Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700
Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 01:47 -0700
Re: Article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-30 12:13 +0000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-30 11:31 -0400
Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-08-30 10:37 -0500
Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 10:30 -0700
Re: Article hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2012-08-30 19:56 -0700
Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-08-31 12:35 +0200
Re: Article "Greg Bailey" <greg@greenarraychips.com> - 2012-08-31 17:51 -0700
Re: Article Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 18:22 -0700
Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 01:04 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:18 -0700
Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-01 01:48 -0700
Re: Article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 18:38 -0400
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:59 -0700
Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-03 13:07 -0500
Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-03 14:25 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 06:23 +0300
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 18:17 -0400
Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-03 12:37 -1000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-04 04:48 -0400
Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-04 03:39 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:48 -0400
Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-09-04 13:18 +0200
Re: Article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-04 16:03 +0200
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:29 -0400
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:24 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 08:12 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-04 11:35 -0500
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:40 -0400
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:28 -0700
Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-04 08:32 -1000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:22 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:07 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:39 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:35 -0700
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-07 17:24 +1000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-07 05:28 -0400
Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 03:28 -0700
Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 13:31 +0300
Re: Article jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:06 -0700
Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:03 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 16:45 -0700
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 21:38 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:51 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:49 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:20 -0400
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:50 -0700
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 22:34 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 14:05 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-08 01:53 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 18:22 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:08 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-08 17:34 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 15:57 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 08:12 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 22:07 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 15:14 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 01:52 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 15:01 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 07:00 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 01:07 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 18:47 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 16:08 -1000
Re: Forth as a polarising language anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-11 07:51 +0000
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 19:24 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 21:40 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:58 -1000
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 18:24 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-09 13:42 +0000
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 10:34 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 07:06 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:14 +0200
DEFER (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 16:47 +0000
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:22 -0400
OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 11:38 +0000
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 08:19 -0400
Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:41 +0200
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:24 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 12:03 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-09-09 13:20 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:33 -0400
Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:54 +0200
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:12 -0400
OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:28 +0200
Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:56 +0200
Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 15:00 +0000
Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net> - 2012-09-08 11:56 -0500
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:20 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:15 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:50 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 03:12 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 16:01 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:54 -1000
[OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 06:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:28 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-10 12:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:24 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 08:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:40 -1000
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 14:42 -0500
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 07:59 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:27 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:44 -1000
Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:30 -0400
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-09 14:13 +1000
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-11 11:26 -0700
Re: Article "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-09-11 21:02 +0100
Re: Article vandys@vsta.org - 2012-09-11 20:37 +0000
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:01 +1000
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 16:50 -0700
Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-12 00:45 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 18:44 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 20:26 -0700
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:47 +1000
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-06 19:28 -0700
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Article |
| Message-ID | <4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
On Aug 29, 2:25 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Does anyone have this article that they'd be willing to share? I don't > really want to pay $15 for it! > > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=805586 > > The download stats for the article surprised me. > > Mark I think that we can rule out Elizabeth Rather providing you with a pirated copy of her own article. ;-) Really, comp.lang.forth is not the best place to ask... It seems obvious that Forth Inc. is desperate for money if they are trying to sell scanned 1976-vintage documents on the internet in 2012. I wonder, does Chuck Moore know about this? I would be willing to bet that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented the friggin language. Who knows, maybe next Elizabeth Rather will be selling autographed photos of Chuck Moore --- and never mind that the signature looks a lot like her own handwriting. lol Nowadays she is claiming to be friends with the Obama family, so maybe she will sell autographed photos of the prez too --- a 2-for-1 deal!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 01:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cad77259-9ab7-48b0-8940-93b35c348dd6@p12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15259 |
On Aug 30, 7:00 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 29, 2:25 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Does anyone have this article that they'd be willing to share? I don't > > really want to pay $15 for it! > > >http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=805586 > > > The download stats for the article surprised me. > > > Mark > > I think that we can rule out Elizabeth Rather providing you with a > pirated copy of her own article. ;-) Really, comp.lang.forth is not > the best place to ask... > > It seems obvious that Forth Inc. is desperate for money if they are > trying to sell scanned 1976-vintage documents on the internet in 2012. > I wonder, does Chuck Moore know about this? I would be willing to bet > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented > the friggin language. > > Who knows, maybe next Elizabeth Rather will be selling autographed > photos of Chuck Moore --- and never mind that the signature looks a > lot like her own handwriting. lol Nowadays she is claiming to be > friends with the Obama family, so maybe she will sell autographed > photos of the prez too --- a 2-for-1 deal! I could be wrong but I don't think the author gets anything at all from these type of websites. The glory is the payment, I suppose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 12:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Aug30.141318@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #15262 |
Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> >http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3D805586
...
