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 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 17:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3379563.69VCYvQH20@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #17752 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > It's certainly not hard to set this up in Forth, whether ITC or > compiled. The need just doesn't arise often enough to have formalized > it. Works also in native code. All you do is to insert a branch to the new word in the replaced word. Something like: : replace-word ( xt2 xt1 -- ) \ make xt1 do xt2 >body here >r dp ! >r postpone AHEAD r> >body dp ! postpone THEN r> dp ! ; In bigForth and VFX you have to remove the >BODY to make it work (native code colon definitions have no body, they are only code ;-); you quite likely don't achieve full replacement in VFX due to the inliner, but if you want to do this sort of stuff, you can compile your program with inlining disabled. : replace-word ( xt2 xt1 -- ) \ make xt1 do xt2 here >r dp ! >r postpone AHEAD r> dp ! postpone THEN r> dp ! ; In SwiftForth, I had more troubles. Replacing dp with h didn't work. I leave that as exercise to Elizabeth ;-). Both words need to be colon definitions. In a traditional ITC Forth (not primitive-centric, not native code), you can replace any word by any other, you make the replaced word a deferred word, and insert the xt of the target word into the body. This always works. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 08:43 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ss6dnZ-r27TCYyXNnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #17774 |
On 11/30/12 6:41 AM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> It's certainly not hard to set this up in Forth, whether ITC or >> compiled. The need just doesn't arise often enough to have formalized >> it. > > Works also in native code. All you do is to insert a branch to the new > word in the replaced word. Something like: > > : replace-word ( xt2 xt1 -- ) > \ make xt1 do xt2 > >body here >r dp ! >r postpone AHEAD r> >body dp ! postpone THEN > r> dp ! ; > > In bigForth and VFX you have to remove the >BODY to make it work (native > code colon definitions have no body, they are only code ;-); you quite > likely don't achieve full replacement in VFX due to the inliner, but if > you want to do this sort of stuff, you can compile your program with > inlining disabled. > > : replace-word ( xt2 xt1 -- ) > \ make xt1 do xt2 > here >r dp ! >r postpone AHEAD r> dp ! postpone THEN > r> dp ! ; > > In SwiftForth, I had more troubles. Replacing dp with h didn't work. I > leave that as exercise to Elizabeth ;-). Patching any Forth requires "carnal knowledge" of how its dictionary structure works. It will never be portable, which is a good thing, IMO! > Both words need to be colon definitions. In a traditional ITC Forth > (not primitive-centric, not native code), you can replace any word by > any other, you make the replaced word a deferred word, and insert the xt > of the target word into the body. This always works. Yes. There are tradeoffs involved in choosing any implementation model. And there's a philosophical difference in approach depending on whether you assume you will have source and the ability to recompile instantly (as in most Forths) or expect to have no source available and can make changes only by patching (as in Open Firmware). 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 | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 02:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1176436c-6b5b-477f-806c-fc2c3bfa00ee@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17751 |
On Nov 30, 6:37 am, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> writes: > > >> I guess an interpreted Forth could allow redefining a word while keeping > >> it at the old address. ... Is that a standard trick? > > It's one everybody knows, although it isn't used very often in normal > > Forth practice because recompiling is effectively instantaneous. > > Fast recompilation isn't the whole story. You're trying to debug a > program that gets in trouble after spending a long time building up > internal state, communicating with remote systems, has open network > connections, etc. Restarting the program from zero requires re-doing > all that setup independently of any recompilation. So you want to be > able to patch the code without restarting the program. With python it's > pretty easy to do this if you're willing to temporarily suspend the > program's execution so you can poke at it, then let it resume. With > Erlang you can apparently do it while the program continues to operate, > I guess using Erlang's features for restarting crashed processes. You can patch running Forth programs too. ITC is very simple for this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 10:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50b87bb0.32551480@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #17751 |
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:37:12 -0800, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >>> I guess an interpreted Forth could allow redefining a word while keeping >>> it at the old address. ... Is that a standard trick? >> It's one everybody knows, although it isn't used very often in normal >> Forth practice because recompiling is effectively instantaneous. > >Fast recompilation isn't the whole story. You're trying to debug a >program that gets in trouble after spending a long time building up >internal state, communicating with remote systems, has open network >connections, etc. Restarting the program from zero requires re-doing >all that setup independently of any recompilation. So you want to be >able to patch the code without restarting the program. The VFX Forths all permit you to start new interpreters. On the Windows version go to Tools -> Debug Console On the others, RTFM - yes there is a manual. Although I personally am not excited by patching, it is used on VFX by some people with large application. MPE could be persuaded to add it to the distributions. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 14:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50b8bcae$0$3515$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #17751 |
