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 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-25 13:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <99709010928435@frunobulax.edu> |
| In reply to | #17524 |
awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) writes Re: why bother with standards ? Be assured that your efforts are appreciated. -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-24 12:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cb28c7f0-2668-430a-ab08-ac191b0bbc80@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17520 |
On Nov 24, 6:39 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] > > I'm just learning Scheme to better myself. Given that I mostly only > program in Forth, I really don't know a lot about computer-science > theory. Straight Forth is going to have closures, and Scheme is famous > for closures --- so it makes sense for me to learn Scheme --- I'm > largely taking my time in coming out with Straight Forth so that I can > learn more Scheme in the meantime, as I intend for Straight Forth to > borrow heavily from Scheme. There are a lot of aspects of Scheme that > are a no-go for micro-controllers (such as tagged data (dynamic OOP)), > but there are a lot of aspects that can be carried over (such as > closures). Re closures; how will you do GC on a resource constrained and slow micro-controller? Or have you a method that doesn't require GC; for instance, restricting support of full closures?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-24 20:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c69721f-9005-4545-bae4-6988881915e3@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17530 |
On Nov 24, 1:20 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 6:39 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [snip] > > > > > I'm just learning Scheme to better myself. Given that I mostly only > > program in Forth, I really don't know a lot about computer-science > > theory. Straight Forth is going to have closures, and Scheme is famous > > for closures --- so it makes sense for me to learn Scheme --- I'm > > largely taking my time in coming out with Straight Forth so that I can > > learn more Scheme in the meantime, as I intend for Straight Forth to > > borrow heavily from Scheme. There are a lot of aspects of Scheme that > > are a no-go for micro-controllers (such as tagged data (dynamic OOP)), > > but there are a lot of aspects that can be carried over (such as > > closures). > > Re closures; how will you do GC on a resource constrained and slow > micro-controller? Or have you a method that doesn't require GC; for > instance, restricting support of full closures? I'm not going to have GC --- that has no place in Forth. The closures don't have to be on the heap --- they can be on the locals stack of the parent function --- they don't exist beyond the lifespan of the parent function. To some extent, this is "restricting support of full closures" --- however, I never thought that it was a good idea for closures to be used after their parent function had gone out of scope. If the user tries to execute some closure that is sitting in a global data structure after its parent has gone out of scope, this will get caught at run-time and will abort the program with a helpful error message. If people want to hold onto the xt of a function forever, they will have to create it with :NONAME in the usual way. Using closures for this is an abuse of the closure system. I primarily want to support code similar to EACH in my novice package. In the case of EACH etc., the passed-in function communicated with its parent function on the parameter stack. To do this, it was necessary for EACH to keep all of its internal data on the return stack so that it wouldn't get in the way. That was a hassle. With my closures, the passed-in function (the closure) will be able to communicate with the parent function by way of the parent function's local variables. I want to have closures because they make programs a lot simpler. I like being able to bury code inside of an iterator. The traditional Forth way is to just cut-and-paste this code repeatedly. That is very error-prone, and it clutters up the source-code. For example, in my slide-rule program I used EACH over 30 times --- rewriting the code for traversing a list that many times would have cluttered up the program significantly. Besides that, the code for traversing a list is quite small and simple --- the code for traversing the LLRB tree is larger and more complicated. When programmers have to rewrite the code for traversing a data-structure every time that they need to do this, they are motivated to use only simple data-structures and to avoid complicated data-structures --- that is a big part of the reason why Forth has a reputation for being a simplistic language that is lacking in features --- by comparison, in the Scheme/Lisp world, all kinds of data-structures are readily available and easy to use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-25 02:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f4a374b2-9c3b-48f5-bf32-2e8b63119a43@e25g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17536 |
On Nov 25, 4:45 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 1:20 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 6:39 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > I'm just learning Scheme to better myself. Given that I mostly only
> > > program in Forth, I really don't know a lot about computer-science
> > > theory. Straight Forth is going to have closures, and Scheme is famous
> > > for closures --- so it makes sense for me to learn Scheme --- I'm
> > > largely taking my time in coming out with Straight Forth so that I can
> > > learn more Scheme in the meantime, as I intend for Straight Forth to
> > > borrow heavily from Scheme. There are a lot of aspects of Scheme that
> > > are a no-go for micro-controllers (such as tagged data (dynamic OOP)),
> > > but there are a lot of aspects that can be carried over (such as
> > > closures).
