Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16411 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-10-17 16:56 -0500 |
| Last post | 2012-10-22 04:20 -0400 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 89 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-10-17 16:56 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me all2001@spambog.com (Wolfgang Allinger) - 2012-10-17 19:11 -0300
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:15 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-10-18 05:25 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-18 00:14 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-10-17 18:45 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-18 08:49 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-10-18 15:58 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-18 21:53 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-19 18:39 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-19 23:22 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-10-21 13:40 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-19 21:00 -1000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-20 09:18 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-20 08:40 -1000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-21 12:22 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 08:46 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-18 21:08 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-18 12:29 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-17 20:24 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-19 19:46 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-19 18:46 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-20 21:03 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-20 15:40 -1000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-20 18:52 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-20 16:27 -1000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-20 20:56 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-21 09:40 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-21 12:51 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-21 23:50 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-21 17:11 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl - 2012-10-22 00:19 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-22 00:41 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-22 09:31 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-22 08:13 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-22 21:40 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-22 13:14 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-22 10:41 -1000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-22 23:21 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-22 14:27 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-22 14:16 -1000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-10-23 21:42 +0100
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-22 00:24 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 04:12 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-22 01:40 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-22 02:39 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-22 02:30 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 22:27 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-11-04 22:18 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-05 15:35 +0100
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 12:22 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-22 12:51 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 23:40 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-23 12:50 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 09:13 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-25 12:31 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 09:58 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-21 16:24 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-22 02:51 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-21 19:55 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-22 03:02 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 03:50 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-22 01:03 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-22 10:12 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-22 10:08 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-22 18:06 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-10-22 22:14 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-23 00:50 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-23 03:43 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-23 03:14 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-22 19:54 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-22 22:59 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-24 09:23 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-23 10:33 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-24 10:05 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-10-24 14:56 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-23 11:50 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-23 14:39 +0000
Application Benchmarks (was: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-23 15:59 +0000
Re: Application Benchmarks (was: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-24 14:33 +0000
Re: Application Benchmarks (was: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-25 14:19 +0000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 03:56 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-21 22:12 -1000
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-22 02:51 -0700
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-21 05:29 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-21 09:35 -0400
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-21 15:44 +0200
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-21 18:43 -0500
Re: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-22 04:20 -0400
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-25 14:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Application Benchmarks (was: FORTH Trouble--Please Show Me) |
| Message-ID | <2012Oct25.161944@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #16650 |
stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>Concerning the purpose: The main purpose of appbench is to raise the
>>bar in Forth benchmarking. One problem we have had in Forth is that
>>serious performance problems, in particular I/D-Cache synchronization
>>issues were not noticed or ignored by Forth implementors because they
>>did not show up in the microbenchmarks that most Forth implementors
>>use.
>
>Since 2006 the file benchmrk.fth has contained code to test the effect
>of code and data separation. Small scale benchmarks like the random
>number test are much easier to use when analysing the impact of
>such details.
Sure, micro-benchmarks have their place, if you know what you are
targeting.
But how do you know how big the effect of what you are targeting is on
typical code? Micro-benchmarks are not at all representative of
typical code, so they cannot tell you that. An application will
hopefully be more representative of typical code; it may not be, and
that's why appbench contains several applications by several authors,
to get as diverse a benchmark as possible.
More importantly, how do you know that there is not another
performance bug like the I/D-cache synchronization issue that affects
a number of larger programs but does not show up in the small
benchmarks; with a little luck it shows up in application benchmarks.
BTW, I/D synchronization has been a problem since the Pentium, which
was introduced in 1993.