In article <7xd2yvfvfr.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >>> I guess an interpreted Forth could allow redefining a word while keeping >>> it at the old address. ... Is that a standard trick? >> It's one everybody knows, although it isn't used very often in normal >> Forth practice because recompiling is effectively instantaneous. > >Fast recompilation isn't the whole story. You're trying to debug a >program that gets in trouble after spending a long time building up >internal state, communicating with remote systems, has open network >connections, etc. Restarting the program from zero requires re-doing >all that setup independently of any recompilation. So you want to be >able to patch the code without restarting the program. With python it's >pretty easy to do this if you're willing to temporarily suspend the >program's execution so you can poke at it, then let it resume. With >Erlang you can apparently do it while the program continues to operate, >I guess using Erlang's features for restarting crashed processes. To quote Tanenbaum "symbolic debuggers and optimising compilers are each others arch enemies". You can't compare Python to an optimising Forth, you must compare it to a classic indirect threaded system. The output of an optimising compiler can only be debugged at the assembler level, really. Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 14:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2bb50837-e92c-43d3-85e3-d36b84bc97b7@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17740 |
On Nov 29, 8:35 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> This Forth was similar to Forth83, though not entirely standard. We
> quoted a couple of man-months to convert it to run on polyFORTH and
> document it, but the elected to rewrite the whole in C, which ended up
> taking several years.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
It is unusual for salespeople to brag about failing to make a sale!
LOL You remind me of the fisherman who returns with an empty creel,
but telling a wonderous tale about the gigantic fish that he coulda,
woulda and shoulda caught.
PolyForth on MS-DOS was limited to 64K total, for application code,
application data, the compiler and the dictionary. Maybe your customer
knew that their program was too big to fit in such a tiny system,
which is why they rejected your offer. They may have also known that
your "couple of man-months" estimate was baloney too.
You did the same thing at Testra. They wanted a cross-compiler for
their MiniForth processor, but you quoted an exorbitant price, and
tried to sell a fantasy of how the whole thing was easy for Forth Inc.
and could be done in a few months. Testra hired me instead, and I
wrote the whole development system, which took me most of a year
(During the interview I was asked how long it would take and I said:
"I don't know; I've never done anything like this before."). The
processor didn't even exist physically until quite late in the
project. During most of the project, I was targeting a design on paper
that changed on an almost daily basis. There is no way for the
development system to be finished ahead of the hardware design, so the
project had to take as long as it did, because that is how long it
took to do the hardware design. Also, there is a lot of work involved
in a development system --- an assembler, simulator, Forth compiler,
and a lot of low-level support code --- this doesn't get done
overnight.
Those C programmers stole your customer, and they succeeded in writing
the program. Now you attack them, implying that they took too long
("several years" compared to your "couple of man-months"). I also
stole your customer, and succeeded in writing the program. Now you
attack me, saying that my code "sucks" and is "absurd" and deserves a
"horse-laugh." There is a pattern here! Every time that somebody
steals your customer and succeeds in writing a program for that
customer, you attack that programmer on a public forum (and continue
attacking them for decades afterward, in the case of those C
programmers.)
I really don't believe that you've ever written a computer program in
your life --- this is all just a steaming pile of marketing --- Forth
Inc. has been an empty shell ever since you kicked Chuck Moore out.
But hey! Look on the bright side! Maybe I will die --- then you can
claim to be an expert in my software --- just like you claimed to be
an expert in that other guy's software after he died. Maybe you can
even figure out how to print out a listing of the source-code --- that
ought to convince people that you know everything there is to know
about the software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 14:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <34a0f471-cdc0-45dd-9cc6-335340adb428@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17785 |
On Nov 30, 10:06 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > But hey! Look on the bright side! Maybe I will die ... Could you do it quietly please?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 14:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08aad214-299b-41ef-9ff8-63269d549b9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17785 |
On Friday, November 30, 2012 11:06:06 PM UTC+1, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Nov 29, 8:35 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>
> > This Forth was similar to Forth83, though not entirely standard. We
>
> > quoted a couple of man-months to convert it to run on polyFORTH and
>
> > document it, but the elected to rewrite the whole in C, which ended up
>
> > taking several years.
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Elizabeth
>
>
>
> It is unusual for salespeople to brag about failing to make a sale!
>
> LOL You remind me of the fisherman who returns with an empty creel,
>
> but telling a wonderous tale about the gigantic fish that he coulda,
>
> woulda and shoulda caught.