>
> > Re closures; how will you do GC on a resource constrained and slow
> > micro-controller? Or have you a method that doesn't require GC; for
> > instance, restricting support of full closures?
>
> I'm not going to have GC --- that has no place in Forth.
>
> The closures don't have to be on the heap --- they can be on the
> locals stack of the parent function --- they don't exist beyond the
> lifespan of the parent function. To some extent, this is "restricting
> support of full closures" --- however, I never thought that it was a
> good idea for closures to be used after their parent function had gone
> out of scope. If the user tries to execute some closure that is
> sitting in a global data structure after its parent has gone out of
> scope, this will get caught at run-time and will abort the program
> with a helpful error message. If people want to hold onto the xt of a
> function forever, they will have to create it with :NONAME in the
> usual way. Using closures for this is an abuse of the closure system.
>
> I primarily want to support code similar to EACH in my novice package.
> In the case of EACH etc., the passed-in function communicated with its
> parent function on the parameter stack. To do this, it was necessary
> for EACH to keep all of its internal data on the return stack so that
> it wouldn't get in the way. That was a hassle. With my closures, the
> passed-in function (the closure) will be able to communicate with the
> parent function by way of the parent function's local variables.
>
> I want to have closures because they make programs a lot simpler. I
> like being able to bury code inside of an iterator. The traditional
> Forth way is to just cut-and-paste this code repeatedly. That is very
> error-prone, and it clutters up the source-code. For example, in my
> slide-rule program I used EACH over 30 times --- rewriting the code
> for traversing a list that many times would have cluttered up the
> program significantly. Besides that, the code for traversing a list is
> quite small and simple --- the code for traversing the LLRB tree is
> larger and more complicated. When programmers have to rewrite the code
> for traversing a data-structure every time that they need to do this,
> they are motivated to use only simple data-structures and to avoid
> complicated data-structures --- that is a big part of the reason why
> Forth has a reputation for being a simplistic language that is lacking
> in features --- by comparison, in the Scheme/Lisp world, all kinds of
> data-structures are readily available and easy to use.
These sound like "anonymous quotations"; this was discussed at length
here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_frm/thread/c7c8543a3d4c7ad5/dd65eafc55280513?lnk=gst&q=anonymous+quotation#dd65eafc55280513
In which case, it's trivially implementable, as here;
STC Experimental 32bit: 0.06.05 Build: 6
: foo {: local :} [: local 1+ ;] execute ; ok
10 foo . 11 ok
The LOCAL local is "lexically" bound and in scope during FOO's
execution. However, the following doesn't work, since the variable
LOCAL is outside the scope and isn't properly bound;
: bar {: local :} [: local 1+ ;] ;
10 bar execute
That requires value lifetimes outside of the enclosing word, and some
form of GC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 14:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7318def8-69df-4231-9817-bcb1517fc577@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17455 |
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:47:16 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote: > If everyone could program, wouldn't that do for programming what reading and writing did for literature? I.e., wouldn't that produce a diverse and immense amount of code that would benefit society? The goals of FSF and FOSS movement seem to be to attack closed source, copyrighted software. That's really not the problem. The problem is the intellect that's required to program, or the elitism that excludes people from programming, or the lack of access to programming tools. We are working on this! See http://www.4e4th.com/ http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef12/papers/bruehl.pdf http://www.4e4th.com/4E4th-IDE-StartNotes.pdf My vision is that using Forth the worker at his workbench is able to program his tools - I have this vision since a quarter century. Now the time is there to prove it. DB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 18:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6cd6ec7-2501-40ba-b115-f1a1e1831b8e@qi8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17455 |
On Nov 21, 2:47 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:757d3586-8b4b-424c-89c8-b5c9bb5affdb@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com... > > > I'm not so desperate for followers that I will tolerate the > > association of losers --- [...] > > So, Straight Forth has a psychology test included? Are you certified? How > do I pass it? What do I have to do to unlock Straight Forth once I pass it? > ;-) You have to write programs that work. I just want to avoid associating with people who are incompetent programmers, in the sense that they can't write programs that work --- but who want to be big experts, in the sense that they get to belittle programs that work and spout a lot of pseudo-intellectual nonsense about theories that they read about somewhere that seemed like they would work, and generally bully programmers into treating them as equals. > > [...] only the most elite of humanity will become > > Straight Forth programmers. > > Isn't that the problem with most programming