Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: CASE mis-understanding? Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:15:46 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 76 Message-ID: References: <52e54d17.461102185@news.demon.co.uk> <2014Feb17.150541@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Feb18.103428@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Feb18.151937@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xppmks7v9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2014Feb18.181426@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xmwhoi4px.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2014Feb20.180722@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xa9dls56m.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <53072856.716237921@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:29014 On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:20:06 -0400, WJ wrote: > Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Hugh Aquilar wrote: (cough) I corrected the attributions for you. I didn't have to correct your line lengths. ... >> > [...] quotations are the major addition (and I mean quotations >> > that have access to the creator function's local variables, [...] >> >> Visionary -or- Worthless? ... > > Perhaps you want them to be worthless so that you will > not have to experience the pain of learning a new paradigm. > Perhaps I think they're worthless because I've never had a need for them in the dozen or so languages I've experienced. I stated this to Hugh in one of the dozen other threads where he brought up closures. Hugh seems to think they will dramatically improve Forth and keeps attempting to build up Forth community momentum for them. The Forth programmers here seem to keep dismissing this idea of his, and I do too. However, I keep giving Hugh a chance to expound on his idea, but he never accepts the opportunity. > You seem to be ignorant of closures. You need to learn about > the Lisp/Scheme (or ML) family of programming languages. ... > If you are not experienced in programming Scheme, Lisp, or ML, > then your horizons are very narrow. Non-sequitur. I.e., if a theoretical someone, not me, experienced a thousand programming languages, none of which were Scheme, Lisp, or ML like, and none of which had closures, you'd still say that the huge "horizon" (breadth of experience) of that person was very narrow, although that would be incorrect. > Scheme (Racket): > > > (define (multiply-and-increment inc . lists) > (apply map > (lambda numbers (+ inc (apply * numbers))) > lists)) > > (multiply-and-increment 500 '(2 4 6 8) '(1 2 3 4) '(-8 5 7 9)) > ===> > '(484 540 626 788) Um, just what does one make of that crap? ... Since it's apparent that I'm "ignorant of closures," one could assume that I can't recognize a closure when I see it. Yet, even knowing that I'm "ignorant of closures" and therefore likely can't even recognize them, you failed or chose to not explain to me where the closure is in that mess ... Didn't you just criticize Forth as being non-readable in a another thread? Yes, you did. Was that ironic? I simply don't see anything I'd recognize or guess was a closure. Of course, I have little to no familiarity with Lisp or Scheme or ML. I do see something that appears to me to call multiply-and-increment multiple times with different parameters, or somesuch something. You also didn't demonstrate why a closure is needed. If the code can be written without closures, then they're simply not needed. That's the case with most high-level languages. So, for someone arguing *for* closures, like Hugh, I truly find this lack of explanation as to the worth of closures to be unbelievable! What am I supposed to see here? Rod Pemberton