Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-11-19 16:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2012-11-29 11:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 16:03 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 16:06 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 08:15 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 12:07 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-20 02:27 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Winston19842005 <winston19842005@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 21:59 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 19:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 01:33 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-20 05:09 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 18:48 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-20 09:49 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 10:59 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-19 19:06 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-19 14:25 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 20:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 05:42 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:23 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 21:05 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:24 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 18:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-20 03:07 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:35 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 21:02 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 02:04 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 19:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 01:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-21 04:51 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-21 04:43 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-11-21 20:34 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 12:04 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-22 21:19 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 02:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 03:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 03:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-23 12:13 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 12:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-23 10:43 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 15:10 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-23 13:40 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 13:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-24 01:29 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-24 04:54 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-24 16:56 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-25 04:16 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-26 14:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 09:12 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 22:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 03:52 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 07:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 09:57 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 20:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-24 04:53 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-24 14:32 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-24 21:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:27 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-23 19:12 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 22:39 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-24 16:54 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-25 05:09 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-11-25 13:33 +0200
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-24 12:20 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-24 20:45 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 14:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 18:17 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 04:26 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 15:28 +0200
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-21 17:29 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:21 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-21 13:00 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:31 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 17:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 20:33 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Humphries <mwh@intranetsys.com> - 2012-11-22 10:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-22 17:16 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:12 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-20 17:30 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-11-20 19:40 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 19:50 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-20 15:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:43 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 08:46 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-24 10:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-24 11:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-24 22:32 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-25 07:54 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-25 17:02 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-25 16:20 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-25 19:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-26 14:59 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 11:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 13:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 15:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 16:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 19:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 20:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 22:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 23:03 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 01:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-27 08:52 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 10:43 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-27 12:01 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-28 23:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-29 00:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-28 22:13 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 01:11 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-11-29 11:00 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-29 18:58 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 12:51 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 00:42 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 19:57 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 18:47 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-30 12:53 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 18:33 +0100
Debuggers (Re: why bother with standards ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-29 13:44 +0000
