josh Grams' small-tester.f.

> I make no apology for posting cases wherein the Hayes tester fails.  If  
> it discourages reliance on the tester and its [used] as "proof" that
> systems are Standard compliant, it can only be a good thing.

Of course, compliance with Hayes at least ensures standardized operation
for that which is tested, whether or not it's correct or faulty, i.e.,
all Forths will operate in the same way.

Personally, I found Josh's tester to be useful since it didn't require
as many Forth words to be available to operate as compare to Hayes.
That was useful since my Forth was far from complete at the time.

So, Josh's tester allowed me to do a few things:
1) run Hayes tests,
2) run a few other available test routines in Hayes format such as
those by Gerry Jackson, Anton Ertl, or Dave Williams, and
3) quickly code up a 148 or so very basic "sanity" tests which
compared various standard Forth operations across a few ANS Forths.


Rod Pemberton