Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #44558 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-04 14:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-08 03:04 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 14:50 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-05 11:24 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 16:47 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-05 12:17 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-05 10:51 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-01-05 15:06 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 17:25 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-05 13:06 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:42 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 01:48 -0500
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-05 11:15 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-06 14:35 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-05 02:04 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 18:37 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-04 19:17 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-05 11:10 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-06 15:02 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 08:03 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 08:07 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 08:18 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-01-05 08:21 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-07 05:13 -0500
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-08 12:36 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-08 10:32 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 02:55 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-01-08 13:57 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:55 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-08 15:06 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 16:59 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-01-08 16:15 -1000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 22:23 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-01-08 21:12 -1000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 08:04 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-01-09 09:16 -1000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-10 15:31 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:11 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-01-10 09:42 -1000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-11 13:02 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-13 16:20 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-10 14:10 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 18:38 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-14 08:47 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 17:24 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 19:25 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-14 22:09 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-14 16:21 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-16 11:34 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-16 03:43 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-19 18:01 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-19 23:07 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-21 14:29 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-21 22:25 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-24 13:28 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-25 01:31 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-25 21:45 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:24 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-25 20:41 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-28 20:39 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-28 16:05 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 20:52 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-24 13:16 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 08:46 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-16 11:34 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:53 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-13 19:31 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 21:18 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-10 21:29 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-01-10 20:37 -1000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 09:05 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-12 12:26 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-10 14:18 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 23:31 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 08:09 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-01-09 05:31 -0600
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-01-09 07:52 -0600
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 18:22 +0200
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-09 16:29 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-01-08 11:23 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-10 20:17 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-01-11 11:56 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 11:59 +0000
generalized CASE (was: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-11 12:30 +0000
Re: generalized CASE (was: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 13:52 -0800
Re: generalized CASE Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 22:00 +0000
Re: generalized CASE Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-01-12 01:50 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 14:16 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 16:17 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-12 13:07 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-01-12 20:48 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-01-12 14:16 -0800
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-08 16:21 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-01-08 20:12 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-01-09 18:19 +0000
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-11 09:34 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-01-08 21:13 +0100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-09 23:46 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-08 10:11 -0500
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-01-11 08:38 +1100
Re: BEGIN WHILE UNTIL THEN november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-01-08 03:04 -0800
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0e487ac-0060-4aee-9e51-645707e450e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #44730 |
On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:16:18 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> Here's an example
> from one of the problem sets in Forth Application Techniques:
>
> : ?WAY ( -- )
> BEGIN KEY DUP
> 27 = NOT WHILE \ Quit on ESCape key
> DUP 32 OR \ Set lowercase bit
> CASE
> [CHAR] i OF UP ENDOF
> [CHAR] j OF LEFT ENDOF
> [CHAR] k OF HOME ENDOF
> [CHAR] l OF RIGHT ENDOF
> [CHAR] m OF DOWN ENDOF
> SWAP DUP 32 127 WITHIN IF EMIT 0 THEN
> ENDCASE DROP CR
> REPEAT DROP ;
This is bad Forth code because of all the magic numbers (27, 32). Mostly it is bad though because it uses CASE --- to the best of my recollection, I've never used CASE --- I knew it was no good in 1980 when it appeared in "Forth Dimensions" (a lot of the code that appeared in those magazines in the 1980s wasn't very good, although you would see something written by somebody who knew how to program).
This CASE is working with chars that come from the keyboard. That is seen occasionally. Most of the time however, CASE is used in situations where the datum being tested is an ENUM and hence is within a very limited range. It is reasonable to use a jump-table --- even given the limited memory of computers such as the C64, the jump-table should not be a problem --- and you get a speed boost of two or three orders of magnitude.
