Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #35035 > unrolled thread
| Started by | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 340 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-20 03:40 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 13:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-21 21:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 16:32 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-22 03:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2014-12-22 00:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 13:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 03:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 11:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 07:51 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 15:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-23 11:17 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 06:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-23 12:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 13:12 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 07:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 10:31 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:04 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-25 02:43 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-12-26 11:40 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 21:33 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-06 10:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:13 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 00:41 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 14:59 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-06 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:16 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 18:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 18:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-25 12:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-27 09:48 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-29 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:13 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:16 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 17:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:14 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 12:07 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 11:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:26 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:31 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 11:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 14:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:58 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:38 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 02:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 06:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 22:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:32 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:39 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 01:21 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:06 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 21:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-25 23:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 02:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 05:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 16:13 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-27 04:41 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 11:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-31 15:02 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-26 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-26 10:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 14:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-26 16:36 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 21:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:17 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-01 21:07 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-02 11:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-01-02 12:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-02 23:42 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 14:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-06 03:51 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-05 20:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 19:25 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 14:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 08:04 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:14 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 16:25 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-09 09:10 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:35 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:51 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 11:29 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 03:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 15:58 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 16:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:53 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 11:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-11 11:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:56 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 19:47 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:03 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:05 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-31 10:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-09 23:01 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:43 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:09 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 10:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:31 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 23:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 22:22 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 13:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 13:02 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 15:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 01:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 15:23 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 19:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 17:52 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 21:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 19:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 05:07 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 15:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 12:41 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-07 11:09 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-07 11:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 14:14 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 20:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:57 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-11 19:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 22:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-15 22:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-16 08:56 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-07 12:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 14:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 06:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 18:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 16:48 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 08:50 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-07 10:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:32 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 18:28 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 07:31 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 14:02 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 09:26 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 17:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-07 17:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 09:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 03:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:21 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 18:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-08 14:49 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 17:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:42 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:13 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 02:52 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 18:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 20:29 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 11:14 -0800
Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-10 03:15 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 20:56 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 03:02 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-12 10:14 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 11:39 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 18:08 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 20:04 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-14 02:43 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-14 13:34 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 02:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-15 12:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 06:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 19:15 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 12:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 19:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-11 09:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-11 14:45 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 18:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-12 17:12 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 20:55 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 03:48 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 06:34 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:51 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:03 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:18 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 09:54 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 17:35 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:19 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:07 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:06 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-15 00:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:17 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-15 17:35 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:38 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-16 20:47 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 14:37 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 17:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 03:03 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-13 10:40 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 18:09 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 09:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 11:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 22:38 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-16 13:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 02:39 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 18:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-18 12:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-18 22:48 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-19 03:10 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 18:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 11:45 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-17 17:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 14:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-01-19 00:49 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-19 15:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-20 03:26 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-20 04:23 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 21:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 07:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-20 12:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 16:11 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-01-20 23:29 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-21 01:55 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 00:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 07:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-06 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 21:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-09 23:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "hughaguilar96@yahoo.com" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 11:10 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 00:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 22:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 17:33 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 19:17 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 21:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 04:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-13 15:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 20:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-21 20:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-21 23:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-26 20:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-01-05 10:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 07:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 10:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 21:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-29 05:20 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-04 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-04 05:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-04 08:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-12-26 15:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 10:55 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:34 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 19:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 12:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 16:03 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 17:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2014-12-26 21:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-08 22:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 20:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:36 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 15:51 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-21 16:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-22 10:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-22 05:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 09:10 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 15:23 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000
Page 5 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 Next page →
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 10:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gphk$fct$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35215 |
On 2014-12-25, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >>> 1) 10 KLOC or more of assembly code (I won't hold out for 100KLOC) >>> 2) Written in the 21st century,.... >> We do this every day for products that are currently sold and >> supported. However the code is all proprietary > > That's ok, I'll take your word for it without seeing the code. What I > want to know is whether any of those products was first released in 2000 > or later (and repackaging/rebranding of older products or codebases > doesn't count for this purpose). Continuing to sell and support older > products is great, but this question is about new development. I can think of at least 5 new products I'm aware of either having worked on them or know the developers since 2000. I could probably name 10 products that had significant 100KLOC+ new features (new code) added since 2000. And I could probably count 50 products written between 1985 and 2000. This is many lines of code and selling at an average of $100,000 to $500,000 per copy and sometimes quite a bit more it is a significant business. It is is 99% assembler and being refreshed more or less to keep current with new OS and program product releases and features, etc. Certainly there is some dust gathering on parts that don't need to be changed but there is also plenty of activity at times on parts that do. Tom O'Donnell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gqgj$hkv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35223 |
On 2014-12-25, Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> wrote: > On 2014-12-25, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >>>> 1) 10 KLOC or more of assembly code (I won't hold out for 100KLOC) >>>> 2) Written in the 21st century,.... >>> We do this every day for products that are currently sold and >>> supported. However the code is all proprietary >> >> That's ok, I'll take your word for it without seeing the code. What I >> want to know is whether any of those products was first released in 2000 >> or later (and repackaging/rebranding of older products or codebases >> doesn't count for this purpose). Continuing to sell and support older >> products is great, but this question is about new development. A point I forgot to mention is in many cases we are maintaining our own code. It's not as if our grandfathers wrote something and we're working on legacy code they handed down. Product lifetimes are fairly long. We write new stuff occasionally and we also support products we wrote or worked on in early phases. Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 01:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141226012136.6bb6982b@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35215 |