Re: Debuggers (Re: why bother with standards ?) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 09:36 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-29 06:01 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 10:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-29 12:22 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 10:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-11-29 21:13 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 17:11 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 03:37 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-30 02:11 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 05:24 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-30 11:23 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 21:16 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 08:38 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 18:43 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 12:15 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 09:23 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 18:24 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 11:06 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 17:35 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 22:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 21:08 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 17:41 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-30 08:43 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:30 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-30 10:40 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-30 14:03 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-30 14:06 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-30 14:51 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-11-30 14:58 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-02 18:02 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-03 16:34 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-12-03 21:39 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-03 14:49 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 09:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 11:26 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 11:39 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-05 15:32 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-05 20:57 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 18:55 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-05 20:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-06 19:05 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-06 16:14 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bill Marcum <bill@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-12-07 20:13 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-12-03 14:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:20 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 06:52 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-29 19:12 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 14:55 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 01:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-11-21 12:40 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:51 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 19:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 21:54 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-11-24 08:03 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-11-30 14:45 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-30 10:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-04 03:52 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 11:47 -0800
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 16:03 +0000 |
| Subject | why bother with standards ? |
| Message-ID | <2012111916035398607-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
I was mulling over my Forth hobby and I'm kinda coming to the conclusion that I'm going to ditch most of the ANS words I've implamented (educational though it may have been) and go off on my own ! I think I can see what Chuck is getting at when he said he didn't agree with there being a standard ! My own thoughts are that the concept of Forth, as a way of programming a machine at a low level, are the best thing about Forth. And I feel constrained by the standard. So I'm going to strip things down to only what I require and then go off and implament my project useing only what I need. I've not come to this desition lightly ! Lot's of questioning as to what I want from Forth. And I'm sorry but it's not the 'standard' or 'compatability'. It's a mechanisum to enable me to be independant of 'other peoples' compilers and langauges, I don't really care if other peoples code can run on my system, so long as my code does then I'm happy. Chris
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012111916061369809-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
On 2012-11-19 16:03:53 +0000, Chris Hinsley said: > I was mulling over my Forth hobby and I'm kinda coming to the > conclusion that I'm going to ditch most of the ANS words I've > implamented (educational though it may have been) and go off on my own > ! I think I can see what Chuck is getting at when he said he didn't > agree with there being a standard ! > > My own thoughts are that the concept of Forth, as a way of programming > a machine at a low level, are the best thing about Forth. And I feel > constrained by the standard. So I'm going to strip things down to only > what I require and then go off and implament my project useing only > what I need. > > I've not come to this desition lightly ! Lot's of questioning as to > what I want from Forth. And I'm sorry but it's not the 'standard' or > 'compatability'. It's a mechanisum to enable me to be independant of > 'other peoples' compilers and langauges, I don't really care if other > peoples code can run on my system, so long as my code does then I'm > happy. > > Chris Anybody who wants to grab what I have so far better do it now ! https://sites.google.com/site/chrishinsley/ Regards Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 08:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3904d602-bcd9-4476-affb-5da25fd51187@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
On Monday, November 19, 2012 10:03:53 AM UTC-6, Chris Hinsley wrote: > I was mulling over my Forth hobby and I'm kinda coming to the > > conclusion that I'm going to ditch most of the ANS words I've > > implamented (educational though it may have been) and go off on my own > > ! I think I can see what Chuck is getting at when he said he didn't > > agree with there being a standard ! > > > > My own thoughts are that the concept of Forth, as a way of programming > > a machine at a low level, are the best thing about Forth. And I feel > > constrained by the standard. So I'm going to strip things down to only > > what I require and then go off and implament my project useing only > > what I need. > > > > I've not come to this desition lightly ! Lot's of questioning as to > > what I want from Forth. And I'm sorry but it's not the 'standard' or > > 'compatability'. It's a mechanisum to enable me to be independant of > > 'other peoples' compilers and langauges, I don't really care if other > > peoples code can run on my system, so long as my code does then I'm > > happy. > > > > Chris I am of the same mindset. I do wonder, though, if a standard that was implemented in layers (instead of all or nothing) wouldn't be more useful. (And maybe the ANS standard is. I have to admit I have never read it.) So that, if two words were doing exactly the same thing, they would at least have the same name/identifier. The closer you get to the core, the more naturally things are standard anyway. Is anybody really going to call DUP anything other than DUP anymore (except make it lower case, of course).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 12:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8dp0p$42f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17383 |