>
>
>
> PolyForth on MS-DOS was limited to 64K total, for application code,
>
> application data, the compiler and the dictionary. Maybe your customer
>
> knew that their program was too big to fit in such a tiny system,
>
> which is why they rejected your offer. They may have also known that
>
> your "couple of man-months" estimate was baloney too.
>
>
>
> You did the same thing at Testra. They wanted a cross-compiler for
>
> their MiniForth processor, but you quoted an exorbitant price, and
>
> tried to sell a fantasy of how the whole thing was easy for Forth Inc.
>
> and could be done in a few months. Testra hired me instead, and I
>
> wrote the whole development system, which took me most of a year
>
> (During the interview I was asked how long it would take and I said:
>
> "I don't know; I've never done anything like this before."). The
>
> processor didn't even exist physically until quite late in the
>
> project. During most of the project, I was targeting a design on paper
>
> that changed on an almost daily basis. There is no way for the
>
> development system to be finished ahead of the hardware design, so the
>
> project had to take as long as it did, because that is how long it
>
> took to do the hardware design. Also, there is a lot of work involved
>
> in a development system --- an assembler, simulator, Forth compiler,
>
> and a lot of low-level support code --- this doesn't get done
>
> overnight.
>
>
>
> Those C programmers stole your customer, and they succeeded in writing
>
> the program. Now you attack them, implying that they took too long
>
> ("several years" compared to your "couple of man-months"). I also
>
> stole your customer, and succeeded in writing the program. Now you
>
> attack me, saying that my code "sucks" and is "absurd" and deserves a
>
> "horse-laugh." There is a pattern here! Every time that somebody
>
> steals your customer and succeeds in writing a program for that
>
> customer, you attack that programmer on a public forum (and continue
>
> attacking them for decades afterward, in the case of those C
>
> programmers.)
>
>
>
> I really don't believe that you've ever written a computer program in
>
> your life --- this is all just a steaming pile of marketing --- Forth
>
> Inc. has been an empty shell ever since you kicked Chuck Moore out.
>
>
>
> But hey! Look on the bright side! Maybe I will die --- then you can
>
> claim to be an expert in my software --- just like you claimed to be
>
> an expert in that other guy's software after he died. Maybe you can
>
> even figure out how to print out a listing of the source-code --- that
>
> ought to convince people that you know everything there is to know
>
> about the software.
Hi Hugh,
> PolyForth on MS-DOS was limited to 64K total
No its not - I wrote an application that was way more than that.
> They may have also known that
> your "couple of man-months" estimate was baloney too.
They may have thought that, but they would have been wrong.
> I really don't believe that you've ever written a computer program in
> your life
I can confirm that Elizabeth has written many Forth programs - I was there for several of them. I can't believe I am writing this. It must be obvious to anyone with any common sense.
> Forth Inc. has been an empty shell ever since you kicked Chuck Moore out.
Wrong on two counts. 1. Forth, Inc. did not "kick Chuck out". 2. Forth, Inc. is not an empty shell because it had and has some of the best programmers I have ever worked with, including Elizabeth. Again, I can't believe I am writing this. It must be obvious to anyone with any common sense.
> Now you attack me, saying that my code "sucks"
Also wrong on two counts 1. This is an attack on your code, not you, and 2. Elizabeth never said that your code "sucks", and neither did John Passaniti - IIRC he said the your "code sucks for the intended purpose" or somesuch. This is completely different from attacking the code generally, and also completely different from attacking you.
I think I am responding to your post because I have just spent two days programming a desktop application in SwiftForth. I created a Windows Resource file parser to merge two langauge versions from the same English source. It was a difficult problem to solve, and it required all of the benefits of Forth's interactivity, SwiftForth's Windows support, and all of my experience from 34 years of playing with Forth to get it done.
So yet again I am so thankful that I found Forth - I am able to do things that are just not feasible within the available time with any other language.
This gives me an enormous advantage technically at work, and allows me to have FUN and get paid for it.
Elizabeth taught me a lot of Forth, either personally or through looking at her code examples and the various Forth, Inc. products I have had the pleasure to work with.
I think that your comments are inaccurate, and a kind of "cultural vandalism" against people, ideas and a culture that I respect.
Forth is definitely the best language I know for me to write the sort of desktop applications that I need for my work.
Please stop attacking people on clf.
If you want people to respect your code, write code that does something better, and prove it.
Please don't state your opinions as if they are facts.
Otherwise please just STFU.