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 23:32:44 -0800 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: > >> 1) 10 KLOC or more of assembly code (I won't hold out for 100KLOC) > >> 2) Written in the 21st century,.... > > We do this every day for products that are currently sold and > > supported. However the code is all proprietary > > That's ok, I'll take your word for it without seeing the code. What I > want to know is whether any of those products was first released in > 2000 or later (and repackaging/rebranding of older products or > codebases doesn't count for this purpose). Continuing to sell and > support older products is great, but this question is about new > development. You have ciforth from Albert van der Horst written in assembler?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 09:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gk38$um4$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35210 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >> What if I'll give you a link to the project which is bigger than anything >> you wrote before, but still written using Assembler as primary programming >> language? You'll do some bullshit like trying to show it's not what you >> meant or you'll agree with my point? > > Sure, I'll be happy to look at the link. Once the link is up, we can > discuss the specifics. > > I'd like to see a project that is: I'm sorry, my point is not to make you happy. Moreover, the only reason you arguing is because you're going to be unhappy to say that you were wrong and your opponent is right. I'll just going to prove what I've said: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KolibriOS http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MenuetOS Those are just most known ones, because they are free source projects. Are they big enough for you? > 1) 10 KLOC or more of assembly code (I won't hold out for 100KLOC) > 2) Written in the 21st century, > 3) an actual application whose goal is the end result rather than > as an exercise in asm programming, > 4) Written in assembler as a choice among reasonable alternatives. > > I can imagine some scenarios (special purpose processor etc) where asm > is the only possible choice so you have to bite the bullet and use it. > So I'm looking for an example of where someone used assembler by > preference and got a sane technical outcome. > > The 64-bit Picolisp implementation might qualify (picolisp.de) since it > was originally written in C, then rewritten in asm to get around some C > limitations, and this might have happened after 2000. The assembler > part of it (actually appears to be a Lisp-based macroassembler) is > around 30 KLOC. There was also a Scheme interpreter in ARM assembler > that I've been wanting to look at. > > But, the reasons for writing those interpreters in asm was to implement > stuff like coroutines and continuations that are difficult in C. > I'm not sure why they didn't use C with some low level asm support though. Because there is no difference between them if you are experienced in both. -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 09:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xa92bbpdo.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35220 |
mix <mix@test.net> writes: > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KolibriOS > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MenuetOS > > Those are just most known ones, because they are free source projects. Are > they big enough for you? They are nontrivial so I'll accept them without being finicky about the size requirement. According to those articles, KolibriOS is apparently a fork of MenuetOS so I won't count it as a separaate program. MenuetOS was first released on May 16, 2000, so it meets the 21st century first release criterion, though just barely. They do seem to be examples of writing in asm for its own sake, but as the saying goes, coding in assembly language is good for the soul. Thanks! >> I'm not sure why they didn't use C with some low level asm support though. > Because there is no difference between them if you are experienced in both. One difference is you can run the C program on multiple cpu architectures without much change. I've actually seen several programs (apparently including Picolisp64) written in a sort of abstracted assembly language, that's mapped onto a hardware instruction set using macros.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7hup7$91p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35236 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: > > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KolibriOS > > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MenuetOS > > > > Those are just most known ones, because they are free source projects. Are > > they big enough for you? > > They are nontrivial so I'll accept them without being finicky about the > size requirement. According to those articles, KolibriOS is apparently > a fork of MenuetOS so I won't count it as a separaate program. MenuetOS > was first released on May 16, 2000, so it meets the 21st century first > release criterion, though just barely. They do seem to be examples of > writing in asm for its own sake, but as the saying goes, coding in > assembly language is good for the soul. Thanks! One assembly language program produced in this century, versus hundreds of C and C++ programs. Why did so many programmers choose C insted of assembly language? Were they trying to make their programming tasks harder? No, they knew that it would be easier to program in a higher-level language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 23:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141225233409.2bec4fb5@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35252 |
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 21:15:20 +0000 (UTC) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > > mix <mix@test.net> writes: > > > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KolibriOS > > > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MenuetOS > > > > > > Those are just most known ones, because they are free source > > > projects. Are they big enough for you? > > > > They are nontrivial so I'll accept them without being finicky about > > the size requirement. According to those articles, KolibriOS is > > apparently a fork of MenuetOS so I won't count it as a separaate > > program. MenuetOS was first released on May 16, 2000, so it meets > > the 21st century first release criterion, though just barely. They > > do seem to be examples of writing in asm for its own sake, but as > > the saying goes, coding in assembly language is good for the soul. > > Thanks! > > One assembly language program produced in this century, versus > hundreds of C and C++ programs. Don;t forget that writing C or C++ sooner or later will require use of assembler. > > Why did so many programmers choose C insted of assembly language? Because C is portable assembler. Take for example Go language. I have seen people write assembler files in combination with high level constructs. Why? Because Go has different calling convention (calling C functions has hi cost), than common C abi and has built in assembler that does not have such performance costs. So you will see assembler files for three architectures i386 , amd64 and ARM ;) > Were they trying to make their programming tasks harder? > No, they knew that it would be easier to program in a higher-level > language. Writing things in assembler requires mental discipline, which is good exercise for making less bugs ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 17:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x1tnngqt9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35253 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > Don;t forget that writing C or C++ sooner or later will require > use of assembler. Only occasionally (maybe a little more for OS's or embedded programs), and the amount of assembler code is usually quite small. Assembly as a low level assist to a HLL program is fine, I'm just in doubt about the practicality of writing large asm programs these days. Some mainframe (mentioned by Tom O'Donnell) apparently do it for legacy OS compatibility and it sounds like they spend a boatload of money on development. > You have ciforth from Albert van der Horst written in assembler? It looks to me like ciforth is a descendant of FigForth which is from way before 2000.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 02:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141226022222.6f32fe7f@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35258 |
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 17:09:22 -0800 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > > Don;t forget that writing C or C++ sooner or later will require > > use of assembler. > > Only occasionally (maybe a little more for OS's or embedded programs), > and the amount of assembler code is usually quite small. True. Assembly as > a low level assist to a HLL program is fine, I'm just in doubt about > the practicality of writing large asm programs these days. Main problem is lack of available programmers. Some > mainframe (mentioned by Tom O'Donnell) apparently do it for legacy OS > compatibility and it sounds like they spend a boatload of money on > development. That is because that there are not many such programmers. > > > You have ciforth from Albert van der Horst written in assembler? > > It looks to me like ciforth is a descendant of FigForth which is from > way before 2000. Don't forget you can't reuse assembly code from older processors. I have x86-64 version and it does not looks like it is pre 2000.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 17:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xd277yybp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35259 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: >> legacy OS compatibility and it sounds like they spend a boatload of >> money on development. > That is because that there are not many such programmers. The extra cost is mostly because it takes so much longer to implement functionality in asm than in an HLL. >> It looks to me like ciforth is a descendant of FigForth > Don't forget you can't reuse assembly code from older processors. > I have x86-64 version and it does not looks like it is pre 2000. I haven't looked closely at ciforth but iirc, Figforth was metacompiled, and it may have used a semi-portable virtual machine mapped to hardware instructions with asm macros (ie. with a W register and so on). Figforth ran on a lot of different cpu architectures with relatively small amount of asm code hacking needed for each one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 05:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141226052214.6a1e5768@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35260 |
On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 17:49:46 -0800
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
> >> legacy OS compatibility and it sounds like they spend a boatload of
> >> money on development.