On 11/19/2012 11:15 AM, daveyrotten wrote: > > I am of the same mindset. I do wonder, though, if a standard that was implemented in layers (instead of all or nothing) wouldn't be more useful. (And maybe the ANS standard is. I have to admit I have never read it.) So that, if two words were doing exactly the same thing, they would at least have the same name/identifier. The closer you get to the core, the more naturally things are standard anyway. Is anybody really going to call DUP anything other than DUP anymore (except make it lower case, of course). Yes, the ANSI standard is definitely designed in "layers" so to speak. None of the optional word sets have to be implemented. From the ANSI document... 5.1.1 System compliance A system that complies with all the system requirements given in sections 3. Usage requirements and 4.1 System documentation and their sub-sections is a Standard System. An otherwise Standard System that provides only a portion of the Core words is a Standard System Subset. An otherwise Standard System (Subset) that fails to comply with one or more of the minimum values or ranges specified in 3. Usage requirements and its sub-sections has environmental restrictions. So you can have a subset of the core words and still be a standard system subset. I think the idea is that to be "standard" by this document, you have to do some things their way with minimums, maximums, etc, and implement words they way they define them. But you don't have to implement any particular words. Going your own way is fine. The primary purpose of the ANSI standard is to allow people to exchange code without having to worry that every detail of their system implementation will be incompatible. If you plan to write all your own code this is not much of a concern. But then again, if you ever want others to use your code, compatibility with a standard helps a lot. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 02:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <61519424.fg6RA4yzDG@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #17383 |
daveyrotten wrote: > I am of the same mindset. I do wonder, though, if a standard that was > implemented in layers (instead of all or nothing) wouldn't be more > useful. (And maybe the ANS standard is. I have to admit I have never > read it.) Hello, yes it is! There's a core wordset, which is the "bare mininumum", and even that minimum you can provide as loadable source (parts of it which you feel you don't need). On a desktop system, people expect a standard Forth to be all-or-nothing, but on small embedded systems, having less than the full core wordset is not that odd. The standard is a standard, it isn't that easy to read, and some things can be improved. But arguing that "it would be better if" and not even having read it is plain stupid. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Winston19842005 <winston19842005@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 21:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CCD05C3C.1F8AE%winston19842005@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #17414 |
On 11/19/12 8:27 PM, in article 61519424.fg6RA4yzDG@sunwukong.fritz.box, "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > daveyrotten wrote: >> I am of the same mindset. I do wonder, though, if a standard that was >> implemented in layers (instead of all or nothing) wouldn't be more >> useful. (And maybe the ANS standard is. I have to admit I have never >> read it.) > > Hello, yes it is! There's a core wordset, which is the "bare > mininumum", and even that minimum you can provide as loadable source > (parts of it which you feel you don't need). On a desktop system, > people expect a standard Forth to be all-or-nothing, but on small > embedded systems, having less than the full core wordset is not that > odd. My first forth, a fig-forth, came with nothing loaded at run-time. Being a noob to Forth, I proceeded to load all the modules that I thought should be resident (BASIC-like thinking), then performed a SAVE-SYSTEM so they would all load when I started Forth. I finally realized a while later this was stupid. I filled my system's memory with stuff I mostly never used. I found the original copy I had and went back to it. Even though load-time was increased by loading the screens I needed for my purposes (specific to each program), it was the Forth thing to do -- and increased the amount of memory I had. Plus, I've found that there are better ways of doing things sometimes than using someone else's packages...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 19:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9ccd86f2-e3e3-40ce-ad88-a7c150c9b964@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17415 |
I think that in the real world, you have two opposing forces of nature, one is to be the same, the other one is to be different. So, in the grand scheme of things, there will be standards, and there will be standard Forth, and then there will be new kinds of Forth, experimental Forths, and non-standard Forths. I don't personally have a problem with this. It's just the way of things. Jason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 01:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4ea4dd8e-0f5d-4794-ac6a-10b92a5b62ee@w7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17416 |
