Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36512 > unrolled thread

Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-12 12:13 -0800
    Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-12 12:56 -0800
      Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-12 21:32 +0000
        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-13 13:08 -0500
          Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-13 19:39 +0100
            Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-13 14:14 -0500
              Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-13 21:28 +0100
                Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-13 14:22 -0800
                  Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 01:34 +0100
                Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:42 -0800
                HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-14 10:21 +0000
                  Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 19:37 +0100
                    Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-14 11:13 -0800
                      Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 21:07 +0100
                        Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 12:50 -0800
                          Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-14 22:32 +0100
                            Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 15:10 -0800
                    Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-15 10:34 +0000
                      Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-15 22:15 +0100
                        Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-16 12:45 +0000
                      Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-15 13:55 -0800
                        Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-16 13:52 +0000
                          Re: HTML vs. LaTeX (was: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-16 15:47 +0100
                      Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-16 09:05 -0800
                        Re: HTML vs. LaTeX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-17 12:21 +0000
                          Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-20 13:23 -0800
                            Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-20 22:33 +0100
                          Re: HTML vs. LaTeX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-21 15:14 +0000
                            Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-21 20:23 +0100
                            Re: HTML vs. LaTeX Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-21 11:33 -0800
                Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-14 10:14 -0800
                  Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-22 01:57 -0500
                    Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-22 18:35 -0800
                      Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-23 01:58 -0500
                        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 04:59 -0800
                          Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-23 19:18 -0500
                            Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 18:09 -0800
                            Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-24 01:04 -0800
                              Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-24 02:51 -0800
                                Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-24 10:23 -0800
                      Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-23 21:19 +0100
                        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-23 17:58 -0800
                          Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-24 01:07 -0800
                            Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-02-24 02:19 -0800
                Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-02-15 12:18 +0000
          Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-13 18:55 +0000
            Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-02-13 20:27 +0100
          Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-13 09:53 -1000
    Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-13 14:18 +0000
      Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-13 11:03 -0800
      Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:46 -0800
      Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-14 02:35 -0800
        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-02-14 18:47 +0100
        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-14 18:56 -0800
    Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-02-15 17:10 -0800
      Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 01:20 -0800
        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-02-16 12:35 +0100
        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-16 08:12 -1000
        Re: Is 2015 the year of FORTH ? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 15:17 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#36774

krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote:

> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 12:57:49 AM UTC-6, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/14/2015 1:14 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote:
>> > What an interesting idea to use LaTeX as the  page typesetting language
>> > for a web browser. It makes a lot of sense, although, as Anton pointed
>> > out, TeX itself is probably not a suitable language for adding
>> > extensions. A browser supporting LaTeX ... it should be done.
>> 
>> And then how are the many other features of HTML to be implemented?
>> 
> 
> Isn't implementation a browser side issue? HTML simply provides the tags,
> per my understanding. TeX is extensible. There is no reason I can think of
> why it cannot be extended to provide features like forms. Of course, the
> browser would have to support the new specification for the layout of
> forms.

No, all the browser needs is to be able is to load the extension, which 
implements forms.  Just like a "\usepackage{forms}" in LaTeX, or a "require 
forms.fs" in Forth.

>> I think it is a bit of egotism to think that somehow using Tex for one
>> small aspect of a web language would solve any problems.
> 
> What does ego have to do with a discussion of replacing HTML typesetting
> tags with the much-richer and customizable language of TeX/LaTeX? Have you
> ever used either to produce a document? This is no small aspect of
> rendering a web page, as the afterthought add-on of CSS should indicate.

I think he just can't get his head around that the huge bloat of a modern 
browser can do less than the relatively small program called TeX - because 
the huge bloat called browser has some extensibility (CSS, JavaScript) as a 
late added afterthought, while TeX got the macro language pretty early in 
the process - still as afterthought, but before it became useful.

How much better and simpler would a system where the extension language was 
included early on in the design process?

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36782

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-6, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote:
> ....
> > 
> > Isn't implementation a browser side issue? HTML simply provides the tags,
> > per my understanding. TeX is extensible. There is no reason I can think of
> > why it cannot be extended to provide features like forms. Of course, the
> > browser would have to support the new specification for the layout of
> > forms.
> 
> No, all the browser needs is to be able is to load the extension, which 
> implements forms.  Just like a "\usepackage{forms}" in LaTeX, or a "require 
> forms.fs" in Forth.
>

Perhaps, "client-side" is the better expression, but the browser still has to do the work of loading and executing the extension. The TeX/LaTeX file specifies the fields and other content related to the form(s), and the rendering is performed on the client side. However, the appearance of the form within the document can be quite different depending on the specific forms package specified, or the user defaults configured on the client-side. The latter point appears to have escaped some.