> > That is because that there are not many such programmers.
>
> The extra cost is mostly because it takes so much longer to implement
> functionality in asm than in an HLL.
True but results are satisfactory ;p
Eg here is mine merge sort and test asm program in fasm linux/amd64.
It assembles into dynamically linked executable directly, without
linker.
I needed about 4 hours to write it ;p
Time to generate list of million nodes of 32bit integers and to sort it
follows:
[bmaxa@maxa-pc sort]$ time ./list_sort
seed 1419567339
unsorted
0x314e7d0 63077
0x314e7b0 933004
0x314e790 814103
0x314e770 61894
0x314e750 128938
0x314e730 894326
0x314e710 691552
0x314e6f0 42594
0x314e6d0 234833
0x314e6b0 133719
0x314e690 997511
0x314e670 269168
0x314e650 55560
0x314e630 364881
0x314e610 221141
0x314e5f0 324993
sorted
0x13777f0 0
0x18d82f0 0
0x2da8bb0 0
0x1d836b0 0
0x1b537f0 1
0x18f2e90 2
0x2f99d30 2
0x2fec4d0 2
0x26532d0 3
0x1647af0 3
0x172ddf0 5
0x1ab3f30 6
0x28938b0 7
0x16c0ed0 7
0x2b84990 8
0x236bfb0 9
size of node 12, length 1000000
real 0m0.388s
user 0m0.387s
sys 0m0.000s
Here is whole program (test and merge_sort):
[bmaxa@maxa-pc sort]$ cat list_sort.asm
format elf64 executable 3
struc Node {
.next dq ?
.data dd ?
.size = $-.next
}
virtual at 0
n Node
end virtual
include 'import64.inc'
interpreter '/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2'
needed 'libc.so.6'
import printf,puts,exit,rand_r,time,malloc
N = 1000000 ; number of nodes
segment executable
entry $
xor edi,edi
call [time]
mov [seed],eax ; seed on time
mov rdi,fmt1
mov esi,[seed]
xor eax,eax
call [printf] ; print seed
call init_list
mov rdi,fmtu
call print_list
mov rbx,[list]
push rbx
call sort
pop rbx
mov [list],rbx
mov rdi,fmts
call print_list
mov rdi,[list]
call length
mov rdx,rcx
mov rdi,fmt3
mov rsi,n.size
call [printf]
xor edi,edi
call [exit]
init_list:
mov ebx,N
.L0:
mov edi,n.size
call [malloc]
mov rcx,[list]
mov [rax+n.next],rcx
mov [list],rax
mov rdi,seed
call [rand_r]
xor edx,edx
mov ecx,N
div ecx
mov rcx,[list]
mov [rcx+n.data],edx
dec ebx
jnz .L0
ret
print_list:
call [puts]
mov rbx,[list]
mov r12,16
.L0:
test rbx,rbx
jz .exit
mov rdi,fmt2
mov rsi,[rbx+n.next]
mov edx,[rbx+n.data]
xor eax,eax
call [printf]
mov rbx,[rbx+n.next]
dec r12
jz .exit
jmp .L0
.exit:
ret
; [rsp+8] list to sort
sort:
mov rdi,[rsp+8]
call length
cmp rcx,1
jle .exit
shr rcx,1 ; middle
sub rsp,16 ; left,right
mov qword[rsp],0
mov qword[rsp+8],0
mov rbx,[rsp+8+16]
.L0: ; append to left
mov rax,[rsp]
mov rdx,[rbx+n.next]
mov [rbx+n.next],rax
mov [rsp],rbx
mov rbx,rdx
dec rcx
jnz .L0
.L1: ; append to right
mov rax,[rsp+8]
mov rdx,[rbx+n.next]
mov [rbx+n.next],rax
mov [rsp+8],rbx
mov rbx,[rbx+n.next]
mov rbx,rdx