On Nov 20, 3:21 am, Jason Damisch <jasondami...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I think that in the real world, you have two opposing forces of nature, one is to be the same, the other one is to be different. So, in the grand scheme of things, there will be standards, and there will be standard Forth, and then there will be new kinds of Forth, experimental Forths, and non-standard Forths. I don't personally have a problem with this. It's just the way of things. > > Jason I've had a good think about this in the past, and have determined that I think a live standard for Forth is a good thing. Sure, if you are not that bothered about running code from others, then plough your own furrow, as they say. Of course, there are many different Forth systems around, all of slightly different flavours, each injected with their owners take on various improvements over the standard language. However, I would say that "The Standard" is the sun around which most every Forth system orbits, and I do think that is a good thing; without that gravitational force, there would be a danger that they would just drift off into space, lost to all but their authors, and metastasize into something that barely resembles the Forth in its DNA. I think it's important to realise that The Standard isn't the be-all- and-end-all. It's the bare bones. It's supposed to be augmented with additional facilities, and with respect to those additional facilities, you're completely free to knock yourself out and have at it! Finally, I think we could all agree that we wish Forth were more pervasive in the programming world. There are only two commercial Forth vendors left in the world (that I know of). Having a live standard is, in my opionion, very important indeed if you are a commercial vendor; it's lends credence to the language, and reassures their clients that they could (at least in theory) switch to another vendor and stand a chance of having their code work. This would be an important factor to any client thinking of placing a contract to develop a software project with a Forth vendor. They would want the peace of mind that in the event of (say) the chosen vendor going out of business, they could take the source code of the project to another vendor and have the project continue, or continue with it themselves. If every Forth system was completely different, with no under-pinning standard, then the only choice would be a ground up re-write from the project specs. That might be enough to convince any potential client that the risk was too high. So, for those reasons, I think a standard is a good thing. Hugh does too, that's why he's ploughing his own furrow with his new standard. And I applaud the effort. I encourage Hugh to publish his standard when he's ready; it doesn't have to be written like a standard document, it could be a spreadsheet with a brief synopsis of each word, and a brief rationale as to the thinking behind it etc. I would also encourage others to review it with an open mind - who knows, it could turn out to be great. At any rate, it's a brave move to strike out on your own. But there again, that's exactly what Chuck Moore did. It didn't turn out too badly for him, did it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 05:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <H8CdnaKK8dN8-TbNnZ2dnUVZ8mCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #17421 |
Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 20, 3:21?am, Jason Damisch <jasondami...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I think that in the real world, you have two opposing forces of nature, one is to be the same, the other one is to be different. ?So, in the grand scheme of things, there will be standards, and there will be standard Forth, and then there will be new kinds of Forth, experimental Forths, and non-standard Forths. ?I don't personally have a problem with this. ?It's just the way of things. >> >> Jason > > I've had a good think about this in the past, and have determined that > I think a live standard for Forth is a good thing. > > Sure, if you are not that bothered about running code from others, > then plough your own furrow, as they say. Or even reading it, for that matter. As much as anything else, language standards are about communication: without some agreement about language semantics it's impossible to say what a fragment of code means. The result would be a tower of Babel, e.g. the recent -- "Zero is just DUP OR if the stack is empty or DUP DUP OR if it isn't. " -- "Instead of "DUP OR", I think you meant "DUP XOR". " -- "DUP OR is correct. OR on the F18 is an exclusive or. If you have a concern about that, then as they say on the Charles Schwab commercials, "talk to Chuck"." Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 18:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75c56124-6605-405b-9740-23fc70fa683e@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17428 |
On Nov 20, 4:09 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 20, 3:21?am, Jason Damisch <jasondami...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I think that in the real world, you have two opposing forces of nature, one is to be the same, the other one is to be different. ?So, in the grand scheme of things, there will be standards, and there will be standard Forth, and then there will be new kinds of Forth, experimental Forths, and non-standard Forths. ?I don't personally have a problem with this. ?It's just the way of things. > > >> Jason > > > I've had a good think about this in the past, and have determined that > > I think a live standard for Forth is a good thing. > > > Sure, if you are not that bothered about running code from others, > > then plough your own furrow, as they say. > > Or even reading it, for that matter. As much as anything else, > language standards are about communication: without some agreement > about language semantics it's impossible to say what a fragment of > code means. The result would be a tower of Babel... The big difference between Straight Forth and the various other roll- your-own Forth systems around, is that I will write a standards document. I won't just have a big collection of words that I add to whenever I feel like it. I will have a "core wordset" and various optional "extension wordsets" and so forth, similar to ANS-Forth. All of this will be documented so there is no question about what any particular word does. Also, I will encourage other people to write their own Straight Forth implementation, which they may either sell or give away for free. Pelc, for example, will hopefully write a Straight Forth (it may very well generate faster executing code than my own as he has more experience with optimizers than I do). I will test any implementation for conformance, for a nominal fee --- nobody can use the name Straight Forth unless I say that their system conforms. My standards document will be a lot smaller than the ANS-Forth document, which is already small by language-standard standards. For example, I won't have DO loops, and a lot of other 1970s-vintage cruft that ANS-Forth has. A person should be able to read the entire document from cover to cover over a weekend. I wish Chris good luck on his system. I don't think that he's trying to create a standard, so he's not really competing directly against Straight Forth. If his system is good though, and a lot of people start using it, then maybe it will become a de facto standard anyway. I will look at it and perhaps learn something that I can put into Straight Forth. I'm not like the Forth-200x committee --- I'm not striving to limit everybody else to my own level of incompetence --- I don't feel threatened by people who think for themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 09:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Nov20.104907@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #17383 |
daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> writes:
>I am of the same mindset. I do wonder, though, if a standard that was imple=
>mented in layers (instead of all or nothing) wouldn't be more useful. (And =
>maybe the ANS standard is. I have to admit I have never read it.)