> ...

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36793

On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 01:58:44 UTC, krishna...@ccreweb.org  wrote:
> Perhaps, "client-side" is the better expression, but the browser still has to do the work of loading and executing the extension. The TeX/LaTeX file specifies the fields and other content related to the form(s), and the rendering is performed on the client side. However, the appearance of the form within the document can be quite different depending on the specific forms package specified, or the user defaults configured on the client-side. The latter point appears to have escaped some.

The above applies exactly to HMTL forms. No difference. The forms are
rendered client side according to the information specified in a file.
A HTML file. The appearance of the form can be influenced with HTML
markkup (placing of INPUT tags within <td> tags (for instance) and also
with style sheets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36796

On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 3:07:32 AM UTC-6, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 01:58:44 UTC, krishna...@ccreweb.org  wrote:
> > Perhaps, "client-side" is the better expression, but the browser still has to do the work of loading and executing the extension. The TeX/LaTeX file specifies the fields and other content related to the form(s), and the rendering is performed on the client side. However, the appearance of the form within the document can be quite different depending on the specific forms package specified, or the user defaults configured on the client-side. The latter point appears to have escaped some.
> 
> The above applies exactly to HMTL forms. No difference. The forms are
> rendered client side according to the information specified in a file.
> A HTML file. The appearance of the form can be influenced with HTML
> markkup (placing of INPUT tags within <td> tags (for instance) and also
> with style sheets.

All output is rendered client side. This is not the essential difference. The essential difference is that in the current method, CSS style sheets, which can specify some things about the appearance of forms, are provided by the server. In a LaTeX file, the appearance of the document, and the forms, is controlled by a style sheet that resides on the client side, e.g.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{forms}

the files article.x and forms.x are exist on the client side, and are not sent or linked from the server.

A quote from the book, "Cascading Style Sheets" 2nd ed. by Eric Meyer,

"With CSS it is possible to completely change the way elements are presented by a user agent ... The user will never know whether this is done via an external or embedded style sheet, or even with an inline style. The real importance of external style sheets is the way in which they allow authors [or website providers] to put all of a site's presentation information in one place, and point all of the documents to that place."

This is exactly the restriction that we would like to remove, and, instead have the user be in control of the appearance that works best for him/her, not the website provider.

Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36584

Bernd Paysan wrote:

> rickman wrote:
> 
>> On 2/13/2015 1:39 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>> rickman wrote:
>>>> Bloatware is one of those strawmen that we create and attack to prove a
>>>> point without actually showing any facts.  I seriously doubt that a
>>>> browser with similar capabilities to other browsers would use any less
>>>> memory if written in Forth.
>>>
>>> The accidential complexity of such programs is *far bigger* than the
>>> inherent complexity. E.g. if you compare the typesetting capabilities of
>>> a modern browser with LaTeX, you see that LaTeX can do a lot more in a
>>> lot
>>> less memory.  Why?  Because the core of TeX was written by one clever
>>> guy who knows his O() in terms of speed and size - he knows how to chose
>>> algorithms and datastructures wisely.  He even wrote some books about
>>> the art of computer programming.
>> 
>> You don't make any sense.  Latex is not a browser.  It's not even
>> remotely like a browser.  The only thing it has in common is that it can
>> create an image on your screen of a given page design.  I think there is
>> a lot more to browsers than what Latex does.  Otherwise why would they
>> not just use the Latex language for browsers?
> 
> One part of what the browser does is typesetting a structured text
> document. Instead of using LaTeX, they use HTML+CSS, but it is typesetting
> a structured text document - into a window instead of on paper, but that
> difference is small (you just don't need the page breaking algorithm). 
> And to your question: They reinvented half of what LaTeX can in a
> painstakenly
> process which took 20 years.  There's now even MathML in the browser to
> typeset formulas.  What they yet didn't invent was a real typesetting
> language, which would allow to load extensions to the typesetting into the
> browser.  So while LaTeX can have tons of styles on your harddisk, which
> you never need, the browser needs to load all his capabilities at start.

Did someone forget about Postscript?
 