test rbx,rbx
jnz .L1
sub rsp,8 ; result
mov rbx,[rsp+8]
mov [rsp],rbx
call sort
mov rbx,[rsp]
mov [rsp+8],rbx
mov rbx,[rsp+16]
mov [rsp],rbx
call sort
mov rbx,[rsp]
mov [rsp+16],rbx
call merge
mov rbx,[rsp]
add rsp,24
mov [rsp+8],rbx
.exit:
ret
; [rsp+8] output , [rsp+16] left, [rsp+24] right
merge:
sub rsp,8 ; append position
mov qword[rsp+16],0
mov qword[rsp],0
.L0:
cmp qword[rsp+24],0
jz .right
cmp qword[rsp+32],0
jz .left
mov rax,[rsp+24]
mov ebx,[rax+n.data]
mov rcx,[rsp+32]
cmp ebx,[rcx+n.data]
jl .add_left
.add_right:
cmp qword[rsp],0
je .just_set_right
mov rdx,[rsp]
mov [rdx+n.next],rcx
mov rdx,[rcx+n.next]
mov [rsp+32],rdx
mov qword[rcx+n.next],0
mov [rsp],rcx
jmp .L0
.add_left:
cmp qword[rsp],0
je .just_set_left
mov rdx,[rsp]
mov [rdx+n.next],rax
mov rdx,[rax+n.next]
mov [rsp+24],rdx
mov qword[rax+n.next],0
mov [rsp],rax
jmp .L0
.just_set_left:
mov rdx,[rax+n.next]
mov qword[rax+n.next],0
mov [rsp],rax
mov [rsp+16],rax
mov [rsp+24],rdx
jmp .L0
.just_set_right:
mov rdx,[rcx+n.next]
mov qword[rcx+n.next],0
mov [rsp],rcx
mov [rsp+16],rcx
mov [rsp+32],rdx
jmp .L0
.right:
cmp qword[rsp+32],0
jz .exit
mov rcx,[rsp+32]
cmp qword[rsp],0
je .just_set_right_only
mov rdx,[rsp]
mov [rdx+n.next],rcx
mov [rsp],rcx
mov rdx,[rcx+n.next]
mov qword[rcx+n.next],0
mov [rsp+32],rdx
jmp .right
.just_set_right_only:
mov rdx,[rcx+n.next]
mov qword[rcx+n.next],0
mov [rsp],rcx
mov [rsp+16],rcx
mov [rsp+32],rdx
jmp .right
.left:
cmp qword[rsp+24],0
jz .exit
mov rax,[rsp+24]
cmp qword[rsp],0
je .just_set_left_only
mov rdx,[rsp]
mov [rdx+n.next],rax
mov [rsp],rax
mov rdx,[rax+n.next]
mov qword[rax+n.next],0
mov [rsp+24],rdx
jmp .left
.just_set_left_only:
mov rdx,[rax+n.next]
mov qword[rax+n.next],0
mov [rsp],rax
mov [rsp+24],rax
mov [rsp+32],rdx
jmp .left
.exit:
add rsp,8
ret
; rdi input list, rcx count
length:
mov rcx,0
.L0:
test rdi,rdi
jz .exit
mov rdi,[rdi+n.next]
inc rcx
jmp .L0
.exit:
ret
segment readable
fmtu db 'unsorted',0ah,0
fmts db 'sorted' ,0ah,0
fmt1 db 'seed %d',0ah,0
fmt2 db '%16p %d',0ah,0
fmt3 db 'size of node %d, length %d',0ah,0
segment writeable
list rq 1
seed rd 1
;------------------------------------------------ ende
>
> >> It looks to me like ciforth is a descendant of FigForth
> > Don't forget you can't reuse assembly code from older processors.
> > I have x86-64 version and it does not looks like it is pre 2000.
>
> I haven't looked closely at ciforth but iirc, Figforth was
> metacompiled, and it may have used a semi-portable virtual machine
> mapped to hardware instructions with asm macros (ie. with a W
> register and so on). Figforth ran on a lot of different cpu
> architectures with relatively small amount of asm code hacking needed
> for each one.