- 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@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 03:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k62tvp$l8h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16547 |
"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1d7dd236-5952-41eb-8fe6-1ae8acdc0f1b@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 21, 6:36 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> > wrote: > > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:717bab9e-8733-4399-a881-bd6766ba6ef2@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com... > > > I remember in MS-DOS days that we had QBasic that lacked records. > > > The typical solution was to define multiple arrays, each of which > > > contained one field of the record. After you calculate your index it > > > would be used in the appropriate array to get whatever field you need. > > > Isn't that the way Forth _still_ does it? > > > See CFA, LFA, PFA, or >BODY, >NAME, >LINK, etc. They all define > > offsets from the start of a "struct". I think I may have mentioned this > > in a prior conversation. The only C compiler I'm aware of that requires > > the user to use offsets to implement struct's is an old and very > > primitive compiler known as SmallC. > > I don't understand what you are saying. All records (structs) are > implemented with offsets. You have the record with all of the fields > adjacent to each other, and you access the fields by their offset from > the base of the record. Yes, but the C compiler takes care of it for you when you define a struct. Forth doesn't. It requires you to define the offsets yourself. > Look at how horribly slow Gforth is. That is because it was written in > C rather than assembly-language. Your C-based Forth will also be > horribly slow for the same reason. Yes, all interpreters are "slow". I already told you both here a while ago and on c.l.a.x. recently that my interpreter is faster than GForth-ITC. It does nothing special. It's just a simple implementation in C. This is except for LOOP related words, which I've re-implemented in Forth while working through a process of minimizing the C related code. So, they're very, very slow now. They were slow before though too, as pre-compiled Forth in C. I never implemented them as primitives or low-level words. > > C still very effectively captures the "essence" of a modern > > microprocessor. > > That is definitely bad news, that the essence of modern > microprocessors could be something so ugly and limiting as C. I think > that is more the essence of C programmers, rather than the essence of > the hardware --- the hardware can support any language. It's the reason C and Forth are still around. Look at all the other "dead" languages. None of them fit the standard machine model: two's complement arithmetic, contiguous memory, 8-bit bytes for ASCII or EBCDIC, pointers the same size as an integer type, Von Neumann architecture, etc. > It is true that many microprocessors were designed to support C. The > x86, for example, has support for the C stack-frame, and it even has > ENTER and LEAVE instructions (as does the 68000). The processors were > designed this way because C was popular, and this doesn't at all imply > that C became popular because it C is a natural language for micro- > processors --- you are getting cause and effect mixed up. Processors > can be designed to support any language --- Forth and Lisp have both > been targeted successfully. I'm not familiar with Lisp processors. As for Forth, I'd agree except for one word: "successfully". It depends on what you mean by "successfully". Yes, Forth processors were and are successfully manufactured, but which of them has successfully captured a microprocessor market? None of them that I'm aware of have. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-21 22:12 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <9YOdnUf3jYZ5YhnNnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16561 |
On 10/21/12 9:56 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1d7dd236-5952-41eb-8fe6-1ae8acdc0f1b@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com... >> On Oct 21, 6:36 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> >> wrote: >>> "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:717bab9e-8733-4399-a881-bd6766ba6ef2@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com... > >>>> I remember in MS-DOS days that we had QBasic that lacked records. >>>> The typical solution was to define multiple arrays, each of which >>>> contained one field of the record. After you calculate your index it >>>> would be used in the appropriate array to get whatever field you need. >> >>> Isn't that the way Forth _still_ does it? "Forth" doesn't do it. Forth *programmers* can do it any way that works for the application at hand (satisfying whatever requirements there are for performance, flexibility, readability, etc.). >>> See CFA, LFA, PFA, or >BODY, >NAME, >LINK, etc. They all define >>> offsets from the start of a "struct". I think I may have mentioned this >>> in a prior conversation. The only C compiler I'm aware of that requires >>> the user to use offsets to implement struct's is an old and very >>> primitive compiler known as SmallC. >> >> I don't understand what you are saying. All records (structs) are >> implemented with offsets. You have the record with all of the fields >> adjacent to each other, and you access the fields by their offset from >> the base of the record. > > Yes, but the C compiler takes care of it for you when you define a struct. > Forth doesn't. It requires you to define the offsets yourself. It can, if you write your struct that way. The FORTH, Inc. database system didn't follow the struct model for records, but used a much more convenient model that didn't require explicit offsets, for example. You're still following the thought model of adapting your familiar programming style, tools, etc., to Forth. In order to fully appreciate Forth you have to learn to think differently. You don't build with steel and aluminum the same way you do with bricks. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 02:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90cf3380-2209-478f-b3a0-ff1564276c8e@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16561 |