[%X]

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 TBA (due to  re-location)
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36546

In comp.lang.forth, rickman wrote:

> As to the whole bloatware thing, I think that is more a matter of being 
> able to do things you couldn't before because now you have the resources 
> to enable new methods.

Well, the buffer thing you wrote about it is something the software does at
runtime. But notice, how bigger the programs became: in - say - 1989 it was
enough to have ST225 (20 MB) to have "plenty of space" at one's disposal.
Now we count HDD space in terabytes, and basic installation of - say -
Windows 8.1 takes, if I'm correct, around 200 GB or so.

Therefore present software requires around 10000x more of both HDD and RAM
space (not even talking about more powerful processors).

I could agree, that mentioned "new things" need 10x - or maybe even 20x -
more space, but TEN THOUSAND TIMES more? And - suprise - they usually do
about the same, as these old programs...
-- 
"Yes, this is the bad end you've come to, and two and two is - as it always
was..." - began Trurl, but just then the machine made a faint, barely audible
croaking noise and said, for the last time: "SEVEN".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36550

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 18:55:39 +0000 (UTC)
empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com>
wrote:

and basic
> installation of - say - Windows 8.1 takes, if I'm correct, around 200
> GB or so.

Around 20GB.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36551

On 2/13/15 8:08 AM, rickman wrote:
...
>
> As to the whole bloatware thing, I think that is more a matter of being
> able to do things you couldn't before because now you have the resources
> to enable new methods.  For example it was explained to me that one of
> the memory grabbing features of browsers is the large memory buffers
> they allocate just to hold complete images of your pages.  I guess this
> speeds up context switches and such.  Without many MB of RAM available
> that would not be possible and many things would happen more slowly.
>
> Bloatware is one of those strawmen that we create and attack to prove a
> point without actually showing any facts.  I seriously doubt that a
> browser with similar capabilities to other browsers would use any less
> memory if written in Forth.

It's more a matter of how memory is used. We were first invited to 
program the FedEx tracker devices when their early programs used most of 
the available memory for code, leaving too little (of 64K memory space 
-- this was a 68HC11 in the mid-80's) for data. We reduced their 40K 
program to 8K, leaving all the rest for data, performing the same 
functions. Of course, over time both the functionality and available 
memory expanded considerably, but however big memory resources become, 
folks can always think of more they want the programs to do, and being 
able to do more with less is always a Good Thing.

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]

#36536

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> Trend #4 (sic!) is:

# is known as the number sign.  If you don't know that,
then you do not have even a genuine eighth-grade education.

Gauche Scheme:

(use srfi-13)
(define words (string-tokenize "
  As technology steadily advances, designers and
  developers will seek ways to counter that complexity
  with simplicity. The sum of a user's microinteractions
  quickly defines that individual device's brand and
  product perception. A focus on clean, uncomplicated
  design will enable users to perform complex tasks on
  their devices with unprecedented ease.

  That's really promising!
  Sounds like Forth!
  Let's make it happen!" #[a-zA-Z.]))

(dolist (x '(58 24 50 "lack" 18 51))
  (display (if (number? x)  (~ words x)  x))
  (display " "))

 ===>
Forth defines unprecedented lack of ease.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36547

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 9:19:07 AM UTC-5, WJ wrote:
> visualforth.com wrote:
> 
> > Trend #4 (sic!) is:
> 
> # is known as the number sign.  If you don't know that,
> then you do not have even a genuine eighth-grade education.

Sorry WJ, I thought # is an abbreviation of 'Number'.
So I should have written 

Trend Number 4 (sic!) is:
FORTH

instead.

What is an even genuine eighth-grade education?
Never heard about that. 
I guess this is some US special.

Did you understand what {sic!) means?
Not to confuse with sick!

DB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36562

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-7, WJ wrote:
> visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Trend #4 (sic!) is:
> 
> # is known as the number sign.  If you don't know that,
> then you do not have even a genuine eighth-grade education.
> 
> Gauche Scheme:
> ...

So, WJ, have you completed the assignment that I gave you?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/os3MLd6yJFE\
How did that come out? (so to speak)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36563

Depends where you are. In the UK the # ("hash sign") is not really used at all outside of musical notation,  where its use is universal. Folk in computing circles may indeed know it to represent a numerical digit but your average person on the street won't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36568

Op Sat, 14 Feb 2015 02:35:44 -0800 (PST) schreef Mark Wills:

> Depends where you are. In the UK the # ("hash sign") is not really used at all outside of musical notation,  where its use is universal. Folk in computing circles may indeed know it to represent a numerical digit but your average person on the street won't.

