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 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 16:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xa9tq1zxi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17907 |
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> writes: > 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. Yes, I think he may be saying that newer CPU's don't give as much control over floating-point arithmetic semantics as the old ones did. It's certainly true that most HLL's don't give access to those controls. He fulminated for years against the way Java was screwing up scientific computing because it didn't give that control. I think some stuff was added to C99 to address his complaints, though I haven't used said stuff myself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Marcum <bill@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-07 20:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k9v62c$4du$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17907 |
On 12/06/2012 07:05 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > 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. > Actually, it's more complicated than that. The 486DX had a math processor. The difference between the 386SX and DX was that the SX was a 32 bit processor with a 16 bit bus. The DX had a 32 bit bus, but the math coprocessor was still an optional extra chip.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-03 14:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f42fdd8-f7fd-4e23-ae64-9b986a06363f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17813 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2012 7:02:02 PM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > > 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 is here almost every day teaching people how to use Forth and clearing up mis-conceptions about ANS Forth. It's easy to armchair quarterback, but the past is past and the future is now (quoting a line from Joe Dirt). Chuck never had the patience for diplomacy, so I think it took Elizabeth to get ANS through the sausage grinder. These are general perceptions, since I've never worked with Elizabeth personally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 02:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08b1d3aa-77e5-4e8f-a460-32ed0996a235@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17713 |
On Nov 29, 7:06 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > stephen...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: > > Those are difficult, especially if the hardware cannot be accessed. > > However, Andrew has pointed out that interactivity is a key part > > of the solution. Debugging requires adherence to formal scientific > > method. Forth scores in the speed with which you can go round the > > observe, hypothesis, experiment loop. > > I think the interactivity would have helped, but it occurs to me that > Forth is less interactive than Python in that it doesn't seem to have a > standard way to interactively patch running code. If you redefine the > word FOO, you have to recompile the whole program and restart it. In > Python, every time you call FOO it looks up the symbol and calls it, so > you can redefine on the fly. (Yes, that's one of the reasons Python is > slow.) Erlang OTP has special features for hot-patching but I don't > know how they work. > No *standard* way, true. But it can be done. It's especially easy with ITC systems: http://turboforth.net/ed.html It's a hack - but it is useful if you don't want to continually re- compile your program after re-defining a word. In truth, modern PC based systems can compile a program in the blink of an eye so it's really not an issue. It's only an issue if you are compiling from blocks on a 5.25" disk on a 3mHZ processor, like yours truly or using a tethered system over a slow serial link.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 06:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <50b89df7$0$285$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #17713 |
On 11/29/12 2:06 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > I think the interactivity would have helped, but it occurs to me that > Forth is less interactive than Python in that it doesn't seem to have a > standard way to interactively patch running code. If you redefine the > word FOO, you have to recompile the whole program and restart it. A few judiciously placed DEFERred definitions allow for easy hot patching on-the-fly in any Forth. I've done this extensively on a multi-thousand line text processor. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-29 19:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2760538.iUpdQSAhmK@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #17688 |
Stephen Pelc wrote: > The big problem is that experienced Forth programmers don't use > debuggers, so they don't get further developed. These tools are > mostly training wheels for VB and C programmers. The crash dumps > are invaluable, if only one can persuade people to look at them. For some time, Gforth's ITC stepping debugger didn't work. Jens stopped supporting it, and none of the other Gforth authors used it. It took several years until some bug report reached us... > Using debuggers as a solution to bad source code is just adding > flying buttresses to unsound buildings. Haha, indeed. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-29 14:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xfw3syq70.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17703 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > For some time, Gforth's ITC stepping debugger didn't work. Ok, I just tried it again and it works, and it looks useful, but I think it could be improved a lot if it could support inserting breakpoints while debugging, and conditional breakpoints. Stuff like conditional breakpoints could possibly be handled by just exposing some internal factors, to enter and exit the interactive developer. Then there could be a word "cbreak ( addr xt -- )" which would run the xt each time a breakpoint at addr was reached, and break to the interactive debugger if the xt returns true. Then you'd just say : broken ( n -- n f ) dup 0< over 1 and ; bp ' broken cbreak to break at bp if the TOS is odd or negative. The xt for this special purpose should NOT consume its arg, since it should be ok to insert these breakpoints into code without having to otherwise modify it. The thing about being able to quickly modify and recompile the program only goes so far. Often a program works perfectly on a 1 megabyte test file, but then fails several gigabytes into the real application data, and it takes a while to get there. Reproducing the bug means you have to actually run all that data again, so you don't want to have to keep repeating it more than necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 22:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b36f153-d7a5-416a-9fa3-507904394adb@ah9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17583 |