Best regards,
Howerd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-02 18:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bcf98f21-07ca-4de3-abd7-30365381a510@b9g2000pba.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17787 |
On Nov 30, 3:58 pm, Howerd <howe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Friday, November 30, 2012 11:06:06 PM UTC+1, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > Hi Hugh, > > PolyForth on MS-DOS was limited to 64K total > No its not - I wrote an application that was way more than that. PolyForth for the 16-bit x86 was always limited to 64K total. This was much worse than the Tiny memory-model of C and Pascal, etc., because in PolyForth the 64K segment included not only the application program, but also the compiler and the dictionary. To a large part, what ruined Forth's reputation in the late 1980s was PolyForth's severe memory limitation. In the early 1980s, there was still debate on whether C or Forth would dominate in the personal- computer world, but PolyForth ended that debate conclusively --- after PolyForth came out for MS-DOS, the Forth language was considered to be a toy language similar to QBasic (although QBasic supported much larger programs, so it became the standard toy language, and hence Forth didn't even make the junior-varsity team). When the 80386 came out, Forth Inc. upgraded PolyForth from 16-bits to 32-bits and, in doing so, eliminated the 64K limitation. This is most likely what you are referring to (you may also be referring to a heavy use of overlays on the 16-bit x86 and/or using far pointers to memory blocks outside of the 64K segment, both techniques of which are a major PITA) --- by the time that the 80386 came out though, Forth was effectively dead, C had become the standard language and Forth had been relegated to the dustbin of history. Most likely, the reason why PolyForth was limited to 64K, was because it was a port of an old 8080 program that by necessity was limited to 64K. This reminds me of my job doing IBM370 assembly-language. That place had a library of code that everybody was expected to use, but all of that code had been unchanged in many years. I noticed that everything in the library had a set of initials at the top that I didn't recognize, so I asked who that programmer was, and I was told that he was a "genius," but that he had been fired for having a bad attitude --- that was a real morale booster! That must have been what it was like for you working at Forth Inc. after Chuck Moore left. Jeff Fox told me that Chuck Moore hired Forth Inc. to write a program for him after he had left. I think this was the front-end for the development system for one of his Forth chips, but I don't know the details of what it was supposed to do. Jeff told me that after $40,000 and several months, the program was still just a bug-ridden mess. Chuck Moore had to write off the $40K as a loss and just write the program himself (I think Jeff Fox wrote most of it as an employee of Chuck Moore). Chuck Moore has never had any contact with Forth Inc. since that time, and he stopped recommending Forth Inc. for desktop- computer programming work. Were you involved in that project? > > They may have also known that > > your "couple of man-months" estimate was baloney too. > > They may have thought that, but they would have been wrong. Hard to know without actually doing it though. All in all, it seems unlikely that those C programmers took "several years" to write a program that could have been written in 2 months --- how many employers are going to keep signing paychecks for that long without any result? I usually take more than 2 months to write any non-trivial program. It took me most of a year to write MFX, for example. The slide-rule program took me a little over 2 months to write, but that also included writing the entire novice package, which was necessary as SwiftForth doesn't come with any support for application programming, such as lists or arrays or even structs. I examined both PolyForth and UR/Forth when I needed a Forth system for my 65c02 cross-compiler back in the late 1980s. There is no way that program could have been written in PolyForth --- that is why I went with UR/Forth. Now on clf Elizabeth Rather describes UR/Forth as not having been suitable for professional programming, and claims that Forth Inc. had a monopoly on professional Forth programming --- that is total baloney --- I don't know of anybody who used PolyForth for professional work, although I know of more than one place that used UR/ Forth (including the place that I worked for). Why do you think that guy who died wrote his own Forth, rather than use PolyForth, if PolyForth was so wonderful? > > Forth Inc. has been an empty shell ever since you kicked Chuck Moore out. > > Wrong on two counts. 1. Forth, Inc. did not "kick Chuck out". 2. Forth, Inc. is not an empty shell because it had and has some of the best programmers I have ever worked with, including Elizabeth. Again, I can't believe I am writing this. It must be obvious to anyone with any common sense. Which one of those super-programmers at Forth Inc. wrote the following code (this is in SwiftForth v2, that I paid almost $500 for)? ICODE ALIGNED ( a -- a ) RET END-CODE \ aligned is noop, no alignment enforced ICODE ALIGN ( -- ) RET END-CODE \ align is noop, no alignment enforced I can provide more examples --- maybe we will even find some of your own code. In Michael Abrash's first "Zen of Assembly Language" book, he discusses the importance of aligning data on word boundaries. He tells a story about how somebody that he knew was writing a Forth compiler (this is his only mention of Forth in his book) for the 8088, and it ran horribly slowly. Abrash looked over the guy's code and recommended that he align his stacks on word boundaries. The guy did this, and he doubled the speed of his system just like