>I could be wrong but I don't think the author gets anything at all
>from these type of websites. The glory is the payment, I suppose.
I certainly have not gotten anything yet for my papers, but then I am
paid by my institution; they did not get anything, either, though.
Academic publishing is a cool business model: You get the papers for
free (sometimes you even ask for page fees), the reviewing for free,
in some cases you "add value" by corrupting the papers in
meaning-changing ways (so you have a justification for demanding all
this money), and finally you charge big bucks to university libraries
who have to buy the results (plus additional bucks for online access,
as in this case).
ACM is relatively benign (their journals and proceedings are not that
expensive) compared to some others, though.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 11:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k1o0qu$4fk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15259 |
"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 29, 2:25 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Does anyone have this article that they'd be willing to share? > > I don't really want to pay $15 for it! > > > > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=805586 > > I think that we can rule out Elizabeth Rather providing you with a > pirated copy of her own article. ;-) Really, comp.lang.forth is not > the best place to ask... Have you tried a major city or university library? They either have it or can get it. I don't know how much that'd cost nowadays. You could also try this website: DeepDyve. It seems they sell and rent articles ... somehow. http://www.deepdyve.com/ Putting "The FORTH approach to operating systems" into their search engine gets you the first page of the article, free. It comes up as a zoomable scan in a viewer like on Scribd. Personally, I wouldn't bother with an computing or programming related article from 1970's, unless you're trying to recreate something they did. Putting the title into Google gets lots of 1980's Forth articles that reference it. Putting the title into Google Books lots of 1980's programming books that reference it. Rod Pemberton PS. Mark, I checked 15 non-commercial Usenet servers around the world. It looks like your post didn't make it to Usenet. It could be on the commercial Usenet servers. I don't have access to them. It's on Google Groups. That's the only place I found it. So, if Hugh hadn't replied, you probably wouldn't have any replies ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 10:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] |
| Message-ID | <lPWdnez8RPZTFaLNnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15270 |
Rod Pemberton wrote: > [snip] > PS. Mark, I checked 15 non-commercial Usenet servers around the world. It > looks like your post didn't make it to Usenet. It could be on the > commercial Usenet servers. I don't have access to them. It's on Google > Groups. That's the only place I found it. So, if Hugh hadn't replied, you > probably wouldn't have any replies ... > I use supernews.com . Mark's post did not appear. Hugh's did, but he's tagged as "spam to be ignored".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 10:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] |
| Message-ID | <9c7c1477-b09e-4d83-947b-99174af4e5a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15271 |
That's very interesting. I used the Google interface... strange....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58acebe7-23af-4e7f-a984-fedf63b83961@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15259 |
On Aug 30, 12:48 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 7:00 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 29, 2:25 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Does anyone have this article that they'd be willing to share? I don't
> > > really want to pay $15 for it!
>
> > >http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=805586
>
> > > The download stats for the article surprised me.
>
> > > Mark
>
> > I think that we can rule out Elizabeth Rather providing you with a
> > pirated copy of her own article. ;-) Really, comp.lang.forth is not
> > the best place to ask...
>
> > It seems obvious that Forth Inc. is desperate for money if they are
> > trying to sell scanned 1976-vintage documents on the internet in 2012.
> > I wonder, does Chuck Moore know about this? I would be willing to bet
> > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact
> > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented
> > the friggin language.
>
> > Who knows, maybe next Elizabeth Rather will be selling autographed
> > photos of Chuck Moore --- and never mind that the signature looks a
> > lot like her own handwriting. lol Nowadays she is claiming to be
> > friends with the Obama family, so maybe she will sell autographed
> > photos of the prez too --- a 2-for-1 deal!