On Nov 26, 4:29 pm, visualfo...@rocketmail.com wrote: > In my opinion everybody is able to program when using Forth. When I presented RSC-Forth at the electronica fair in Munich in 1986, on Saturday the school kids came. I showed them how to program birds chirping, and while I was typing, one of the kids told me that I had made a typo - the kid was right! I never forget that! Forth is just the right programming language to start with for kids! Kids like the extensibility and the freedom Forth gives them when programming, instead of getting the feeling to live behind bars which other programming languages give. > > Don't underestimate the DIY movement! This movement is coming out strong, especially with using microcontrollers! Programming on a normal PC without external hardware is like taking pictures instead of using a constructor kit to build a gadget. When I was in high-school, I thought that software that runs on a desktop-computer (actually cabinet-computer, as it was a PDP) was boring --- because it is restricted to running on that computer, which just sits there like a boat anchor --- nobody will see your program run unless you can somehow talk them into visiting the computer-room to sit in the chair, which is about as easy as talking people visiting the dentist to sit in his chair. The idea of programming a micro- controller that did something out in the real-world would have definitely sparked my interest! Actually, I feel the same way now too. Tell us Dirk, have you made any inroads at the high schools (gymnasiums, to use the German term) with your 4e4th? The ultra-low cost of the MSP430 LaunchPad might help there, if the students have to buy their own --- they may not have any more than $5 available. I thought that Mark Wills' suggestion of the bicycle odometer project was pretty good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-27 01:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4261d577-c34d-498d-8fe8-18fbe65fe8fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17591 |
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:01:37 AM UTC-5, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Nov 26, 4:29 pm, visualfo...@rocketmail.com wrote: > > In my opinion everybody is able to program when using Forth. When I presented RSC-Forth at the electronica fair in Munich in 1986, on Saturday the school kids came. I showed them how to program birds chirping, and while I was typing, one of the kids told me that I had made a typo - the kid was right! I never forget that! Forth is just the right programming language to start with for kids! Kids like the extensibility and the freedom Forth gives them when programming, instead of getting the feeling to live behind bars which other programming languages give. > > Don't underestimate the DIY movement! This movement is coming out strong, especially with using microcontrollers! Programming on a normal PC without external hardware is like taking pictures instead of using a constructor kit to build a gadget. > When I was in high-school, I thought that software that runs on a desktop-computer (actually cabinet-computer, as it was a PDP) was boring --- because it is restricted to running on that computer, which just sits there like a boat anchor --- nobody will see your program run unless you can somehow talk them into visiting the computer-room to sit in the chair, which is about as easy as talking people visiting the dentist to sit in his chair. The idea of programming a micro- controller that did something out in the real-world would have definitely sparked my interest! Actually, I feel the same way now too. You are totally right! But some people like it that way, other people are exploring our way. > Tell us Dirk, have you made any inroads at the high schools (gymnasiums, to use the German term) with your 4e4th? The ultra-low cost of the MSP430 LaunchPad might help there, if the students have to buy their own --- they may not have any more than $5 available. I thought that Mark Wills' suggestion of the bicycle odometer project was pretty good. Thanks, Hugh! As soon as our 4E4th is published, I will look for contacts to the local high school. Since a while in Germany there are several people doing workshops with 4E4th. With teaching experience, tutorials for teachers can be prepared to further spread the words of Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 12:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k8hbhv$4sc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17411 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/19/12 6:03 AM, Chris Hinsley wrote: > > I was mulling over my Forth hobby and I'm kinda coming to the conclusion > > that I'm going to ditch most of the ANS words I've implamented > > (educational though it may have been) and go off on my own ! I think I > > can see what Chuck is getting at when he said he didn't agree with there > > being a standard ! > > > > My own thoughts are that the concept of Forth, as a way of programming a > > machine at a low level, are the best thing about Forth. And I feel > > constrained by the standard. So I'm going to strip things down to only > > what I require and then go off and implament my project useing only what > > I need. > > > > I've not come to this desition lightly ! Lot's of questioning as to what > > I want from Forth. And I'm sorry but it's not the 'standard' or > > 'compatability'. It's a mechanisum to enable me to be independant of > > 'other peoples' compilers and langauges, I don't really care if other > > peoples code can run on my system, so long as my code does then I'm happy. > > Sure, as long as the system is strictly for your own use and you don't > care about being able to use code other people have written, there's no > need to adhere to a standard. > > A standard is useful to enable multiple implementers to generate systems > that many people can use without excessive implementation-specific > training or difficulty porting code. The Forth community as a whole > needs a standard, and the systems that are widely available (gForth, > Win32Forth, the