It's not all-or-nothing, and even where it is (the core wordset), as
long as you don't want to claim compliance, there's nobody to prevent
you from subsetting.
> So that, =
>if two words were doing exactly the same thing, they would at least have th=
>e same name/identifier. The closer you get to the core, the more naturally=
> things are standard anyway. Is anybody really going to call DUP anything o=
>ther than DUP anymore (except make it lower case, of course).
Yes, even Postscript calls DUP "dup", but SWAP is "exch":-) Or closer
to Forth, Chuck Moore's ColorForth calls XOR OR. All fine for his
private system, but if you are going to publish it, as he did, I
recommend not using standard names with a different meaning (using
standard meanings with a different name is far less problematic).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 10:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0d6f3cc-2352-4e52-bac8-1c96d8824ed5@4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
I agree with you, forth not need standard. I disagree with the low level programing, forth (for me) is for all level programing. pablo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 19:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8eh9l$dqt$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
"Chris Hinsley" <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2012111916035398607-chrishinsley@gmailcom... > I was mulling over my Forth hobby and I'm kinda coming to the > conclusion that I'm going to ditch most of the ANS words I've > implamented (educational though it may have been) and go off on my own > ! I think I can see what Chuck is getting at when he said he didn't > agree with there being a standard ! > Yes, ANS has some odd renamings and rather perverse changes to earlier Forth words. I started mostly with fig-Forth but have been adapting to ANS. Unfortunately, Hayes' core tests are the only tests I'm aware of which confirm that Forth is implemented somewhat consistently. The Josh Grams small tester does work well without needing many Forth system words, but there is no test suite for it. I.e., it's likely your ANS words will be the base for whatever future Forth you create. So, after you've got your ANS words working, maybe then de-ANS, downgrade, re-fig-Forth, or otherwise modify or customize them. > I've not come to this desition lightly ! decision > Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 14:25 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <H8qdne31Q8lgUDfNnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
On 11/19/12 6:03 AM, Chris Hinsley wrote: > I was mulling over my Forth hobby and I'm kinda coming to the conclusion > that I'm going to ditch most of the ANS words I've implamented > (educational though it may have been) and go off on my own ! I think I > can see what Chuck is getting at when he said he didn't agree with there > being a standard ! > > My own thoughts are that the concept of Forth, as a way of programming a > machine at a low level, are the best thing about Forth. And I feel > constrained by the standard. So I'm going to strip things down to only > what I require and then go off and implament my project useing only what > I need. > > I've not come to this desition lightly ! Lot's of questioning as to what > I want from Forth. And I'm sorry but it's not the 'standard' or > 'compatability'. It's a mechanisum to enable me to be independant of > 'other peoples' compilers and langauges, I don't really care if other > peoples code can run on my system, so long as my code does then I'm happy. Sure, as long as the system is strictly for your own use and you don't care about being able to use code other people have written, there's no need to adhere to a standard. A standard is useful to enable multiple implementers to generate systems that many people can use without excessive implementation-specific training or difficulty porting code. The Forth community as a whole needs a standard, and the systems that are widely available (gForth, Win32Forth, the various systems from MPE and FORTH, Inc., etc.) wouldn't have been viable without a standard. An individual who doesn't plan to distribute an implementation or use other people's code doesn't have those constraints. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-19 20:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <82ed1dc6-9bf0-492f-b2e4-1b65f968c021@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17411 |