>
> You haven't read the ACM's copyright statement;
>
> "ACM requires authors to assign their copyrights to ACM as a condition
> of publishing the work. Copyright ownership allows ACM to provide a
> viable and sustainable Digital Library to its members and the public
> and to act against unauthorized attempts to duplicate ACM's Digital
> Library."
>
> Or the fact that author's employers often pay for the privilege;
> "Author's institutions or corporations are requested to honor a page
> charge of $100.00 per printed page or part thereof, to help defray the
> cost of publication. Page charges apply to all contributions."
>
> Rail against the ACM if you must, but these slimey and unwarranted
> personal attacks are getting very tiresome. What a stupid and angry
> fool you are.
I'm not the one who has made a career out of name-dropping. All she does is endlessly brag about having known Chuck Moore back in the 1970s when he invented Forth. That is all that she is doing here, trying to take credit for inventing Forth.
Elizabeth Rather seriously offended me when she said that my code "sucks" ---I'm not going to accept such an attack from a slimey salesperson. Ultimately, she wants everybody in the Forth community to suck because this is the only way that Forth Inc. can look good by comparison --- that seems to work for you and your Win32Forth --- but it doesn't work for me.
I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with Forth is teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the "Starting Forth" book.
The following is some of the source-code from SwiftForth, which I paid almost $500 for. Notice how the word R-BUF returns a value on the return-stack rather than the parameter stack. This was obviously written by a graduate of Elizabeth Rather's novice class. He assumes that the return-stack is for returning data! This is what happens when companies are run by non-technical salespeople.
CODE R-BUF ( -- ) \ create buffer and push address on rp
EAX POP \ get my return address into eax
ESP ECX MOV \ save esp in ecx
MAX_PATH # ESP SUB \ allocate 260 bytes below esp
ESP EDX MOV \ hold buffer address
ECX PUSH \ push saved ESP onto return stack
R-GO-ON2 CALL \ make return to R-ALLOC 's caller
\ when R-ALLOC 's caller returns, it
ECX POP \ comes here, reads the old esp
ECX ESP MOV \ and write back to discard space
RET END-CODE
: WID-HEADER ( c-addr u wid -- )
OVER 0= -16 ?THROW ?UNIQUE
-ROT 254 MIN R-BUF R@ PLACE
HERE 13 + R@ C@ + 15 AND 16 SWAP - ALLOT
LOCATION , R@ COUNT ROT LINKED \ link into wid
$FF C, 0 C, \ sentinel and flags
R> COUNT EMPLACE \ name
HERE 1+ HERE LAST CELL+ 2! 0 C, ; \ remember inline and code
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 12:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1kpoyyt.16y5zo6u1hddfN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #15285 |
You're a piss pot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg Bailey" <greg@greenarraychips.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 17:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oa-dnWsJPZ2QwdzNnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #15259 |
"Hugh Aguilar" wrote in message news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... <...> > I would be willing to bet > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented > the friggin language. <and in a slightly later message:> > I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever > written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with Forth > is > teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the > "Starting Forth" book. <...> For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant one day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and me. Since that model included code and configuration decisions contributed by each of the four of us based on real world application work we had each been doing recently for real paying customers, I would like to correct the above assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". Secondly, the only place I know of where "friggin" was part of the vocabulary was when the muchly beloved late Don Colburn allowed that this was the correct pronunciation for the underscore character when used in identifiers; for example, he would pronounce "READ_FILE" as "Read friggin' File." Third, inasmuch as I have personally worked with Elizabeth Rather on both large and small projects for real, paying customers, in which Elizabeth served as a designer and programmer as well as serving as project manager, I wish to object strenuously to the false assertion that Elizabeth has no experience with Forth other than teaching a novice class. Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it sucked, I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming from. But then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so perhaps that makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism personally. It is interesting that people are apparently not personally responsible for what they post in this newsgroup. In real life, talkin' s**t about people or companies, and putting out false derogatory information, will often get a man punched in the face. Here one can behave like a complete, bloody-minded piece of work with impunity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-31 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aecf9789-7bec-4669-a211-8a4347d63170@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:51:25 PM UTC-7, Greg Bailey wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" wrote in message > > news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... > > > > <...> > > > > > I would be willing to bet > > > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact > > > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented > > > the friggin language. > > > > <and in a slightly later message:> > > > > > I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever > > > written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with Forth > > > is > > > teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the > > > "Starting Forth" book. > > > > <...