I've never seen a # (hekje = fence) in the streets in the Netherlands. Why
the Canadians add it to number their house in the street, puzzles me a lot.

Coos

CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications
http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36577

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 3:35:46 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> Depends where you are. In the UK the # ("hash sign") is not really used at all outside of musical notation,  where its use is universal. Folk in computing circles may indeed know it to represent a numerical digit but your average person on the street won't.

Symbols such as # % $ etc. are hieroglyphs. Almost all of our hieroglyphs are related to numerical work, because the first use of written language was financial bookkeeping. Hieroglyphs are generally used to make text shorter. The 4 is often used in English as a hieroglyph: "4 sale" rather than "for sale". 

It is widely believed that the ancient Egyptian language was composed entirely of hieroglyphs, but actually they had an alphabet --- they just had a lot of hieroglyphs that they used in conjunction with the alphabet. When you are carving text into stone tablets, you really want to minimize the number of characters that you have to carve, so it makes sense to maximize the number of different characters and pack as much meaning into each character as possible --- the people writing less-permanent documents may have relied on the alphabet more, as this requires less memorization, but we don't know because all of the less-permanent documents have been lost to the centuries.

Archaeologists of the future may think that we used Roman Numerals routinely because they will find Roman Numerals that we carved into stone in front of buildings, but we actually use Arabic numerals routinely. Roman Numerals are a kind of hieroglyph --- we have X = 10, L = 50, C = 100, D = 500, M = 1000, etc. (a remarkably bad design, as they don't reduce the size of the text most of the time). It seems likely to me that the Roman engineers knew about Arabic numbers or something like that --- they succeeded in large engineering projects, so they must have been able to do arithmetic --- most likely their documents were just lost to the centuries because they were written on paper or some such material that crumbled away.

When I wrote that slide-rule program, it occurred to me that base-6 would be a lot better than base-10 --- I won't waste my time trying to convince people to switch over though, as base-10 has quite a lot of inertia.

BTW: Did I mention that boredom is the driving engine of comp.lang.forth? Now we are discussing hieroglyphs...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36590

четверг, 12 февраля 2015 г., 23:13:34 UTC+3 пользователь visua...@rocketmail.com написал:
> Altia has a new resource available today -- an eBook on the Top Embedded Trends for 2015. Their in-house industry experts have complied five trends to look out for in the coming year.
> 
> Trend #4 (sic!) is:
> 
> "Minimalism"
> "As technology steadily advances, designers and developers will seek ways to counter that complexity with simplicity. The sum of a user's microinteractions quickly defines that individual device's brand and product perception. A focus on clean, uncomplicated design will enable users to perform complex tasks on their devices with unprecedented ease."
> 
> That's really promising!
> Sounds like Forth!
> Let's make it happen!
> 
> Source:
> http://connect.altia.com/hs-fs/hub/260438/file-2471049867-pdf/5_Embedded_Trends_ebook_v4.pdf

Heh, a tons os dreams about Forth and no projects. I wonder, where anybody waits to find a real programmers, when that programmers already at least readers of this newsgroup? So if we cannot see any ideas about implementation of that trend, who will do it? I see two ways - fantastic and realistic. Maybe, some alien species comes to Earth and create Forth system and some products. Or newsgroup members will do it. I'm afraid, a way with Aliens is more realistic :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36596

On Monday, 16 February 2015 01:10:57 UTC, Ilya Tarasov  wrote:
> Heh, a tons os dreams about Forth and no projects. I wonder, where anybody waits to find a real programmers, when that programmers already at least readers of this newsgroup? So if we cannot see any ideas about implementation of that trend, who will do it? I see two ways - fantastic and realistic. Maybe, some alien species comes to Earth and create Forth system and some products. Or newsgroup members will do it. I'm afraid, a way with Aliens is more realistic :)

There are Forth projects going on. I've recently had my eyes very much
opened as to just how much Forth there is out there. You just don't know it.
A year ago, I'd have probably agreed with you.

Furthermore, I'm on the verge of actually earning money from writing Forth.
Well, that's not strictly true. I'll be earning money from *products* that
are programmed exclusively in Forth. Some of that Forth code will be written
by me.