languages? I.e., too few > programmers to reach critical mass. > > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow your > terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? Programming requires many man-hours as is. > That's expensive for employers. If everyone could program, wouldn't that do > for programming what reading and writing did for literature? I.e., wouldn't > that produce a diverse and immense amount of code that would benefit > society? The goals of FSF and FOSS movement seem to be to attack closed > source, copyrighted software. That's really not the problem. The problem > is the intellect that's required to program, or the elitism that excludes > people from programming, or the lack of access to programming tools. The problem is that there aren't any good ideas for making money programming. It is not all that difficult to write programs that work. My programs work. I think that it would be easier in Straight Forth than in C --- closures really do simplify programming --- but it is not impossible in C. Heck, people have written programs that work in QBasic. It is mostly just a matter of being diligent about testing as you go, so that you never get faced with a big program that doesn't work and you have no idea where the bugs are --- big programs that work evolve from small programs that work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 04:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b86f2775-f403-4503-b5da-0418d270e23d@qi10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17455 |
On Nov 21, 2:47 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > P.S. I went to the gun show the other weekend to get a deer rifle. [...] > > I'm not an animal activist or anything, since I'm strongly pro-gun rights. > Even so, I don't actually own a gun. And, I don't hunt animals ... Hey, I > didn't say I don't hunt. ;-) Well, I don't hunt. Or, more accurately, I > haven't yet and maybe never will, but may someday ... I.e., I'm not opposed > to it. Besides, you need gun rights for home defense. If someone comes > into your home alive without your permission, they need to be sent back out > dead, be it with or without a warrant. I'm just curious as to how one > rationalizes that shooting and killing a deer is any different from shooting > and killing a two to seven year old human child? That's effectively what > one is doing. If you can kill a deer as many hunters do or kill a cow as > many farmers do, why is it that we consider such people to be "good" people > and solid Americans? We clearly don't consider them to be a violent threat > or even potential murderers. We'd never even consider that they'd point a > gun at a child, unless they actually did. Yet, they - sometimes > repeatedly - kill something with the IQ of a child. In Colorado where I'm from, we have a lot of deer. I noticed when I was there the last time, that the deer periodically go to the top of a particular hill. There will be 30 or 40 of them that travel in a group and go there. Why do they do that? They don't have anything to do all day except eat sagebrush, and sagebrush is everywhere, so why do they have any plan at all? Also, if a particular deer gets the idea of going to the top of that hill, how does he communicate his plan to the others and explain his reasons, assuming that he has reasons? Also, steep hills like that are bald, so there is no sagebrush up there to eat. This looks like a religious pilgrimage to me. I think the deer go up there to worship the deer-god. On a similar hill, when I was a boy I found a circle of stones that the Ute people had left. Presumably they would have council meetings up there and the circle of stones was for the common people to stand behind, while the leaders in the middle made speeches --- they most likely went to the top of the hill so the expansive view of the countryside would give them lofty thoughts that the sagebrush-choked valleys don't afford. Maybe the deer do the same thing. I was in Colorado when I wrote most of the novice package, and I would often climb the hills behind my father's ranch while I was working out the design of the code in my head. All in all, climbing to the top of steep hills is a good thing to do. > The point is related to the prior paragraph about radical beliefs. They're > frequently hidden in plain sight. In this example, it's acceptable to kill > an animal with an IQ the same as a human child, but it's entirely wrong to > kill a human child. We use intellect to justify not killing a child or we > belittle animals as "dumb" or declare an animal life being of less value > than a human life to justify killing them. So, that's a contradiction. > Both can't true. It's either wrong to kill both, or it's just to kill both. > The fact that humanity chooses to reject one and accept the other is one of > many examples which reinforces America's "willful blindness" towards the > abundant radical and strange beliefs that permeate our society. Well, if the deer are going to have a god, they might as well have a devil too --- and that might as well be me --- hence the deer rifle. In the late 1800s the white people killed off all of the wolves in that region, and also forced the Ute people to leave. Since that time, the deer have had a pretty cushy life, as the wolves and the Utes no longer hunt them. All they have to do is eat sagebrush, and sagebrush is everywhere --- if we didn't have our hunting season, they would have a population explosion. I remember when I was a boy, I had to feed the cattle in the winter- time. It is an easy job, as you just drag the hay out into the field with a snowmobile and toss it around so it isn't all in a single big pile. It is quite cold in the morning though, and sometimes it is snowing. Anyway, to liven up the job, I would imagine that the cows were "Jews" and the hay was "manna" and I was "Yahweh" --- I don't know if it is normal for a 13-year-old boy to imagine that he is God, but that is what I was doing back then. I had read enough of the Bible to know that there was only one character in the book that I could personally relate to...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 15:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k8ntlm$5qu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #17498 |