> > > > > For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant one > > day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and me. > > Since that model included code and configuration decisions contributed by > > each of the four of us based on real world application work we had each been > > doing recently for real paying customers, I would like to correct the above > > assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". > > > > Secondly, the only place I know of where "friggin" was part of the > > vocabulary was when the muchly beloved late Don Colburn allowed that this > > was the correct pronunciation for the underscore character when used in > > identifiers; for example, he would pronounce "READ_FILE" as "Read friggin' > > File." > > > > Third, inasmuch as I have personally worked with Elizabeth Rather on both > > large and small projects for real, paying customers, in which Elizabeth > > served as a designer and programmer as well as serving as project manager, I > > wish to object strenuously to the false assertion that Elizabeth has no > > experience with Forth other than teaching a novice class. > > > > Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it sucked, > > I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming from. But > > then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so perhaps that > > makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism personally. > > > > It is interesting that people are apparently not personally responsible for > > what they post in this newsgroup. In real life, talkin' s**t about people > > or companies, and putting out false derogatory information, will often get a > > man punched in the face. Here one can behave like a complete, bloody-minded > > piece of work with impunity. Yeah, yeah. We know the drill. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it makes things fair.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 01:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80e4b4ad-2d72-4aee-b3d4-299ebbb678b0@a19g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
On Sep 1, 1:51 am, "Greg Bailey" <g...@greenarraychips.com> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" wrote in message > > news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... > > <...> > > > I would be willing to bet > > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact > > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented > > the friggin language. > > <and in a slightly later message:> > > > I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever > > written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with Forth > > is > > teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the > > "Starting Forth" book. > > <...> > > For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant one > day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and me. > Since that model included code and configuration decisions contributed by > each of the four of us based on real world application work we had each been > doing recently for real paying customers, I would like to correct the above > assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". > > Secondly, the only place I know of where "friggin" was part of the > vocabulary was when the muchly beloved late Don Colburn allowed that this > was the correct pronunciation for the underscore character when used in > identifiers; for example, he would pronounce "READ_FILE" as "Read friggin' > File." > > Third, inasmuch as I have personally worked with Elizabeth Rather on both > large and small projects for real, paying customers, in which Elizabeth > served as a designer and programmer as well as serving as project manager, I > wish to object strenuously to the false assertion that Elizabeth has no > experience with Forth other than teaching a novice class. > > Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it sucked, > I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming from. But > then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so perhaps that > makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism personally. > > It is interesting that people are apparently not personally responsible for > what they post in this newsgroup. In real life, talkin' s**t about people > or companies, and putting out false derogatory information, will often get a > man punched in the face. Here one can behave like a complete, bloody-minded > piece of work with impunity. Be careful with the word Friggin' (Frigging) in Britain. In British English, it means strenuous clitoral stimulation. Just so you know!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b53077eb-ecbd-414c-bdca-41f8b67cee1a@f4g2000pbq.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15355 |
On Sep 1, 1:04 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 1, 1:51 am, "Greg Bailey" <g...@greenarraychips.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Hugh Aguilar" wrote in message > > >news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... > > > <...> > > > > I would be willing to bet > > > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact > > > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented > > > the friggin language. > > > <and in a slightly later message:> > > > > I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever > > > written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with Forth > > > is > > > teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the > > > "Starting Forth" book. > > > <...