On Nov 19, 5:25 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > Sure, as long as the system is strictly for your own use and you don't > care about being able to use code other people have written, there's no > need to adhere to a standard. This is a false dichotomy --- that a Forther must either adhere to the ANS-Forth standard or work entirely alone. The third possibility is that Chris' Forth will make more sense than ANS-Forth and the Forth community will migrate from ANS-Forth to Chris-Forth as the new standard. Assuming that the guy has a 3-digit I.Q., it would be almost impossible for his Forth to make less sense than ANS-Forth, so the third possibility seems the most likely to me. When my Straight Forth comes out, everything else will become obsolete --- the question of Chris-Forth vs. ANS-Forth will become moot (well, ANS-Forth certainly will be obsoleted; Chris-Forth might survive if it is reasonably good). Tell us Chris --- will you have closures?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 05:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8fmip$p15$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17417 |
"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:82ed1dc6-9bf0-492f-b2e4-1b65f968c021@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com... > [...] > When my Straight Forth comes out, everything else will > become obsolete --- [...] > That claim is entirely open-ended. I'm sure you meant to restrict "everything else" to "all other Forths". Do you seriously expect a competent C or C++ programmer to give up C or C++ and adopt Straight Forth so readily? Ruby? Perl? Lisp? etc. I.e., even if Straight Forth conquers the Forth world, not everyone is going to use Forth. :-) That said, something must be a truly huge improvement, not just slightly better, for widespread adoption by people. If something is marginally better or insignificantly so, most people will just ignore it and keep using the old method. Forth and C with their numerous faults are proof of that. Of course, a design doesn't have to be new to be very good. The techniques of "continuous improvement" work. But, they do so very slowly, methodically, incrementally. Those techniques can take a marginal to bad design and improve it immensely. Straight Forth, being new, won't have benefitted from that method. If you really want to make "everything else [...] become obsolete", then Forth, or a Forth derivative, or even a radically improved Forth, just won't be sufficient. You'd need to create an entirely new language with all new programming paradigms. You'll need something radically new and different and easy and exciting. You'd want to study modern dynamicly typed languages and object-oriented languages for ideas. You'd ignore structured code languages, "spaghetti" code languages, and free format or no syntax languages, since those paradigms are now obsolete. (Think about that...) But, you'd also want to keep structured coding concepts etc in mind to not repeat mistakes of the past. The minimal or marginal improvement problem is the same problem that plagues most new handtool designs. Every year about this time a half dozen or more appear on the market vying for your money. Most of them aren't much better than the older tool designs. But, every now and then, one will be a fantastic improvement. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 17:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112017235493336-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17426 |
> The minimal or marginal improvement problem is the same problem that plagues > most new handtool designs. Every year about this time a half dozen or more > appear on the market vying for your money. Most of them aren't much better > than the older tool designs. But, every now and then, one will be a > fantastic improvement. > > > Rod Pemberton So, your a Festool man Rod ? ;) Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 21:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8hcks$6mm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17436 |
"Chris Hinsley" <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2012112017235493336-chrishinsley@gmailcom... > > The minimal or marginal improvement problem is the same problem > > that plagues most new handtool designs. Every year about this time > > a half dozen or more appear on the market vying for your money. > > Most of them aren't much better than the older tool designs. But, > > every now and then, one will be a fantastic improvement. > > > > So, your a Festool man Rod ? ;) > Festool seems to be a tool brand ... No, that's the first I've heard of them. So, is Festool supposed to represent high quality or novel designs? I was mostly referring to infomercial tools, but just as an example of the marginal improvement issue. BTW, is it "okay" if I ask you to turn on your spelling checker ... Please? (You've misspelled 13 words in this thread alone ...) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112114245055093-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17449 |