That certainly explains a lot. On 11/23/2012 02:26 PM, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > I had read enough of the Bible > to know that there was only one character in the book that I could > personally relate to... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 17:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1ktx14n.1uoh2r61dl6m8dN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #17452 |
Hugo Aguliar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm not so desperate for followers that I will tolerate the > association of losers --- only the most elite of humanity will become > Straight Forth programmers. You forget that you're a loser too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112017215480428-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17417 |
> Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? I do like them, blocks in Objective C let me recontly update my genentic programming system to run multi core with very little effort ! But arguements about these sorts of 'langauge' features isn't why I'm moving away. I'm pulled in a direction that began for me in 1988 ! Taos ! Forth could make a fine implamentation language that will acheive what VP code did and provide both the low and high level progamming enviroment. But there are aspects of Taos that Forth dosn't fit with, and this is the source of my woes ! I could just use NASM, my own VM (again), and essentially create a high level langauge from macros (again). But Forth has me in it's grip ! (you all know what that means), but it will need to serve a higher goal if it's to replace VP code for Taos MK 2 ! Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50acd087$0$3167$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #17435 |
In article <2012112017215480428-chrishinsley@gmailcom>, Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote: >> Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? > <SNIP> > >I could just use NASM, my own VM (again), and essentially create a high >level langauge from macros (again). But Forth has me in it's grip ! >(you all know what that means), but it will need to serve a higher goal >if it's to replace VP code for Taos MK 2 ! Switch to FASM it is superior for such purpose. > >Chris > -- 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 | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112114313179906-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17459 |
On 2012-11-21 13:00:55 +0000, Albert van der Horst said: > In article <2012112017215480428-chrishinsley@gmailcom>, > Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? >> > <SNIP> >> >> I could just use NASM, my own VM (again), and essentially create a high >> level langauge from macros (again). But Forth has me in it's grip ! >> (you all know what that means), but it will need to serve a higher goal >> if it's to replace VP code for Taos MK 2 ! > > Switch to FASM it is superior for such purpose. > >> >> Chris FASM ? OK, I'll take a look at that. Thanks. Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 17:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a112d01-bcb4-4c7d-ac2c-b8109b82c504@pe9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17459 |
On Nov 21, 6:00 am, alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote: > In article <2012112017215480428-chrishinsley@gmailcom>, > Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? > > <SNIP> > > >I could just use NASM, my own VM (again), and essentially create a high > >level langauge from macros (again). But Forth has me in it's grip ! > >(you all know what that means), but it will need to serve a higher goal > >if it's to replace VP code for Taos MK 2 ! > > Switch to FASM it is superior for such purpose. How is FASM superior? I've used HLA and liked it. Unfortunately, HLA only supports 32-bit x86 and I want 64-bit, so I'm currently switching over to NASM. My criteria is that I want macros that share data. One macro is run to generate the front-end of a block of code. That macro has local variables. Later on, a second macro is run to generate the back-end of that block of code, and it has access to the first macro's local variables which have not gone out of scope. After it finishes, all of the local variables of both macros go out of scope --- so they don't conflict with later uses of the same macro pair that will be using local variables with the same names. HLA did this. NASM does this too. Does FASM?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 20:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c83ffa81-2914-42fb-a6a0-69eb9cdee160@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17459 |