> > > > For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant one > > day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and me. > > Since that model included code and configuration decisions contributed by > > each of the four of us based on real world application work we had each been > > doing recently for real paying customers, I would like to correct the above > > assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". > > > Secondly, the only place I know of where "friggin" was part of the > > vocabulary was when the muchly beloved late Don Colburn allowed that this > > was the correct pronunciation for the underscore character when used in > > identifiers; for example, he would pronounce "READ_FILE" as "Read friggin' > > File." > > > Third, inasmuch as I have personally worked with Elizabeth Rather on both > > large and small projects for real, paying customers, in which Elizabeth > > served as a designer and programmer as well as serving as project manager, I > > wish to object strenuously to the false assertion that Elizabeth has no > > experience with Forth other than teaching a novice class. > > > Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it sucked, > > I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming from. But > > then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so perhaps that > > makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism personally. > > > It is interesting that people are apparently not personally responsible for > > what they post in this newsgroup. In real life, talkin' s**t about people > > or companies, and putting out false derogatory information, will often get a > > man punched in the face. Here one can behave like a complete, bloody-minded > > piece of work with impunity. > > Be careful with the word Friggin' (Frigging) in Britain. In British > English, it means strenuous clitoral stimulation. > > Just so you know!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, I didn't know that --- I'll stop using the word. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 01:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adef97f2-b4ff-4fb5-8980-2b838b7ff4db@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
On Sep 1, 1:51 am, "Greg Bailey" <g...@greenarraychips.com> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" wrote in message > > news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... > > <...> > > > I would be willing to bet > > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact > > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented > > the friggin language. > > <and in a slightly later message:> > > > I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever > > written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with Forth > > is > > teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the > > "Starting Forth" book. > > <...> > > For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant one > day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and me. > Since that model included code and configuration decisions contributed by > each of the four of us based on real world application work we had each been > doing recently for real paying customers, I would like to correct the above > assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". > > Secondly, the only place I know of where "friggin" was part of the > vocabulary was when the muchly beloved late Don Colburn allowed that this > was the correct pronunciation for the underscore character when used in > identifiers; for example, he would pronounce "READ_FILE" as "Read friggin' > File." > > Third, inasmuch as I have personally worked with Elizabeth Rather on both > large and small projects for real, paying customers, in which Elizabeth > served as a designer and programmer as well as serving as project manager, I > wish to object strenuously to the false assertion that Elizabeth has no > experience with Forth other than teaching a novice class. > > Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it sucked, > I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming from. But > then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so perhaps that > makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism personally. > > It is interesting that people are apparently not personally responsible for > what they post in this newsgroup. In real life, talkin' s**t about people > or companies, and putting out false derogatory information, will often get a > man punched in the face. Here one can behave like a complete, bloody-minded > piece of work with impunity. Well said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 18:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k20n65$ud2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
On 8/31/2012 8:51 PM, Greg Bailey wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" wrote in message > news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... > > <...> > >> I would be willing to bet >> that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact >> that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented >> the friggin language. > > <and in a slightly later message:> > >> I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever >> written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with >> Forth is >> teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the >> "Starting Forth" book. > > <...