Really I am not sure, code has human readable comments, I don;t know
really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec26.150056@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35261 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
[List Mergesort in assembly language]
>Time to generate list of million nodes of 32bit integers and to sort it
>follows:
...
>real 0m0.388s
>user 0m0.387s
>sys 0m0.000s
Just for comparison, from <2013Aug15.191549@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>:
|Here they are (on a 3GHz Core 2 Duo E8400); the numbers are the user
|times in seconds.
|
|gforth-fast 64-bit
|m-a m r i i2 d
|3.72 3.61 3.66 3.62 3.63 4.03 1000000 * 10
|...
|vfxlin
|m-a m r i i2 d
|1.15 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.27 1000000 * 10
These are times for generating ten pseudo-random one-million entry
integer arrays and sorting them with some quicksort variants. So
quicksort in Forth running on VFX is 3 times faster than mergesort in
assembly language.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m7jtui$9pr$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #35270 |
On 12/26/14 3:00 PM, Anton Ertl wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > [List Mergesort in assembly language] >> Time to generate list of million nodes of 32bit integers and to sort it >> follows: > ... >> real 0m0.388s >> user 0m0.387s >> sys 0m0.000s > > Just for comparison, from <2013Aug15.191549@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>: > > |Here they are (on a 3GHz Core 2 Duo E8400); the numbers are the user > |times in seconds. > | > |gforth-fast 64-bit > |m-a m r i i2 d > |3.72 3.61 3.66 3.62 3.63 4.03 1000000 * 10 > |... > |vfxlin > |m-a m r i i2 d > |1.15 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.27 1000000 * 10 > > These are times for generating ten pseudo-random one-million entry > integer arrays and sorting them with some quicksort variants. So > quicksort in Forth running on VFX is 3 times faster than mergesort in > assembly language. > > - anton > It is so much slower because it sorts linked list, I guess. Say if I use radix sort on integer array then it would be ten times faster then quick sort ;p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 09:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec27.105029@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35273 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
>On 12/26/14 3:00 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> So
>> quicksort in Forth running on VFX is 3 times faster than mergesort in
>> assembly language.
>>
>> - anton
>>
>It is so much slower because it sorts linked list, I guess.
The constant factor of quicksort over mergesort may also play a role.
> Say
>if I use radix sort on integer array then it would be ten times
>faster then quick sort ;p
Maybe. For one million elements, the ld(n) factor is only 20, so the
radix sort must be pretty good at the constant factor to be ten times
faster than quicksort.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 04:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141227044142.083519cc@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35270 |
On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:00:56 GMT
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
> [List Mergesort in assembly language]
> >Time to generate list of million nodes of 32bit integers and to sort
> >it follows:
> ...
> >real 0m0.388s
> >user 0m0.387s
> >sys 0m0.000s
>
> Just for comparison, from
> <2013Aug15.191549@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>:
>
> |Here they are (on a 3GHz Core 2 Duo E8400); the numbers are the user
> |times in seconds.
> |
> |gforth-fast 64-bit
> |m-a m r i i2 d
> |3.72 3.61 3.66 3.62 3.63 4.03 1000000 * 10
> |...
> |vfxlin
> |m-a m r i i2 d
> |1.15 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.27 1000000 * 10
>
> These are times for generating ten pseudo-random one-million entry
> integer arrays and sorting them with some quicksort variants. So
> quicksort in Forth running on VFX is 3 times faster than mergesort in
> assembly language.