that. I bought SwiftForth in 1996 or 1997, and it lacked alignment --- Abrash's book came out in 1990 though, so there is no excuse for the Forth Inc. employees to not know about this stuff. Abrash's second Zen book, which discussed the 80486, came out in 1994 --- and it also pointed out the importance of word alignment. I think by that time, pretty much everybody in the world knew that data needs to be word aligned on the x86, although it is not strictly required as on the MC68000. > > Now you attack me, saying that my code "sucks" > > Also wrong on two counts 1. This is an attack on your code, not you, and 2. Elizabeth never said that your code "sucks", and neither did John Passaniti - IIRC he said the your "code sucks for the intended purpose" or somesuch. This is completely different from attacking the code generally, and also completely different from attacking you. Ultimately, it is all about sucking. Anybody who wants to get along with Elizabeth Rather has to suck. I'm not mad at Elizabeth Rather because she attacks me --- I'm mad at her because she drags the entire Forth community down. In the late 1980s, Forth's reputation just sank like a rock --- and she was the one who did that --- she pulled the rug out from under everybody, all because she wanted to be an expert programmer without writing any programs, but just by endlessly telling everybody about how she knew Chuck Moore in the 1970s when he invented Forth and how this makes her the world's expert on Forth. > Elizabeth taught me a lot of Forth, either personally or through looking at her code examples and the various Forth, Inc. products I have had the pleasure to work with. Code examples??? Please show us! I've never seen anything from her. All I've seen is a lot of bad advice --- such as the idea that PAD can be used for temporary storage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-03 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1531041.t244WW6Rqv@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #17813 |
Hugh Aguilar wrote: > Jeff Fox told me that Chuck Moore hired Forth Inc. to write a program > for him after he had left. I think this was the front-end for the > development system for one of his Forth chips, but I don't know the > details of what it was supposed to do. Jeff told me that after $40,000 > and several months, the program was still just a bug-ridden mess. > Chuck Moore had to write off the $40K as a loss and just write the > program himself (I think Jeff Fox wrote most of it as an employee of > Chuck Moore). Chuck Moore has never had any contact with Forth Inc. > since that time, and he stopped recommending Forth Inc. for desktop- > computer programming work. Which is why there is a PolyForth for the GA144... and Forth Inc. did it for free... The reality is just wildly different from the vitriolic speech you make. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-03 21:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g7zct3hxsm98$.1fpshl8b32qzp.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #17819 |
Op Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:34:40 +0100 schreef Bernd Paysan: > Hugh Aguilar wrote: >> Jeff Fox told me that Chuck Moore hired Forth Inc. to write a program >> for him after he had left. I think this was the front-end for the >> development system for one of his Forth chips, but I don't know the >> details of what it was supposed to do. Jeff told me that after $40,000 >> and several months, the program was still just a bug-ridden mess. >> Chuck Moore had to write off the $40K as a loss and just write the >> program himself (I think Jeff Fox wrote most of it as an employee of >> Chuck Moore). Chuck Moore has never had any contact with Forth Inc. >> since that time, and he stopped recommending Forth Inc. for desktop- >> computer programming work. > > Which is why there is a PolyForth for the GA144... and Forth Inc. did it > for free... > > The reality is just wildly different from the vitriolic speech you make. And why this vermin keeps breaking through my killfile is a beyond me. -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-03 14:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0f49314-7755-4f5c-82f3-8f824be874aa@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17819 |
On Dec 3, 8:34 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > The reality is just wildly different from the vitriolic speech you make. The reality of Gforth, is that it is less than half the speed of SwiftForth. It will always be a toy. Here is another example of SwiftForth v2 code: : FEXPM1 ( r -- r ) FEXP #1.0E F- ; \ (e to the x) - 1 : FLNP1 ( r -- r ) #1.0E F+ FLN ; \ ln(x+1) This reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon, where we have the character Wally, who has made a science out of laziness. For Wally, writing code like the above would be a slam-dunk --- he would not consider doing it any other way. My impression of Forth Inc., is that all of the programmers there are Wally. They figured out a long time ago that their boss knows nothing about programming and will never check their work. For example, in SwiftForth v2, (LOCAL) would crash the system. The programmers knew that Elizabeth Rather would never check their work, because the use of local variables isn't taught in her novice class (they all took the novice class when they hired on, so they know exactly how far Elizabeth Rather's knowledge of Forth extends), and hence she would never find out about the (LOCAL) bug. Another slam- dunk for Wally! The bottom line here, is that I'm never going to admit that I suck. That whole thing with Passaniti saying that my code sucks, was a test. I was supposed to cheerfully agree. Elizabeth Rather never looked at my code before jumping to support Passaniti. Alex McDonald never looked at it, which is why he thought that it was a Splay tree. You never looked at it, which is why you said