Here is a slightly modified version (I got rid of the UP etc. because I don't know what they do):
: ?WAY ( -- )
BEGIN KEY DUP
27 = NOT WHILE \ Quit on ESCape key
DUP 32 OR \ Set lowercase bit
CASE
[CHAR] i OF [char] i emit ENDOF
[CHAR] j OF [char] j emit ENDOF
[CHAR] k OF [char] k emit ENDOF
[CHAR] l OF [char] l emit ENDOF
[CHAR] m OF [char] m emit ENDOF
SWAP DUP 32 127 WITHIN IF EMIT 0 THEN
ENDCASE DROP CR
REPEAT DROP ;
Here is the generated code:
see ?way
48E52F 4068DF ( KEY ) CALL E8AB83F7FF
48E534 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E537 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E53A 1B # EBX CMP 83FB1B
48E53D 0 # EBX MOV BB00000000
48E542 48E545 JNZ 7501
48E544 EBX DEC 4B
48E545 -1 # EBX XOR 83F3FF
48E548 EBX EBX OR 09DB
48E54A 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E54D 4 [EBP] EBP LEA 8D6D04
48E550 48E699 JZ 0F8443010000
48E556 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E559 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E55C 20 # EBX OR 83CB20
48E55F 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E562 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E565 69 # EBX MOV BB69000000
48E56A 0 [EBP] EBX CMP 3B5D00
48E56D 48E57A JZ 740B
48E56F 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E572 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E575 48E58C JMP E912000000
48E57A 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E57D 69 # EBX MOV BB69000000
48E582 40674F ( EMIT ) CALL E8C881F7FF
48E587 48E689 JMP E9FD000000
48E58C 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E58F EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E592 6A # EBX MOV BB6A000000
48E597 0 [EBP] EBX CMP 3B5D00
48E59A 48E5A7 JZ 740B
48E59C 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E59F 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E5A2 48E5B9 JMP E912000000
48E5A7 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E5AA 6A # EBX MOV BB6A000000
48E5AF 40674F ( EMIT ) CALL E89B81F7FF
48E5B4 48E689 JMP E9D0000000
48E5B9 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E5BC EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E5BF 6B # EBX MOV BB6B000000
48E5C4 0 [EBP] EBX CMP 3B5D00
48E5C7 48E5D4 JZ 740B
48E5C9 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E5CC 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E5CF 48E5E6 JMP E912000000
48E5D4 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E5D7 6B # EBX MOV BB6B000000
48E5DC 40674F ( EMIT ) CALL E86E81F7FF
48E5E1 48E689 JMP E9A3000000
48E5E6 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E5E9 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E5EC 6C # EBX MOV BB6C000000
48E5F1 0 [EBP] EBX CMP 3B5D00
48E5F4 48E601 JZ 740B
48E5F6 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E5F9 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E5FC 48E613 JMP E912000000
48E601 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E604 6C # EBX MOV BB6C000000
48E609 40674F ( EMIT ) CALL E84181F7FF
48E60E 48E689 JMP E976000000
48E613 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E616 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E619 6D # EBX MOV BB6D000000
48E61E 0 [EBP] EBX CMP 3B5D00
48E621 48E62E JZ 740B
48E623 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E626 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E629 48E640 JMP E912000000
48E62E 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E631 6D # EBX MOV BB6D000000
48E636 40674F ( EMIT ) CALL E81481F7FF
48E63B 48E689 JMP E949000000
48E640 0 [EBP] EAX MOV 8B4500
48E643 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E646 EAX EBX MOV 8BD8
48E648 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E64B EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E64E 8 # EBP SUB 83ED08
48E651 EBX 4 [EBP] MOV 895D04
48E654 20 # 0 [EBP] MOV C7450020000000
48E65B 7F # EBX MOV BB7F000000
48E660 40603F ( WITHIN ) CALL E8DA79F7FF
48E665 EBX EBX OR 09DB
48E667 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E66A 4 [EBP] EBP LEA 8D6D04
48E66D 48E683 JZ 0F8410000000
48E673 40674F ( EMIT ) CALL E8D780F7FF
48E678 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
48E67B EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
48E67E 0 # EBX MOV BB00000000
48E683 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E686 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E689 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E68C 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E68F 40680F ( CR ) CALL E87B81F7FF
48E694 48E52F JMP E996FEFFFF
48E699 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
48E69C 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
48E69F RET C3 ok
see within
40603F 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
406042 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
406045 4 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D04
406048 EBX NEG F7DB
40604A 0 [EBP] EBX ADD 035D00
40604D 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
406050 EBX PUSH 53
406051 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00
406054 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
406057 EBX NEG F7DB
406059 0 [EBP] EBX ADD 035D00