> > > For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant > one day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and > me. Since that model included code and configuration decisions > contributed by each of the four of us based on real world application > work we had each been doing recently for real paying customers, I would > like to correct the above assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". > > Secondly, the only place I know of where "friggin" was part of the > vocabulary was when the muchly beloved late Don Colburn allowed that > this was the correct pronunciation for the underscore character when > used in identifiers; for example, he would pronounce "READ_FILE" as > "Read friggin' File." > > Third, inasmuch as I have personally worked with Elizabeth Rather on > both large and small projects for real, paying customers, in which > Elizabeth served as a designer and programmer as well as serving as > project manager, I wish to object strenuously to the false assertion > that Elizabeth has no experience with Forth other than teaching a novice > class. > > Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it > sucked, I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming > from. But then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so > perhaps that makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism > personally. > > It is interesting that people are apparently not personally responsible > for what they post in this newsgroup. In real life, talkin' s**t about > people or companies, and putting out false derogatory information, will > often get a man punched in the face. Here one can behave like a > complete, bloody-minded piece of work with impunity. I thought maybe private email should not be the only place I would converse with you. I am sure most everyone here knows Hugh is a troll. We all know what to do about trolls, but few ever do it correctly. As much as his comments are mean, spiteful and just plain stupid, he only makes them because they result in reactions, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. In other words, to everyone who replied to Hugh, "Don't feed the troll"! Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4a0c998-50ee-443a-afc2-e7c87caca787@sd5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
On Aug 31, 5:51 pm, "Greg Bailey" <g...@greenarraychips.com> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" wrote in message > > news:4ae0e635-5fd5-45dd-984b-9b6e51a30483@ou2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com... > > <...> > > > I would be willing to bet > > that Elizabeth Rather is pocketing the entire $15, despite the fact > > that Chuck Moore wrote the article, and wrote PolyForth, and invented > > the friggin language. > > <and in a slightly later message:> > > > I challenge anybody to show any Forth code that Elizabeth Rather has ever > > written in her entire life. There is none! Her only experience with Forth > > is > > teaching the novice class at Forth Inc., which is based entirely on the > > "Starting Forth" book. > > <...> > > For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant one > day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and me. > Since that model included code and configuration decisions contributed by > each of the four of us based on real world application work we had each been > doing recently for real paying customers, I would like to correct the above > assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". What I remember throughout the entire 1990s, was that everybody in the world considered Forth to be a haven for losers; a place where programmers incapable of mastering C inevitably found a home. By "everybody" I mean all of the C programmers, but within the programming world, this was pretty much everybody. Telling people that I was a Forth programmer would result in snickering, and a casual dismissal. There were three reasons for this: 1.) MS-DOS PolyForth was limited to 64K for the application code, application data, compiler and dictionary. This was at a time when Turbo C, Turbo Pascal, etc., all supported the six memory models, with Small being plenty big enough for most applications and also the fastest (Tiny was only used for .com programs, and it was significantly better than PolyForth because the compiler and symbol table didn't have to fit in the 64K segment, but only the application code and data). 2.) MS-DOS PolyForth used ITC, which was very slow. The NEXT routine was several instructions long and it was common for over 1/2 of the execution time for a program to be taken up by NEXT. PolyForth didn't do even the most rudimentary peephole-optimization. The compiler just dully comma'd every cfa into the threaded code, including low-level words like OVER and + etc.. By most people's standards, the word "compiler" was much too charitable for PolyForth. 3.) MS-DOS PolyForth failed to provide any data structures, not even records or arrays. Although it was possible to implement these with DOES>, that generally didn't work out very well. Novices needed to be able to write programs first to gain experience with Forth, but weren't prepared to implement data structures first before acquiring some experience. Also, DOES> words tend to be very slow and complicated, mostly because they require data to be fetched from memory at run-time which should be compiled as literals at compile- time. All in all, claiming to be an expert at Forth was roughly equivalent to claiming to be an expert at BASIC --- it was an anti-accomplishment --- it was a mark against a person rather than for the person. This was true even if the programmer's experience was in one of the better Forth systems such as UR/Forth --- because in most people's mind, Forth Inc. represented Forth (because of the name, and because of Elizabeth Rather's endless bragging about having known Chuck Moore in the 1970s and being the world's second Forth programmer, and basically being the epitome of Forth). PolyForth destroyed Forth's reputation. The ANS-Forth blunder pretty much nailed the coffin shut, but Forth was already ruined by Forth Inc. --- nobody was using Forth by the mid 1990s (well, Testra was using UR/Forth, but that was a pretty exceptional case). I really don't believe that Elizabeth Rather is a programmer, mostly because I have never seen any Forth code written by her, and also because she doesn't talk like she knows anything about programming. She just spouts vague platitudes that she picked up from Chuck Moore, such as the importance of factoring, but there is no evidence of actual experience. My impression of Elizabeth Rather is