that you had compared trees to hash tables 20 years ago, and nothing had changed since then. Looking at the code was not necessary, because the whole point of the exercise was that I should say that it sucks. To become a member of Elizabeth Rather's community, everybody must say that their code sucks. After doing this, the Forther can't point out problems with SwiftForth (such as I did above), because he has already said that his own code sucks. As long as you cheerfully admit that Gforth is slow, even compared to SwiftForth which does almost no optimization at all, then you get to be a member in good standing in Elizabeth Rather's community. If you ever made Gforth compile code to run at a reasonable speed, you would offend Elizabeth Rather --- Passaniti would begin attacking you, and saying that you suck --- you would be kicked out of Elizabeth Rather's gay-pride parade for committing the sin of competence. I can remember a time before Forth sucked. In 1984, when I was a senior in high-school, Forth was still taken seriously. It wasn't long however, before "Forth" became synonymous with "incompetent." For example, that famous book by Abrash in 1990, had only one reference to Forth --- his description of a Forth programmer who didn't know that data had to be word aligned on the 8088. This was very typical --- you never heard Forth mentioned at all, except as an example of utter incompetence. When his 1994 book came out, there was no mention of Forth at all --- by that time, the vast majority of his readers would miss the point, as they would have never heard of Forth at all --- it would be like making a joke about the Ford Edsel, and nobody gets the joke because they have never heard of the car (that is actually a good analogy, as there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the Edsel, but yet it became synonymous with failure). It was in the late 1990s however, when I bought SwiftForth v2, and it still didn't support ALIGN and ALIGNED. Also, I had noticed that the stack in Tom Zimmer's MS-DOS Forth, was not word aligned. That kind of incompetence is just not tolerated in the C community, or anywhere else. Only in the Forth community is incompetence tolerated, and indeed required --- but I will never agree to support Forth-200x --- that is why I'm writing Straight Forth (my slogan will be: "Don't be gay! Program Straight!").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5fb5edf-7b14-42b0-b134-2570cab7a37b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17839 |
On Monday, December 3, 2012 3:49:41 PM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > The bottom line here, is that I'm never going to admit that I suck. > Actually, that is the bottom line. How else are you going to make progress? Everybody writes sucky code as part of their learning process, even if they've been learning for 20 or 40 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 11:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1993a62f-8eb2-4b56-abbf-cfcaea4636d6@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17861 |
On Dec 5, 10:24 am, Brad Eckert <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, December 3, 2012 3:49:41 PM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > The bottom line here, is that I'm never going to admit that I suck. > > Actually, that is the bottom line. How else are you going to make progress? Everybody writes sucky code as part of their learning process, even if they've been learning for 20 or 40 years. The last time I heard from you, you were struggling to understand how >R R@ R> etc. work. Did you ever figure out the return stack? Understanding the return stack is definitely one of the more difficult aspects of the learning process for Forth novices. If you can't figure it out, the good news is that Straight Forth won't have >R R@ R> etc. at all, and neither will it have DO loops --- Straight Forth is much simpler than ANS-Forth, and hence will be easier for novices to learn. You were demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the return stack in this thread: https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/bc6bbf11d68b0d1e This was what I told you: On Sep 21, 7:37 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 21, 1:47 pm, Brad Eckert <hwfw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:25:11 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote: > > >... locals on the return stack, which is not possible if it is > > >also going to support >R R@ R> etc., which it does. > > > If it's not possible, why do so many Forths do it? > > Forths that have locals and have >R R@ R> etc. typically give the > locals their own stack. If the locals are on the return-stack, then > you have to know at compile-time how many >R will be done at run-time > so that you know how to adjust the offsets of the locals from the > return-stack pointer. This isn't possible because the >R may be inside > of a loop and the number of iterations that the loop executes (and > hence the number of >R that get executed) depends upon parameters > given to the function at run-time. > > It is common to have >R inside of a loop when you have variable > numbers of parameters (usually a lot of non-zero data with a zero > sentinal underneath). This is sometimes also done with strings where > all of the chars in the string get pushed onto the return-stack. If > you don't understand how >R can be inside of a loop, I have examples > in my novice package: http://www.forth.org/novice.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 11:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9d1ab6e5-7e5f-422c-bdfe-5ec30ecbf4b2@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17839 |