On Oct 22, 12:52 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > It is true that many microprocessors were designed to support C. The > > x86, for example, has support for the C stack-frame, and it even has > > ENTER and LEAVE instructions (as does the 68000). The processors were > > designed this way because C was popular, and this doesn't at all imply > > that C became popular because it C is a natural language for micro- > > processors --- you are getting cause and effect mixed up. Processors > > can be designed to support any language --- Forth and Lisp have both > > been targeted successfully. > > I'm not familiar with Lisp processors. > > As for Forth, I'd agree except for one word: "successfully". It depends on > what you mean by "successfully". Yes, Forth processors were and are > successfully manufactured, but which of them has successfully captured a > microprocessor market? None of them that I'm aware of have. The MiniForth was designed to support a motion-control program. This program did get ported over to the MiniForth (it ran on the Dallas 80c320 previously). All of those motion-control boards from Testra now contain a MiniForth processor. I wrote MFX. Only one program has ever been written in MFX, but that is infinitely more than most compiler-writers have. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-21 05:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MoydnTfoOPwQUx7NnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16526 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > Over the past six years, I can't even tell you how many Forth people > posting here, and on other newsgroups I read also, constantly tout > how good Forth is. But, all I see, without intending to incite > flames, is a very weak language, as compared to many others, most > notably C. Yet, none of these promoters of Forth ever see it's > weakness, or perhaps are just unwilling to openly admit them. Or maybe they just disagree with you. I think that's not really fair. Many of us use C for various things, and we're well aware of its strengths and weaknesses. Forth is not a "weak language". Forth is great. It's not perfect. But it takes a completely different approach to software development than C does. That you can easily create structures is a substantial advantage because it allows you create the exact ones you need. There is absolutely no reason for a beginner to use a "training wheels" approach with a bunch of canned data structures because structures aren't hard to write. It's a good confidence-booster during an introductory course and it's a fundamental skill you need to have to be a Forth programmer. Having said that, we've added simple structures to Forth 200x. These aren't the same as C structures, but they do the job. Given that you think that Forth is a weak language, why are you here? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-21 09:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k60tgc$5h9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16537 |
"Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message news:MoydnTfoOPwQUx7NnZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@supernews.com... > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: ... > Given that you think that Forth is a weak language, why are you here? > I'm working on getting my ITC Forth interpreter in C to pass the remaining 1/3rd or so of Hayes core. Except for a handful of primitives (in C), a bunch of variables, and a few parsing words (compiled Forth in C), much of it is now coded in Forth (as ASCII text). Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-21 15:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <36511775.95Tjo4QIQb@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16537 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Given that you think that Forth is a weak language, why are you here? Trolling to annoy people, of course. I think that's easy to guess, given how he behaved in the past. Don't feed the trolls. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-21 18:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cYWdnTC3E-oEFRnNnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16541 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Given that you think that Forth is a weak language, why are you here? > > Trolling to annoy people, of course. I think that's easy to guess, > given how he behaved in the past. Don't feed the trolls. Ah, okay, that makes sense. I was wondering. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 04:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k62vd4$op1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16541 |
"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message news:36511775.95Tjo4QIQb@sunwukong.fritz.box... > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Given that you think that Forth is a weak language, why are you here? > > Trolling to annoy people, of course. I think that's easy to guess, > given how he behaved in the past. Don't feed the trolls. > You may be a long time contributor here, but you haven't posted anything of any value since '04. I know. I've read many of your old posts. They come up in searches on Forth issues. I've read the past posts of many others here too and even those who aren't here anymore. Given your Forth skill, you don't need to consult any Forth experts here. You don't ask any Forth related questions. You're not helping any novices learn Forth. You're not contributing to the future of Forth. So, it's you who might as well leave. This group serves no purpose for you, _anymore_ . The only thing here is your online friends. It's time to move on or meet them in real life. As I recall (AIR), you picked a fight with me first. I was posting here for some years asking just basic Forth questions for my interpreter. There was never a response of any type by you to my posts. No kind replies. No angry replies. No informative replies. There was absolutely nothing from you. You completely ignored me. Then, out of nowhere you verbally attacked me! About a month later, Passaniti did for the first time of many times to follow. I think it was about my fourth year. So, given your past abusive behavior, you don't get to call me a troll. You initiated this and still instigate. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web