various systems from MPE and FORTH, Inc., etc.) wouldn't > have been viable without a standard. An individual who doesn't plan to > distribute an implementation or use other people's code doesn't have > those constraints. But where is this code "other people have written" that ANS Forthers are constantly promising? If all that 20 years of ANS has achieved is a few p/d forths written by another generation of bright sparks then we're back where we were when L/P released F83 30 years ago in the wake of Forth-83. Each Standard is heralded as Forth's new beginning ... until the next one. If someone has decided *not* to spend the rest of their life listening and preparing for Forth's Great Coming and wants to actually *experience* Forth before they get too old to care, then I wouldn't dissuade them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 14:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112114510156528-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17447 |
> If someone has decided *not* to spend the rest of their life listening > and preparing for Forth's Great Coming and wants to actually > *experience* Forth before they get too old to care, then I wouldn't > dissuade them. I certainly count Forth as one of the best experiences I've had in my love affair with machines ! It's underlying symplicty is what attracts me to it. And I'm finding I don't require much other than the core stuff, which I've started to build on. I could just ignore the fact that I'm dragging around a pile of ANS stuff I implamented, but that dosn't sit well with me, it's just nagging at me all the time. Resonltly I've been considering ditching the STATE stuff and trying to recode the compiler/interpreter engine to not use it. That might have problems I've not yet forseen, but I'd like to give it a try. Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 19:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59cacab7-3293-4e33-ad11-2f95fbc15b18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:03:53 AM UTC-5, Chris Hinsley wrote: > I was mulling over my Forth hobby ... And I feel constrained by the standard. Comp.lang.forth is not the only venue to discuss about standards, pros and cons ... There are other people, too: What’s The Difference Between De Jure And De Facto Standards? Date Posted: November 13, 2012 03:09 PM Author: Karen Bartleson She writes: "Formal standards organizations that create de jure standards have well-documented processes that must be followed. The processes can seem complex or even rigid. But they are necessary to ensure things like repeatability, quality, and safety. The standards organizations themselves may undergo periodic audits. Because of the processes involved, de jure standards can be slow to produce. Development and approval cycles can take time as each documented step is followed through the process. Achieving consensus, while important and good, can be a lengthy activity. This is especially apparent when not all members of the committee want the standard to succeed. For various reasons—often competitive business—participants in a committee are there to stall or halt the standard. However, once a de jure standard completes the entire process, the implementers and consumers of the standard gain a high level of confidence that it will serve their needs well. Open-source standards benefit from a general desire to make the standard successful. If individuals purposely try to damage the standard, their input will not be included in future versions." Source: http://electronicdesign.com/article/embedded/whats-difference-de-jure-de-facto-standards-74668
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 21:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ec822ae-e295-4632-a9fa-982717323f8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17482 |
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:24:06 PM UTC-5, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote: > Comp.lang.forth is not the only venue to discuss about standards ... Here another excerpt: Don’t Underestimate The Value of Standards by Karen Bartleson: Many people take standards for granted, if they think of standards at all. Yet ... their value shouldn’t be underestimated. The semiconductor and electronic design industries rely heavily on technical standards. Technical standards that are widely used in electronic design serve at least four purposes during the design cycle. The first is interoperability. The second purpose for technical standards ... is design portability and reuse. A third aspect of standards is that they help make it possible for teams to collaborate. A fourth reason that standards are important to the design cycle is that they improve quality. Any time that data is translated into a different format, design description language, or database, there is a risk of errors being introduced... Whenever the design data is represented in a standard way, translation is not required, lowering the risk of introduced errors and increasing quality. There can also be a psychological factor to consider. It can be a lot more fun and feel more rewarding to invent one’s own interface or database, but NIH (not invented here) and reinventing the wheel don’t always serve a company’s business goals—unless, of course, the interface or database is a significant improvement over what’s currently available. Standards support technology and business... In essence, standards matter. Don’t underestimate them. Source: http://electronicdesign.com/article/eda/dont-underestimate-standards-73622
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-24 08:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7de19f23-b1c8-4adf-a1ca-cd48af92f901@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
On Nov 19, 5:03 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: Well, I don't like the ANS-standard any better than you do. As a matter of fact, my own compiler started off as a Forth-79 one, because I thought (and in some respects still think) it's much cleaner. However, Wil Baden convinced me not to ignore ANS-Forth. I never regret I listened to him. Because when that tiny experiment got bigger there were lots of code I could use. And the more features I added (modeled after ANS-Forth or with ANS-Forth in mind) the easier it got. No, I don't think I surrendered. +LOOP still works the '79 way and the truth is still just a single bit. I got my own I/O system with an optional ANS-Forth layer on top. But getting well-written ANS code IN is much easier - and so is porting TO ANS-Forth. That's what a standard can do. However, if you don't feel code is reusable (like Chuck) and want to write your very own bubblesort and stuff over and over again, why not? Have phun! Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 14:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k99a4n$91l$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17525 |