On Nov 21, 6:00 am, alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote: > In article <2012112017215480428-chrishinsley@gmailcom>, > Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? > > <SNIP> > > >I could just use NASM, my own VM (again), and essentially create a high > >level langauge from macros (again). But Forth has me in it's grip ! > >(you all know what that means), but it will need to serve a higher goal > >if it's to replace VP code for Taos MK 2 ! > > Switch to FASM it is superior for such purpose. I downloaded FASM and discovered that it is only for 32-bit and 16-bit x86, but not 64-bit. VFX is 32-bit, so if I'm going to beat it in speed, making my system 64-bit would be an easy way to cheat. It is not that the big registers are particularly useful, just that there are 16 registers rather than 8, so a lot of the register-juggling can be eliminated. BTW --- Gambit Scheme comes with a 64-bit x86 assembler written in Scheme. If you want powerful macros, that should do it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Humphries <mwh@intranetsys.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-22 10:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b5b19a1-ee2b-4aa5-8679-9de06b0712f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17483 |
On Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:33:17 PM UTC+8, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > I downloaded FASM and discovered that it is only for 32-bit and 16-bit > x86, but not 64-bit. FASM does handle x86-64 instructions for both AMD64 and Intel 64 architectures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-22 17:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <96712d28-6408-469a-a189-8c4e512bc8b0@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17486 |
On Nov 22, 11:00 am, Mark Humphries <m...@intranetsys.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 22, 2012 12:33:17 PM UTC+8, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > I downloaded FASM and discovered that it is only for 32-bit and 16-bit > > x86, but not 64-bit. > > FASM does handle x86-64 instructions for both AMD64 and Intel 64 architectures. You're right --- sorry, but I didn't notice its "long mode" when I scanned through the manual. I'll examine it some more. The NASM macros do what I need, but maybe FASM macros are easier and/or have some extra features.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112017122399207-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17411 |
> An individual who doesn't plan to > distribute an implementation or use other people's code doesn't have > those constraints. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth I plan to fully distribute what I end up with ! But it will use a Forth like system. Wheather it is of interest to others if it dosn't stick to the standards is debateable. I am uncomfatable with aspects of the standard, increasingly so as I have been moving from implamenting a Forth compiler to starting to build what I'm after as an end result. 'Taos in Forth'. I want to retain what Forth gives me, but it dosn't meet Taos requirements in other aspects, so I need to bend it to the shape I desire. I hope the Forth comunitee will forgive me ! Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50abbe53$0$17091$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> |
| In reply to | #17434 |
Chris Hinsley wrote: <2012112017122399207-chrishinsley@gmailcom> > I am uncomfatable with aspects of the standard, For instance? --Josh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <201211201748208036-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17437 |
On 2012-11-20 17:30:59 +0000, Josh Grams said: > Chris Hinsley wrote: <2012112017122399207-chrishinsley@gmailcom> >> I am uncomfatable with aspects of the standard, > > For instance? > > --Josh OK, lets take one issue ! The input system ! Terminal and file input. Yuck, really bad ! I hit this issue as soon as I tried to understand what INCLUDE did etc, I'm sure you all laughed at that ! I want a simple stack of input streams ! The root being the terminal. INCLUDE just stacks the next FD on the input source stack and that's all. WORD just reads from the current top of input stack stream. And real C style streams FFS ! Not some arse backwards set of IN> or whatever the god damb word is. C streams using a BUFP and BUFE concept, FD objects that wrap a stream of input, either via memory or disk file or BLOCKS (jesus, what is all that about !). Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20121120192530.32659.78916@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #17437 |
> I want a simple stack of input streams ! The root being the terminal. > INCLUDE just stacks the next FD on the input source stack and that's > all. You'd think this would be great, but it doesn't work out in the general case. There's a lot more flexibility if you design for event driven I/O. So rather than take a "file" object (descriptor, FILE *, whatever) and synchronously read() it, you have an input dispatcher which gets invoked with the next input. Interestingly, in classic Forth you can find the tension between these two ways of looking at the world. 'eval is the vector to handle a given parsed word. The words and their parse can be from the terminal, from programmatically generated values, or (in ForthOS) from blocks. Whereas things built on top of "token" use the synchronous style; you end up with a lot of hassles getting "the" TIB (terminal input buffer) to play nicely with your notional stack of input "streams". UNIX notwithstanding, there is no inherent reason disk blocks need to be viewed as byte streams. And, of course, as soon as you enter the world of GUI with its mice and windows and menus, synchronous designs run out of gas quickly. Andy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 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