that she wants Forth to be a haven for the phony and the incompetant. This is why she made a pet out of John Passaniti. C.L.F. is a place where people can pretend to be experts, spouting the most outrageous baloney (Passaniti's claim that linked lists are more efficient than binary trees), and it is okay because we all suck. This is like the liberal concept of moral relativism, except that it is technical relativism. Ultimately, it is all about sucking --- if I had agreed with Elizabeth Rather that my code sucks, then everything would have been hunky-dory --- that is what she wants more than anything, is for everybody to suck and for SwiftForth to be the standard. > Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it sucked, > I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming from. But > then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so perhaps that > makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism personally. Elizabeth Rather has never looked at my code. I'm not aware of anybody who has. > It is interesting that people are apparently not personally responsible for > what they post in this newsgroup. In real life, talkin' s**t about people > or companies, and putting out false derogatory information, will often get a > man punched in the face. Here one can behave like a complete, bloody-minded > piece of work with impunity. I'm just telling the truth. Forth Inc. is an ongoing scam. Their software is garbage. I blew almost $500 on SwiftForth because I fell for the Forth Inc. line, but SwiftForth is not capable of supporting professional application programming --- it is worthless. If you knew anything about me, you wouldn't threaten physical violence. I won't say anything more on that subject, except that you are way out of your depth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 13:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <G5udnX_FAo9WbNnNnZ2dnUVZ8sidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote: > The normal mechanism that mediates most people on the Internet is > their professional reputation. Hugh is a hobbyist; he has no > professional reputation that he needs to uphold. So he can write > whatever he likes about anyone and never worry. I think you're being a bit unfair to hobbyists. Some of them are quite proud of their reputation and want very much to uphold it. They may not need a repuation to eat, sure, but they need it in social interaction. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38d1c3c2-bd5f-4a74-b4a9-768ed27f8ba9@13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15427 |
On Sep 3, 7:07 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The normal mechanism that mediates most people on the Internet is > > their professional reputation. Hugh is a hobbyist; he has no > > professional reputation that he needs to uphold. So he can write > > whatever he likes about anyone and never worry. > > I think you're being a bit unfair to hobbyists. Some of them are > quite proud of their reputation and want very much to uphold it. They > may not need a repuation to eat, sure, but they need it in social > interaction. > > Andrew. Seconded. I consider myself the same person here as I do elsewhere, and try to behave consistently in all that I do. Hugh probably does much the same; I don't think his posts on clf are an aberration.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 17:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd39511a-78e5-4d63-8f90-403d907d4296@oi9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15427 |
On Sep 3, 11:07 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The normal mechanism that mediates most people on the Internet is > > their professional reputation. Hugh is a hobbyist; he has no > > professional reputation that he needs to uphold. So he can write > > whatever he likes about anyone and never worry. > > I think you're being a bit unfair to hobbyists. Some of them are > quite proud of their reputation and want very much to uphold it. They > may not need a repuation to eat, sure, but they need it in social > interaction. > > Andrew. I'm a life-long Forth hobbyist --- there really is not a lot of work available for Forthers --- as I said, Forth experience is generally considered to be an anti-accomplishment in the programming world. I'm actually one of the few people on comp.lang.forth who has worked as a Forth programmer though. Back in 1994/1995, Testra wanted to build a "Forth engine" based on the Lattice isp1048 PLD. They contacted Forth Inc. (Elizabeth Rather herself) about providing the development system and were quoted an exorbitant price. I'm not sure what the price was, but it was huge. There are very few people in the world building Forth engines --- most likely Testra was the *only* customer that had ever approached Forth Inc. about doing this. Testra is actually very low-budget (rinky-dink is a good description), so they rejected Forth Inc. and hired me instead. The processor, the MiniForth, was a WISC (wide instruction set computer); it could pack up to 5 instructions into a single opcode all of which would execute simultaneously. My assembler had to rearrange the instructions and pack them together in such a way as to minimize the number of NOP instructions that had to be introduced, while yet making the code do the same thing as if the instructions were compiled one-per-opcode in the same order that they were written. I also wrote a Forth cross-compiler and symbolic debugger for the MiniForth --- all without benefit of having an actual chip to work with, and while the processor definition changed daily as it got developed. When the processor was finally available in physical hardware, my system (called MFX) worked perfectly, and it was used to compile their motion- control program successfully (the MiniForth was used in a motion- control board that controlled a laser etcher). I really don't believe that Forth Inc. could have succeeded at this job. Forth Inc. couldn't even succeed at developing an 8088 development system that took advantage of the 8088's segmented memory architecture (that is why PolyForth fit everything into a single 64K segment). Realistically, they weren't going to succeed at the MiniForth which was an order of magnitude more complicated than the 8088. This is why Elizabeth Rather is so focused on making everybody believe that my software "sucks." She knows that I am better than everybody at Forth Inc. put together. I'm not a "kook" --- I'm the best that there is --- nobody is in my league.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 06:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <k26git$cov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15463 |