>
> - anton
This is time to sort 1000000 element array of 32 bit ints by radix:
array radix elapsed 0.017425 seconds
List radix is awfully slow, because of lot of cache misses.
list radix elapsed 0.869452 seconds
list merge elapsed 0.284374 seconds
This is array radix sort used:
; rdi array,rsi size
radix_sort_avx2:
push rbx
push rbp
mov rbp,rsp
sub rsp,16+16*8+16*8
mov [rbp-8],rdi
mov [rbp-16],rsi
xor rbx,rbx
vpxor ymm0,ymm0,ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+12*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+8*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+4*8)],ymm0
.L00: ; allocate 16 buckets
lea rdi,[rbp-(16+16*8)+rbx*8] ; destination
mov rdx,[rbp-16]
mov rsi,16
mov rax,16*16384
cmp rdx,rax ; if array is bigger then L2 cache
cmovg rsi,rax ; alignment, L2 cache size
lea rdx,[rdx*4] ; size
call posix_memalign ; huge malloc is actually
; never allocated
; untill page is touched
test rax,rax
jnz .exit
inc rbx
cmp rbx,16
jnz .L00
vpxor ymm0,ymm0,ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+16*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+12*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+8*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+4*8)],ymm0
xor rcx,rcx
.L0:
xor rdx,rdx
vmovd xmm2,ecx
; vpbroadcastd ymm2,xmm1
mov rdi,[rbp-8]
vpslld xmm2,xmm2,2
.L1:; calculate index with SIMD, based on [(num[rdx]>> (ecx << 2))&0xf]
vmovdqu ymm1,[rdi+rdx*4]
;vpsrlvd ymm3,ymm1,ymm2 ; heh, finally got why vector shift
; is usefull
vpsrld ymm3,ymm1,xmm2
vpand ymm3,ymm3,yword[mask] ; mask is 0xf
mov r10,8
vmovdqa ymm15,ymm3
vmovdqa ymm14,ymm1
.L22: ; this is scatter to buckets, according to dword index
; this can be unrolled, but
; I don;t know by how much performance would be increased;
vmovd esi, xmm3
vmovd r11d,xmm1
mov r8,[rbp-(16+16*8)+rsi*8] ; get bucket
vpsrldq xmm3,xmm3,4
mov r9,[rbp-(16+16*8+16*8)+rsi*8] ; get index into backet
inc qword[rbp-(16+16*8+16*8)+rsi*8] ; update index
vpsrldq xmm1,xmm1,4
mov [r8+r9*4],r11d
dec r10
cmp r10,4 ; unfortunatelly vpsrldq will not shift
; upper 128 bits into lower
je .adjust
.L44:
inc rdx
cmp rdx,[rbp-16]
jge .L33
test r10,r10
jnz .L22
jmp .L1
.adjust:
vextracti128 xmm3,ymm15,1
vextracti128 xmm1,ymm14,1
jmp .L44
.L33: ; gather buckets (one after another) into input array
xor rax,rax
lea r8,[rbp-(16+16*8+16*8)]
lea r9,[rbp-(16+16*8)]
.L2:
mov rsi,[r9]
mov r10,[r8]
test r10,r10
jz .L5
.L3:
.L4:
cmp r10,4
jl .one
vmovdqa xmm15,[rsi]
vmovdqu [rdi],xmm15
add rsi,16
add rdi,16
sub r10,4
jnz .L4
jmp .L5
.one:
mov r11d,[rsi]
mov [rdi],r11d
add rsi,4
add rdi,4
dec r10
jnz .one
.L5:
add r8,8
add r9,8
inc rax
cmp rax,16
jnz .L2
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+16*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+12*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+8*8)],ymm0
vmovdqu [rbp-(16+16*8+4*8)],ymm0
inc rcx
cmp rcx,8 ; 2*(sizeof(int))
jl .L0
.exit:
xor rbx,rbx
.L11:
mov rdi,[rbp-(16+16*8)+rbx*8]
call free
.next:
inc rbx
cmp rbx,16
jnz .L11
mov rsp,rbp
pop rbp
pop rbx
ret
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 10:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec27.112119@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35284 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
>> |vfxlin
>> |m-a m r i i2 d
>> |1.15 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.27 1000000 * 10
>>
>> These are times for generating ten pseudo-random one-million entry
>> integer arrays and sorting them with some quicksort variants. So
>> quicksort in Forth running on VFX is 3 times faster than mergesort in
>> assembly language.