On Dec 3, 3:49 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ... that famous book by Abrash in 1990, had only one reference to > Forth --- his description of a Forth programmer who didn't know that > data had to be word aligned on the 8088. This was very typical --- you > never heard Forth mentioned at all, except as an example of utter > incompetence. This was actually a gaff on my part --- I meant the 8086, the 80286, and everything else --- the 8088, however, was the only member of the x86 family that didn't need data to be word-aligned, because it had an 8-bit data-bus and had to do two accesses for a 16-bit value no matter whether the datum was word-aligned or not. In general though, even if you expected your program to run on an 8088, you still word-aligned your data just in case it might later get run on one of the mighty 16- bit chips --- the IBM-PC with its wimpy 4.77Mhz 8088 actually compared badly to the Commodore-64 in speed, and everybody moved to the 80286 as soon as they could. Nobody caught my gaff! You guys aren't even good at being trolls --- you should have pounced on that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 15:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d151be2c-ba58-4c6e-82ee-c9bb714957e2@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17864 |
On Dec 5, 7:39 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 3, 3:49 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > ... that famous book by Abrash in 1990, had only one reference to > > Forth --- his description of a Forth programmer who didn't know that > > data had to be word aligned on the 8088. This was very typical --- you > > never heard Forth mentioned at all, except as an example of utter > > incompetence. > > This was actually a gaff on my part --- I meant the 8086, the 80286, > and everything else --- the 8088, however, was the only member of the > x86 family that didn't need data to be word-aligned, because it had an > 8-bit data-bus and had to do two accesses for a 16-bit value no matter > whether the datum was word-aligned or not. In general though, even if > you expected your program to run on an 8088, you still word-aligned > your data just in case it might later get run on one of the mighty 16- > bit chips --- the IBM-PC with its wimpy 4.77Mhz 8088 actually compared > badly to the Commodore-64 in speed, and everybody moved to the 80286 > as soon as they could. > > Nobody caught my gaff! You guys aren't even good at being trolls --- > you should have pounced on that! Only you is paying you any attention. Your average post is so full of errors of fact, it rapidly becomes an exercise in diminishing returns in point out your many mistakes. It would be quicker and easier congratulating you on getting something right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 20:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k9otpp$3pv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17870 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message news:d151be2c-ba58-4c6e-82ee-c9bb714957e2@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 5, 7:39 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 3:49 pm, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: ... > > > ... that famous book by Abrash in 1990, had only one > > > reference to Forth --- his description of a Forth > > > programmer who didn't know that data had to be word > > > aligned on the 8088. This was very typical --- you > > > never heard Forth mentioned at all, except as an example > > > of utter incompetence. > > > This was actually a gaff on my part --- I meant the 8086, the > > 80286, and everything else --- the 8088, however, was the > > only member of the x86 family that didn't need data to be > > word-aligned, because it had an 8-bit data-bus and had to do > > two accesses for a 16-bit value no matter whether the datum > > was word-aligned or not. In general though, even if > > you expected your program to run on an 8088, you still > > word-aligned your data just in case it might later get run on > > one of the mighty 16-bit chips --- the IBM-PC with its wimpy > > 4.77Mhz 8088 actually compared badly to the Commodore-64 > > in speed, and everybody moved to the 80286 as soon as they > > could. > Well, Alex was saying something, but this entire post is to Hugh. Well, Hugh, I never actually compared them. At the time, PCs weren't even on the "radar" of most people with home computers. Back then, it was Apple II's, C64's, TS1000's, Amiga's, Atari ST's, etc. x86 PC's lacked any ability in the areas of sound and video. Nobody wanted one of them. They were basically text only. So, people only used them at work, or for accounting at home, if their work discarded one ... Next, all the innovative computer companies went bankrupt. So, x86 PC's won the PC wars by default. I think it was the mid 1990's before I actually used one. It was then and only then that companies start manufacturing graphics capable video cards for gaming for x86 clone PC's. Even so, it still took x86 PC video cards some years to catch up to graphics of the Amiga 1000's from 1987 ... Fortunately, performance accelerated around the time of the DX2 line of 486's just when the graphics cards became useful for gaming. > > Nobody caught my gaff! You guys aren't even good at being > > trolls --- you should have pounced on that! > > Only you is paying you any attention. Your average post is so > full of errors of fact, it rapidly becomes an exercise in > diminishing returns in point out your many mistakes. It would > be quicker and easier congratulating you on getting something > right. Well, Alex pounced on you at your provocation! So, I guess, you got what you wanted. ;-) Although, Alex didn't correct you. So, I'm not sure if he actually knows what "errors of fact" your posts are "so full of" ... That said, there are probably only four, maybe six, people here who would know something non-Forth, like x86. I do. I saw it. I just didn't feel like correcting something so trivial and utterly obsolete. It would've been a one word post. Anyhow, you're just not going to run code on something older than a 486DX2, unless you're a fool or a fanatic. Older processors are valuable collectors items now, working or not, but far more so if working. So, any pre-486 knowledge is purely trivia, unless it's still valid on modern x86. But, 1) this is so deep into the thread, I'm just skimming now, not really reading anymore ... Every time I do read, I have to come to your defense because of the abundance of ignorance around here on non-Forth computing issues. And, 2) you've also posted a bunch of long posts, semi-rants really, deep in various threads, on ancient x86 and ancient MS-DOS Forth history, recently. I.e., the posts are good for newbs or alt.folklore.computers ... So, I doubt anyone here is reading them and enjoying the nostalgia. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 18:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4186b7da-16d5-41eb-bf6c-12b78f064a38@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17872 |
On Dec 5, 6:57 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > Well, Hugh, I never actually compared them. At the time, PCs > weren't even on the "radar" of most people with home computers. > Back then, it was Apple II's, C64's, TS1000's, Amiga's, Atari > ST's, etc. x86 PC's lacked any ability in the areas of sound and > video. Nobody wanted one of them. They were basically text only. > So, people only used them at work, or for accounting at home, if > their work discarded one ... Next, all the innovative computer > companies went bankrupt. So, x86 PC's won the PC wars by default. > I think it was the mid 1990's before I actually used one. It was > then and only then that companies start manufacturing graphics > capable video cards for gaming for x86 clone PC's. Even so, it > still took x86 PC video cards some years to catch up to graphics > of the Amiga 1000's from 1987 ... Fortunately, performance > accelerated around the time of the DX2 line of 486's just when the > graphics cards became useful for gaming. The MS-DOS computers were only for business, and their only virtue was that they had more memory than the 65c02 computers (actually, the IBM- PC only had 128KB, the same as the Apple-IIe, but it could theoretically have as much as 640KB which soon became common). Another advantage was that the 8087 could be installed, which helped a lot in spreadsheets. As for graphics, all of the personal-computers were better for games than the MS-DOS machines. Some of them (Commodore-64 and Commodore- Amiga) had sprites, which really helped games a lot. It turned out, however, that the general public (above the age of 15) wasn't interested in playing games. What people wanted was the ability to view and modify photographs. Those Commodore computers may have been good for games, but they had relatively low-resolution displays that were not capable of displaying photographs. That is what killed the personal-computer --- they had low-resolution displays, which are okay for games, but which are not okay for photographs. If Commodore had gone with a slow high-resolution display, rather than a fast low- resolution display with sprites, they could have succeeded --- their use of the MC68000 put them way ahead of MS-DOS with its clunky x86, plus their OS was a lot more advanced than MicroSoft Windows (it is pretty much impossible to be less advanced). What is really dumb about all of this, is that most of the photographs that people were viewing on their computer were pornography (at home) and paste-up advertising flyers (at work). LOL That is like buying a jet airplane and using it to haul garbage! This just goes to prove that you can never really underestimate the intelligence of your customers --- many have failed because they aimed too high, but nobody has ever failed by aiming too low --- and Bill Gates has won the race to the bottom!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-05 20:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xfw3jbzi8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17872 |
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> writes: > Anyhow, you're just not going to run code on something older than > a 486DX2, unless you're a fool or a fanatic. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/BASCD08K.pdf -- See last slide. I'm not sure if he's saying that modern x86's support certain floating point rounding modes that the 486 did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 19:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k9rbk8$1e7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17874 |
"Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:7xfw3jbzi8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> writes: > > Anyhow, you're just not going to run code on something older > > than a 486DX2, unless you're a fool or a fanatic. > > [link] > -- See last slide. > What does this have to do with old processors being collectables? > [link] > -- See last slide. > > I'm not sure if he's saying that modern x86's support certain > floating point rounding modes that the 486 did. > Are you referring to the quote on page 11 of him running MATLAB 3.5 on an old "Intel 386/486"? He probably meant he wrote his own routines for x87 floating-point instructions in order to prove his conclusions. The SX series of 386/486 didn't have an internal floating co-processor. The DX series did. You could buy a 387/487 coprocessor or a Weitek for an SX series processor. If no floating point co-processor was available, the missing floating point instructions are passed to an interrupt/GPF handler. Was this supposed to be an example of a non-fool, non-fanatic use for an old processor? Accepted. Although, it could be argued he's a fanatic due to his desire to prove the correctness of floating-point implementations. He's just not a fanatic in the sense of programming old x86. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web