40605C 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
40605F 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04
406062 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00
406065 EBX POP 5B
406066 405F7F ( U< ) CALL E814FFFFFF
40606B RET C3 ok
see u<
405F7F EBX 0 [EBP] CMP 395D00
405F82 EBX EBX SBC 19DB
405F84 4 # EBP ADD 83C504
405F87 RET C3 ok
So, what can we say about using SwiftForth? Don't Do That!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 08:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n76gld$eij$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #44772 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > ... > see within > 40603F 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04 > 406042 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00 > 406045 4 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D04 > 406048 EBX NEG F7DB > 40604A 0 [EBP] EBX ADD 035D00 > 40604D 4 # EBP ADD 83C504 > 406050 EBX PUSH 53 > 406051 0 [EBP] EBX MOV 8B5D00 > 406054 4 # EBP ADD 83C504 > 406057 EBX NEG F7DB > 406059 0 [EBP] EBX ADD 035D00 > 40605C 4 # EBP ADD 83C504 > 40605F 4 # EBP SUB 83ED04 > 406062 EBX 0 [EBP] MOV 895D00 > 406065 EBX POP 5B > 406066 405F7F ( U< ) CALL E814FFFFFF > 40606B RET C3 ok > ... > So, what can we say about using SwiftForth? Don't Do That! Since SwiftForth comes with full source code at no extra cost you can rewrite any high-level kernel words in assembler. The ability to fix/change *anything* in a Forth compiler I would rank very high as no vendor provides unlimited support. YMMV (I have no connection with Forth Inc other than occasional use of their demo)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 17:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7210d13d-6d32-4116-bdce-df517eececf2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #44841 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 4:47:30 PM UTC-5, HAA wrote: > > Since SwiftForth comes with full source code at no extra cost you can > rewrite any high-level kernel words in assembler. The ability to fix/change > *anything* in a Forth compiler I would rank very high as no vendor provides > unlimited support. YMMV > > (I have no connection with Forth Inc other than occasional use of their > demo) Don't GForth and SP-Forth also include full source code?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 19:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6630fc3a-cb32-42b1-ac3b-f6fc4fd30b3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #44847 |
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 6:24:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Curl wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 4:47:30 PM UTC-5, HAA wrote: > > > > Since SwiftForth comes with full source code at no extra cost you can > > rewrite any high-level kernel words in assembler. The ability to fix/change > > *anything* in a Forth compiler I would rank very high as no vendor provides > > unlimited support. YMMV > > > > (I have no connection with Forth Inc other than occasional use of their > > demo) > > Don't GForth and SP-Forth also include full source code? When I downloaded SP-Forth there was no source-code. I asked about this, because it had been advertised as including source-code --- I was told that it does include source-code --- I lost interest at that time; maybe I downloaded the wrong file or something, but I didn't look into it any further.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 22:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n77vop$fr8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #44847 |
Chris Curl wrote: > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 4:47:30 PM UTC-5, HAA wrote: > > > > Since SwiftForth comes with full source code at no extra cost you can > > rewrite any high-level kernel words in assembler. The ability to fix/change > > *anything* in a Forth compiler I would rank very high as no vendor provides > > unlimited support. YMMV > > > > (I have no connection with Forth Inc other than occasional use of their > > demo) > > Don't GForth and SP-Forth also include full source code? Yes but they also come with a string of disclaimers such as 'no guarantee', 'no warranty', 'use at your own risk', 'no support' etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-14 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Jan14.172158@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #44862 |
"HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>Chris Curl wrote:
>> Don't GForth and SP-Forth also include full source code?
>
>Yes but they also come with a string of disclaimers such as 'no guarantee',
>'no warranty', 'use at your own risk', 'no support' etc.
Let's see what the license of Gforth (GPL v3) says wrt. these words:
guarantee:
|the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
|share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
|software for all its users.
warranty: Several mentions, but the most relevant are:
|you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
|THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
|APPLICABLE LAW.
risk:
|THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS
|WITH YOU.