On 09/05/2012 03:04 AM, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > I'm not a "kook" --- I'm the best that there > is --- nobody is in my league. I finally understand: you're a comedian, not a taxi driver! Still waiting for the premier of "Straight Forth", as is most of the civilized world no doubt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 18:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k23a3t$j03$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f847d585-a15f-492b-9e79-fa8dba0e36f3@googlegroups.com... ... > ... most people won't bother to track down the > original statements in context. Ignore the rant. Reply to the substance. As an expert rant yourself, I'm sure that's pretty difficult for you. > The normal mechanism that mediates most people on > the Internet is their professional reputation. Dude, I don't know where you get such stuff. Do you make it up on the fly? This is Usenet, not "the Internet". Usenet was in full force by the late 1980's, to those at a university. In the 1980's, almost no one else had access to the early Internet. Telephone dialup to Telenet was the norm and was expensive. Web-pages, i.e., "the Internet", weren't around in any quantity until the late 1990's. It was mostly available to those at a university since broadband wasn't common for another decade. Web-browser based forums, Internet commerce, VoIP, Facebook, LinkedIn, Amazon, Ebay, Google, Yahoo, streaming media, massive amounts of streaming pornography, etc basically didn't "exist" yet. What you had in the 1990's were anonymous ftp servers, gopher, telnet, email, email newslists, Bitnet, Telenet, Fidonet, and the worldwide Usenet with groups that included massive amounts of non-streaming pornography. So, if you had Internet access, it was via dialup through a university, and then they'd usually connect you to Bitnet because the Internet was too expensive. So, if you now, today, decide to declare against the worldwide reality to the contrary that all the new and old Internet is a prim and proper domain for professionals and children, it's *your* delusion ... The worldwide Internet has been the domain of pornography and 'alt' - anarchists, lunatics, and terrorists - since before it was "the Internet". > Hugh is a hobbyist; he has no professional > reputation that he needs to uphold. So? Why does that matter? This is an open, unmoderated, worldwide, newsgroup. If you want a newsgroup where stuff is censored or restricted or strictly professional, pick a moderated Usenet group, or a Google Group, or join a browser based forum. Let us know how long you last before you're banned. You will be. You know it. You'll go off at some point. > So he can write whatever he likes about anyone > and never worry. Anyone can do that. You've done that. > But that's okay in Hugh's case, because pretty much > everyone considers him to be a joke. Speak for yourself. He rants, but so do you. Are you a joke? Would you like me to call you one? I've got no problem doing so. I really don't. You're definately not on my "nice person" list. > Every now and then, he'll write something neutral or > even insightful. True. Perhaps, the rants are part of his intellectual process, much like a method actor ... You can grasp that, right? Or, perhaps it's "deadpan" or "dry humor". It's probably not, but one can take it that way, especially if you're _not_ interested in what he is saying. Although he's not from the UK, many people from the UK make extremely dry statements intended to be humorous that aren't grasped as being humorous by people outside the UK. Perhaps, he's the same. > But it doesn't take long before he descends into spirals of insanity. He's clearly interested in tarnishing Ms. Rather's reputation or perhaps provoking her. Honestly, I don't think it's working. She's most helpful, always seem to be very polite, and thoroughly ignores Hugh. But, I've seen nothing "insane" from him. He's not promoting radical Islam nor what little is left of radical Christianity. He's not promoting Creationism nor Nazism. He's not promoting Scientology. He's not screaming kill the president. He's not promoting a bigger or more intrusive US government: more IRS, more CIA, more NSA, more illegal domestic spying, more illegal searches, more reckless US government acts that will eventually be paid for in blood and death. He's not saying we need to be in a war with Russia because we need their resources. He's not saying scientists need to create the largest blackhole they can. He's not saying that genocide of Africans or Indians (of India) would benefit the world by releasing pressure on world food and medical supplies. He's not saying he needs explosive devices, like claymore mines and grenades, for home defense because a pitbull, a doberman, a rottweiler, a labrador, a Glock 45 and a semi-auto .308 just aren't enough anymore for his American neighborhood. Etc. But, even if he did, it's still protected speech. He rants about symtab, Testra, driving a Taxi, and Ms. Rather. You rant about Lua, Lisp, and all sorts of crap. Technically, he qualifies as a "kook" and you as a "troll". Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web