On 2012-11-21 02:05:29 +0000, Rod Pemberton said: > "Chris Hinsley" <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:2012112017235493336-chrishinsley@gmailcom... >>> The minimal or marginal improvement problem is the same problem >>> that plagues most new handtool designs. Every year about this time >>> a half dozen or more appear on the market vying for your money. >>> Most of them aren't much better than the older tool designs. But, >>> every now and then, one will be a fantastic improvement. >>> >> >> So, your a Festool man Rod ? ;) >> > > Festool seems to be a tool brand ... No, that's the first I've heard of > them. So, is Festool supposed to represent high quality or novel designs? They do make extreamly good tools ! But it's a system, buy one and it's the thin edge of the wedge ! You just end up getting more, start tool collecting rather tha making stuff ! :) > BTW, is it "okay" if I ask you to turn on your spelling checker ... Please? > (You've misspelled 13 words in this thread alone ...) > > > Rod Pemberton I can't find the spellchecker option on Unison, so no. Sorry about the dyslexia, words just come out as they look right to me, I'm not being lazy ! Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 18:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08952a97-4cb6-4caa-9be4-c043eba790a0@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17426 |
On Nov 20, 3:38 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:82ed1dc6-9bf0-492f-b2e4-1b65f968c021@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com... > > > [...] > > When my Straight Forth comes out, everything else will > > become obsolete --- [...] > > That claim is entirely open-ended. I'm sure you meant to restrict > "everything else" to "all other Forths". Do you seriously expect a > competent C or C++ programmer to give up C or C++ and adopt > Straight Forth so readily? Ruby? Perl? Lisp? etc. I.e., even if > Straight Forth conquers the Forth world, not everyone is going > to use Forth. :-) Straight Forth is only for micro-controller programming. This means that it competes almost entirely against C, that is used in 85% of micro-controller projects. It also competes against assembly-language, that is used in 10% of micro-controller projects (usually for small chips such as the 8051 whose only virtues are low-cost and low-power). It also competes against ANS-Forth and BASIC and the various other languages (such as Spin for the Propeller), that are used in the other 5% (usually proprietary languages provided by the chip maker for their own chip). I'm just pulling all of these percentages out of the usual place that internet experts get their statistics, but they seem realistic. There is also Java and Objective C that are used in smart phones, but that is an entirely different world that I'm not addressing at all --- I think Slava wants to make inroads there, and I wish him luck. As for desktop-computer and laptop programming, I intend to make Scheme my "sister language." This means that all utility programs that need to be written in conjunction with the micro-controller project will be in this language for the sake of consistency. This typically means transformation of data that goes to or from the micro-controller and the desktop computer, from one format to another (for example, at Testra I wrote a program to convert AutoCAD dxf files into CNC gcode). Most likely I will specify Racket, as that is the most popular Scheme with the most libraries and the best IDE (although I myself am using Gambit right now). Scheme has closures. If the brave Straight Forth user doesn't know what closures are (and he wouldn't, if his background is C or ANS- Forth), then he can learn about the concept while learning Scheme, which all Straight Forth programmers will be expected to know. There are beaucoup books on programming theory (such as SICP) that use Scheme as their example language --- this is largely why I chose Scheme rather than Python, although Python is more popular and has more libraries available. > That said, something must be a truly huge improvement, not just slightly > better, for widespread adoption by people. If something is marginally > better or insignificantly so, most people will just ignore it and keep using > the old method. Forth and C with their numerous faults are proof of that. > Of course, a design doesn't have to be new to be very good. The techniques > of "continuous improvement" work. But, they do so very slowly, > methodically, incrementally. Those techniques can take a marginal to bad > design and improve it immensely. Straight Forth, being new, won't have > benefitted from that method. My sales pitch will be: "Straight Forth has closures, and C doesn't --- nyah! nyah! nyah!" Take that, Rod! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web