support: Most relevant:
|you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 11:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n7c36d$1gkg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #44873 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > >Chris Curl wrote: > >> Don't GForth and SP-Forth also include full source code? > > > >Yes but they also come with a string of disclaimers such as 'no guarantee', > >'no warranty', 'use at your own risk', 'no support' etc. > > Let's see what the license of Gforth (GPL v3) says wrt. these words: > > guarantee: > |the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to > |share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free > |software for all its users. > > warranty: Several mentions, but the most relevant are: > |you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee. > > |THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY > |APPLICABLE LAW. > > risk: > |THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS > |WITH YOU. > > support: Most relevant: > |you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee. > > - anton Are you charging a fee? If not, then the only thing users can count on are the disclaimers and the GPL guarantee whatever that's worth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-16 03:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7cak3$4uo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #44899 |
HAA wrote: > Are you charging a fee? If not, then the only thing users can count on > are the disclaimers and the GPL guarantee whatever that's worth. Nobody has ever asked us for that. However, I'm not aware of any software vendor which actually warrants something for his software. This sort of disclamer is commonplace and necessary under US Law. That's why e.g. the eval copy of SwiftForth also contains a warranty disclamer, while MPE doesn't do so (european jurisdiction): "DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. Free of charge Software is provided on an "AS IS" basis, without warranty of any kind, including without limitation the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the Software is borne by you. Should the Software prove defective, you and not FORTH assume the entire cost of any service and repair. This disclaimer of warranty constitutes an essential part of the agreement." We take every bug report serious, anyhow. That may be the cause why nobody wanted to give us money to improve the bug report response time. Though some suggestions for typo fixes in the manual have stayed open on Savannah for years (that's because the reporter didn't just edit the doc/gforth.ds file and send us a patch; in that case, it would have been done much faster). -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 18:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n7kn01$uhi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #44902 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > HAA wrote: > > Are you charging a fee? If not, then the only thing users can count on > > are the disclaimers and the GPL guarantee whatever that's worth. > > Nobody has ever asked us for that. However, I'm not aware of any software > vendor which actually warrants something for his software. This sort of > disclamer is commonplace and necessary under US Law. That's why e.g. the > eval copy of SwiftForth also contains a warranty disclamer, while MPE > doesn't do so (european jurisdiction): Most countries have legislated consumer protections that cannot be excluded e.g. goods purchased must be fit for purpose, have a warranty, be liable for damages caused by defects and so on. For a product to be sold in those countries they must comply with local law whatever licenses say or don't say. Software manufacturers and vendors are not a protected species. Even GPL acknowledges its disclaimers are limited 'TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW'. Charge for warranty it's reasonable to assume consumer law would apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 23:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7mbu0$o0m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #44950 |
HAA wrote: > Most countries have legislated consumer protections that cannot be > excluded e.g. goods purchased must be fit for purpose, have a warranty, be > liable for > damages caused by defects and so on. For a product to be sold in those > countries they must comply with local law whatever licenses say or don't > say. Software manufacturers and vendors are not a protected species. Apparently, they are. It is next to impossible to get even a refund, as long as the software is not an actual fake (like SoftRAM). Let's say: The levels of what the law thinks is a "fitness for a particular purpose" are way, way below what my understanding would be. > Even GPL acknowledges its disclaimers are limited 'TO THE EXTENT > PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW'. Charge for warranty it's reasonable > to assume consumer law would apply. Even when GPL programs are definitely sold (like in Android phones or small routers), and this software is routinely defect, you often can't even get updates. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 14:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n7pj9q$itp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #44953 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > HAA wrote: > > Most countries have legislated consumer protections that cannot be > > excluded e.g. goods purchased must be fit for purpose, have a warranty, be > > liable for > > damages caused by defects and so on. For a product to be sold in those > > countries they must comply with local law whatever licenses say or don't > > say. Software manufacturers and vendors are not a protected species. > > Apparently, they are. It is next to impossible to get even a refund, as > long as the software is not an actual fake (like SoftRAM). Let's say: The > levels of what the law thinks is a "fitness for a particular purpose" are > way, way below what my understanding would be. > > > Even GPL acknowledges its disclaimers are limited 'TO THE EXTENT > > PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW'. Charge for warranty it's reasonable > > to assume consumer law would apply. > > Even when GPL programs are definitely sold (like in Android phones or small > routers), and this software is routinely defect, you often can't even get > updates. Refund may be the only remedy available to consumers and even here they have to prove the item was not fit for purpose. If the vendor challenges it, it means taking them to an appropriate claims tribunal and making the case. Few consumers go that far and vendors know it. Refunds from a large chain store is easy because they want to avoid the bad publicity that disgruntled customers bring. The point is that manufacturers are legally liable for what their produce. If their product results in serious damage and/or loss of life there will be consequences. If I were writing Forth commercially, I (or the comany I worked for) would be legally liable. It's a strong incentive to buy tools from an established vendor who is also legally liable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 22:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7ri67$igq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #44981 |