I guess (when the time comes) that'll make me a "professional" Forth 
programmer. Of course, the Forth in the project(s) I'll be working on is
really a means to an end; we could use any language we like - it's just a 
language. However, for our application, Forth is/will be a massive win.

Wish I could say more, but I can't, unfortunately.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36600

Mark Wills wrote:
> There are Forth projects going on. I've recently had my eyes very
> much opened as to just how much Forth there is out there. [...]
> Wish I could say more, but I can't, unfortunately.

Not even some vague estimate how much Forth there is?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36616

On 2/15/15 11:20 PM, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Monday, 16 February 2015 01:10:57 UTC, Ilya Tarasov  wrote:
>> Heh, a tons os dreams about Forth and no projects. I wonder, where anybody waits to find a real programmers, when that programmers already at least readers of this newsgroup? So if we cannot see any ideas about implementation of that trend, who will do it? I see two ways - fantastic and realistic. Maybe, some alien species comes to Earth and create Forth system and some products. Or newsgroup members will do it. I'm afraid, a way with Aliens is more realistic :)
>
> There are Forth projects going on. I've recently had my eyes very much
> opened as to just how much Forth there is out there. You just don't know it.
> A year ago, I'd have probably agreed with you.
>
> Furthermore, I'm on the verge of actually earning money from writing Forth.
> Well, that's not strictly true. I'll be earning money from *products* that
> are programmed exclusively in Forth. Some of that Forth code will be written
> by me.
>
> I guess (when the time comes) that'll make me a "professional" Forth
> programmer. Of course, the Forth in the project(s) I'll be working on is
> really a means to an end; we could use any language we like - it's just a
> language. However, for our application, Forth is/will be a massive win.
>
> Wish I could say more, but I can't, unfortunately.
>

Delighted to hear that. What you describe is exactly, IMO, the way 
forward. Let the power of Forth enable individuals and businesses to 
produce better, cheaper devices. That's been working all along, of 
course, but not with nearly enough visibility.

It's hard to promote a "language", but promoting successful strategies 
when the evidence is in the income is much easir.

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]

#36620

понедельник, 16 февраля 2015 г., 12:20:04 UTC+3 пользователь Mark Wills написал:
> On Monday, 16 February 2015 01:10:57 UTC, Ilya Tarasov  wrote:
> > Heh, a tons os dreams about Forth and no projects. I wonder, where anybody waits to find a real programmers, when that programmers already at least readers of this newsgroup? So if we cannot see any ideas about implementation of that trend, who will do it? I see two ways - fantastic and realistic. Maybe, some alien species comes to Earth and create Forth system and some products. Or newsgroup members will do it. I'm afraid, a way with Aliens is more realistic :)
> 
> There are Forth projects going on. I've recently had my eyes very much
> opened as to just how much Forth there is out there. You just don't know it.
> A year ago, I'd have probably agreed with you.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm on the verge of actually earning money from writing Forth.
> Well, that's not strictly true. I'll be earning money from *products* that
> are programmed exclusively in Forth. Some of that Forth code will be written
> by me.
> 
> I guess (when the time comes) that'll make me a "professional" Forth 
> programmer. Of course, the Forth in the project(s) I'll be working on is
> really a means to an end; we could use any language we like - it's just a 
> language. However, for our application, Forth is/will be a massive win.
> 
> Wish I could say more, but I can't, unfortunately.

Can't you see a great istance between 'I guess' and 'That's really promising!' from the first message? Promising WHAT? And how many years you agree to wait for implementation of that promises? Unfortunately, this is very common position I've meet regularly. You must just start and see what happens. If something is not usable, it should be changed. If you reveal some features, fix it and reuse in future. However, despite of flexibility of Forth itself, it often used by very strange manner. I can see from the past years some approaches are mixed and declared as a 'true Forth way' that must be kept. This will lead to 'massive wins', 'victory of Forth' and so on. Please forget it :) If somebody so desire to be a winner with Forth, this convert him to a natural slave of his approaches and  ideas. So don't be 'on the verge' and just dreaming. Programmers are using a hundreds of programming languages now, some are very effective and some are less. But they are not shy about their tools, if these tools can help to make an effective products. I believe in the active use of the Forth, when I see a constant response in the form of examples of use, rather than thinking that the Forth has some other perspectives.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web