>>
>> - anton
>
>This is time to sort 1000000 element array of 32 bit ints by radix:
>array radix elapsed 0.017425 seconds
6.5 times faster than quicksort, not bad.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-30 11:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87iogs29zr.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #35261 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > Time to generate list of million nodes of 32bit integers and to sort it > follows:... > real 0m0.388s > user 0m0.387s > sys 0m0.000s I haven't managed to try this program out or play with it yet, but thanks for posting it, it looks interesting. It's around 10x faster than a straightforward C++ implementation using the STL list class with std::list<int32_t>. I wonder what's going on with that. I haven't yet profiled the C++ program. It might be spending most of its time in storage allocation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-31 15:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141231150257.280c8ab1@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35350 |
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:50:00 -0800 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > > Time to generate list of million nodes of 32bit integers and to > > sort it follows:... > > real 0m0.388s > > user 0m0.387s > > sys 0m0.000s > > I haven't managed to try this program out or play with it yet, but > thanks for posting it, it looks interesting. It's around 10x faster > than a straightforward C++ implementation using the STL list class > with std::list<int32_t>. I wonder what's going on with that. I > haven't yet profiled the C++ program. It might be spending most of > its time in storage allocation. It's slightly faster than C++ list internal sort method. Problem with C++ list is that nodes are internal and you can't pop/push without relocation. That is why sort is member function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 03:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dsSdnZsyroSvtwDJnZ2dnUU7-IudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35260 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: > >>> It looks to me like ciforth is a descendant of FigForth >> Don't forget you can't reuse assembly code from older processors. >> I have x86-64 version and it does not looks like it is pre 2000. > > I haven't looked closely at ciforth but iirc, Figforth was > metacompiled, and it may have used a semi-portable virtual machine > mapped to hardware instructions with asm macros (ie. with a W > register and so on). Figforth ran on a lot of different cpu > architectures with relatively small amount of asm code hacking > needed for each one. All true, kinda sorta. fig-FORTH was written for the 6502 in Forth with the smallest part of assembly language and metacompiled with a FORTH, Inc metacompiler. Then, a program was written to convert the metacompiler output into assembly language source code, and then that assembly code was translated by hand into code for other processors. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 10:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7jdmd$3cm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35260 |
On 2014-12-26, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: >>> legacy OS compatibility and it sounds like they spend a boatload of >>> money on development. >> That is because that there are not many such programmers. > > The extra cost is mostly because it takes so much longer to implement > functionality in asm than in an HLL. You said you haven't written much assembler but you sure make a lot of strong statements about the use of it! I've been doing this for almost 41 years and I beg to differ strongly with most of what you have been saying. What you said isn't the reason. Assembler is completely appropriate and the best choice for systems programming in this environment. You can't make a comparison between how long things take to do with a language designed specifically for a particular purpose and how long they *might* take to do in language(s) that aren't capable of being used for a particular job at all. We are not talking about application programming. Consider the IBM assembler a DSL for systems programming on IBM mainframes because that's exactly what it is. The OS is not a legacy OS. It's the oldest OS still being *developed* sold and marketed. The clocks on mainframe CPUs are up to over 5 GHz. There's tons and tons of high tech in every mainframe. The use of "legacy" to describe any of this is factually wrong. The reason it takes a long time to write systems software on this platform is because of the same values that keep people paying for the OS: you need skilled people with decades of experience who understand that crashing isn't acceptable ever, failures have to leave all resources in known, consistent states, performance has to be much better than the functionality in the OS they're enhancing and/or replacing, and things have to work now and on future versions of the OS and with no bad interactions with countless other vendor products. We also have to build in ways to fix the product in the field right now when somebody is down. We don't send them source to compile. We also need good tech writers and a lot of coordination between managers, developers, QA, and doc. Customers are paying a lot of money for a fully finished product that meets the same standards of the OS. They expect clear, usable professional doc. The product has to install and work, always. It can't do anything bad to the system. It has to perform, it has to be secure, it has to insure data integrity uberalles. Messing up in any of these areas means possible lawsuits and loss of big money. Mainframes scale up, not out. Your stuff has to work on not require a failover box. They may have some load balancing and failover but we can't rely on that. Our stuff has to stay up. If it doesn't heads roll. The amount of design that goes into a good systems software product is not something application coders have any experience with. Yes, it takes longer to design a Boeing 747 than it takes to design a Piper Cub because the values are different. All that costs money. But if we didn't save the customers a lot more than the products cost we wouldn't have a financial model that could work. Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web