The Beez wrote: > On Nov 19, 5:03 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I don't like the ANS-standard any better than you do. As a > matter of fact, my own compiler started off as a Forth-79 one, because > I thought (and in some respects still think) it's much cleaner. > However, Wil Baden convinced me not to ignore ANS-Forth. I never > regret I listened to him. Because when that tiny experiment got bigger > there were lots of code I could use. And the more features I added > (modeled after ANS-Forth or with ANS-Forth in mind) the easier it got. > > No, I don't think I surrendered. +LOOP still works the '79 way and the > truth is still just a single bit. I got my own I/O system with an > optional ANS-Forth layer on top. But getting well-written ANS code IN > is much easier - and so is porting TO ANS-Forth. That's what a > standard can do. > > However, if you don't feel code is reusable (like Chuck) and want to > write your very own bubblesort and stuff over and over again, why not? > Have phun! But he only has to write his bubblesort once in order to reuse it :) And likely it will be adapted from existing code. The notion that there exist ANS routines that will load and run without a hitch and do everything one requires isn't reality. I don't see Chris will be worse off going it alone. The only issue is whether one can achieve all that one sets out to do. It's the reason Standards are so appealing. All the details have supposedly been worked out by the experts and all that's required is compliance. Well, that's the theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-30 10:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50b88db6.37165787@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #17741 |
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:45:02 +1100, "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: >The notion that >there exist ANS routines that will load and run without a hitch >and do everything one requires isn't reality. There are plenty of ANS routines that load and run without a hitch. The situation is much better than before ANS. There is plenty of portable code around and people are slowly learning how to provide portable code. >and do everything one requires isn't reality. Until practical telepathy arrives, we all have to guess the specs for libraries. 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 | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-04 03:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <k9ilj4$3jt$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17764 |
Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:45:02 +1100, "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: > > >The notion that > >there exist ANS routines that will load and run without a hitch > >and do everything one requires isn't reality. > > There are plenty of ANS routines that load and run without a hitch. > > The situation is much better than before ANS. > > There is plenty of > portable code around and people are slowly learning how to > provide portable code. Plenty isn't the word I would use. There is the FSL which comprises some 50 algorithms most of which were written two decades ago; and FFL has 80+ routines. I don't wish to diminish what these and other authors have done but it's not much to show for 20 years of ANS. ANS has been the lingua-franca on forums such as this and perhaps that will be its legacy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e74bff32-7fe9-443c-a7de-d5d5011520f4@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17824 |
On Dec 3, 5:52 pm, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote: > Plenty isn't the word I would use. There is the FSL which comprises > some 50 algorithms most of which were written two decades ago; > and FFL has 80+ routines. I don't wish to diminish what these and > other authors have done but it's not much to show for 20 years of ANS. > ANS has been the lingua-franca on forums such as this and perhaps > that will be its legacy. Have you ever been to RosettaCode? Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-06 10:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <079816e2-b071-44a6-b8d4-812d9a744cc5@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17824 |
On Dec 3, 5:52 pm, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote: > Plenty isn't the word I would use. There is the FSL which comprises > some 50 algorithms most of which were written two decades ago; > and FFL has 80+ routines. I don't wish to diminish what these and > other authors have done but it's not much to show for 20 years of ANS. > ANS has been the lingua-franca on forums such as this and perhaps > that will be its legacy. BTW, Ed, there's lots of your code in my compiler ;-) Thanks for that! Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-29 11:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <44938a78-c790-4627-81d8-332176ca6950@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17381 |
On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:03:53 AM UTC-8, Chris Hinsley wrote: > I was mulling over my Forth hobby and I'm kinda coming to the > > conclusion that I'm going to ditch most of the ANS words I've > > implamented (educational though it may have been) and go off on my own > > ! I think I can see what Chuck is getting at when he said he didn't > > agree with there being a standard ! > > > > My own thoughts are that the concept of Forth, as a way of programming > > a machine at a low level, are the best thing about Forth. And I feel > > constrained by the standard. So I'm going to strip things down to only > > what I require and then go off and implament my project useing only > > what I need. > > > > I've not come to this desition lightly ! Lot's of questioning as to > > what I want from Forth. And I'm sorry but it's not the 'standard' or > > 'compatability'. It's a mechanisum to enable me to be independant of > > 'other peoples' compilers and langauges, I don't really care if other > > peoples code can run on my system, so long as my code does then I'm > > happy. > > > > Chris Will your language be able to access unix files? serve html ?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web