HAA wrote: > The point is that manufacturers are legally liable for what their produce. > If their product results in serious damage and/or loss of life there will > be consequences. If I were writing Forth commercially, I (or the comany I > worked for) would be legally liable. It's a strong incentive to buy tools > from an established vendor who is also legally liable. So something which never happens, because the real world, which you explained pretty well, means you have to prove that they did something intentionally wrong, is a strong incentive? The problem is that the pointy haired boss asks only one question: "can we sue somebody?" and the answer is "yes". But the next question should be: "would we succeed?" and the answer is "no, but maybe they will sue somebody else to cover their ass, and not succeed either". I know this sort of cover-my-ass "incentive", it happens especially at places where everybody is running around with pants down. Projects in this kind of environment are likely to fail, and then people look for a culprit, instead of looking for a cure. Software quality problems like the VW defeat device may be cured by legal procedures. Here it is obvious that the vendor did something on purpose to make it not fit for the particular purpose (keep the exhaust air clean). That's the sort of level you can expect from the legal system. A lot of commercial end product makers use free software as building blocks. Especially Linux is found in a lot of higher-end embedded systems. You definitely can't sue Linus Torvalds or the Debian community on which you have based your system. Apparently, this works out. Occasionally, there are people trying to sue big companies, but usually, the only thing you hear is that they started the lawsuit, like this one of today: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/21/samsung_sued_for_lackadaisical_android_updates/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=gplus I wish them good luck, but dout they will get anywhere. Software quality is not a legal issue, it is a technical issue. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-24 13:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n81cqm$1mih$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #44998 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > HAA wrote: > > > The point is that manufacturers are legally liable for what their produce. > > If their product results in serious damage and/or loss of life there will > > be consequences. If I were writing Forth commercially, I (or the comany I > > worked for) would be legally liable. It's a strong incentive to buy tools > > from an established vendor who is also legally liable. > > So something which never happens, because the real world, which you > explained pretty well, means you have to prove that they did something > intentionally wrong, is a strong incentive? I was giving the worst case scenario. While consumers have rights they can't dictate outcomes. Products don't have to be "intentionally wrong" for a manufacturer to be legally liable. Crash into someone's car for whatever reason and you're legally liable. It's the same principle. > Software quality problems like the VW defeat device may be cured by legal > procedures. Here it is obvious that the vendor did something on purpose to > make it not fit for the particular purpose (keep the exhaust air clean). > That's the sort of level you can expect from the legal system. Intentionally being deceptive/defective falls into the category of criminal action. That's harder to prove than liability because of the level of evidence required. > A lot of commercial end product makers use free software as building blocks. > Especially Linux is found in a lot of higher-end embedded systems. You > definitely can't sue Linus Torvalds or the Debian community on which you > have based your system. Apparently, this works out. As the latter didn't sell a product or service they have no commercial liability. If there's a defect in that software the product manufacturer would be solely liable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 01:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n83q7b$c15$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45053 |
HAA wrote: > I was giving the worst case scenario. While consumers have rights they > can't dictate outcomes. Products don't have to be "intentionally wrong" > for a manufacturer to be legally liable. Crash into someone's car for > whatever reason and you're legally liable. It's the same principle. When did that ever happen in the software world? I'm following all kinds of news but haven't read anything in the last 30 years with the exception of stuff like the current VW scandal. Just point me to the lawsuit were somebody won a lawsuit against a software manufacturer who had buggy software, i.e. not intentionally buggy, but accidentially so, following normal development procedures. > Intentionally being deceptive/defective falls into the category of > criminal action. That's harder to prove than liability because of the > level of evidence required. No, usually there are two lawsuits, one under civil law and one under criminal law. The civil law seeks for compensation, the criminal law seeks for punishment. Outcome can be different (see O. J. Simpson). >> A lot of commercial end product makers use free software as building >> blocks. >> Especially Linux is found in a lot of higher-end embedded systems. You >> definitely can't sue Linus Torvalds or the Debian community on which you >> have based your system. Apparently, this works out. > > As the latter didn't sell a product or service they have no commercial > liability. If there's a defect in that software the product manufacturer > would be solely liable. If they would ever be liable (apparently, they get away with not maintaining their software, even though there are bugs in there, often added by themselves, sometimes kernel bugs)... However, these manufacturer accept that they can't shift the liability to Linus and Co., which was my actual point. They don't have this cover-my-ass mentality of "I need somebody to sue in case my product is fucked up". Reality is that there are bugs in compilers. As developer, you will find those that affect your code, if you follow good practice. You can report those bugs or work around them. Free software usually is also open in how they deal with bugs. People like the GCC maintainer with their "it's UB, won'tfix" mentality aren't good, but unfortunately, that's true for the entire C community. People like Ulrich Drepper (ex-glibc-maintainer) with his "that's invalid" (for a real bug, not something UB) are even worse. With commercial software from larger companies, you get something far worse: Helpdesk from India with "I don't understand your question" answers. You can sue them. Good look. Doesn't actually seem to happen. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 21:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n84ub7$ef$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #45061 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > ... > Just point me to the lawsuit were somebody won a lawsuit against a software > manufacturer who had buggy software, i.e. not intentionally buggy, but > accidentially so, following normal development procedures. I don't spend my days looking. The only way a manufacturer can be exempt liability is if there were legislation to that effect. Can you point to such legislation for software manufacturers? > >> A lot of commercial end product makers use free software as building > >> blocks. > >> Especially Linux is found in a lot of higher-end embedded systems. You > >> definitely can't sue Linus Torvalds or the Debian community on which you > >> have based your system. Apparently, this works out. > > > > As the latter didn't sell a product or service they have no commercial > > liability. If there's a defect in that software the product manufacturer > > would be solely liable. > > If they would ever be liable (apparently, they get away with not maintaining > their software, even though there are bugs in there, often added by > themselves, sometimes kernel bugs)... Maybe but as far as the consumer is concerned have these bugs and lack of maintenance rendered the product "not fit for purpose"? If not, a manufacturer can reasonably say he's not required to fix them. > However, these manufacturer accept that they can't shift the liability to > Linus and Co., which was my actual point. They don't have this cover-my-ass > mentality of "I need somebody to sue in case my product is fucked up". I don't see too many martyrs in the business world prepared to take on the liability of others. For one thing their shareholders would hate them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73f40987-fd50-4967-832c-87b8a1f26227@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #45062 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:45:04 AM UTC-5, HAA wrote: > Bernd Paysan wrote: > > ... > > Just point me to the lawsuit were somebody won a lawsuit against a software > > manufacturer who had buggy software, i.e. not intentionally buggy, but > > accidentially so, following normal development procedures. > > I don't spend my days looking. The only way a manufacturer can be exempt > liability is if there were legislation to that effect. Can you point to such legislation > for software manufacturers? > ... I am talking about the development environment used to build the software, not the software itself. What are you talking about? If a development environment causes my product to not behave as expected, then I would try to get them to fix the problem in their environment, or use a different development environment. I doubt I could sue them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 20:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n85tjl$d4m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45062 |
HAA wrote: > Bernd Paysan wrote: >> ... >> Just point me to the lawsuit were somebody won a lawsuit against a >> software manufacturer who had buggy software, i.e. not intentionally >> buggy, but accidentially so, following normal development procedures. > > I don't spend my days looking. The only way a manufacturer can be exempt > liability is if there were legislation to that effect. Can you point to > such legislation for software manufacturers? Since de facto nothing happens against real software manufacturer, the legislation is not interpreted as you depict it. Your fictive liability in practise is limited to very obvious malfunction. If you are a software developer using a third party tool to develop, you will detect this sort of grave malfunction during development, and either work around the bug, report the bug and get a fix from the system developer, or, in case of software where you have the source: fix it yourself. Or you select another system for development. I doubt you would be exempted from your own liability to this sort of grave malfunction when you can blame the compiler. However, there is an exception of liability for free software in the law: Since free software is a "gift" from a legal point of view, liability is much weaker. The usual suggestion is to keep it as such and separate it from the proprietary parts, and "gift" it further to the customer. This also is a good idea, because the GPL actually requires that every derivative of the code has to be under GPL. That way, you get the special conditions for gifts, too, even if the total product is commercial. You sell some router or phone hardware, but the software is actually free software, and your theoretical liability (which is already very weak) goes down to the almost zero liability of a gift. Funny enough, under US law, a gift even takes away the liability from the original vendor. If you buy something as a gift, the receiver can not make the original vendor or manufacturer liable - the gifter is not liable to the one who received the gift, and the original vendor is not liable to the one who received it, either. That's weird from an European perspective. > Maybe but as far as the consumer is concerned have these bugs and > lack of maintenance rendered the product "not fit for purpose"? If not, > a manufacturer can reasonably say he's not required to fix them. Well, a firewall appliance which can be 0wned by any evil hacker certainly fits my description of "not fit for the purpose". What was the original purpose of a firewall? Yes: not be 0wned by evil hackers. All these home routers claim to be useful as firewalls. >> However, these manufacturer accept that they can't shift the liability to >> Linus and Co., which was my actual point. They don't have this >> cover-my-ass mentality of "I need somebody to sue in case my product is >> fucked up". > > I don't see too many martyrs in the business world prepared to take on > the liability of others. For one thing their shareholders would hate > them. The two biggest companies in share holder value today are Apple #1 and Google (now Alphabet) #2. Both use an incredible amount of free software; most of their software is free or composed of free software, some parts are proprietary. Both take the liability as much as there actually is (Apple is also number 1 of CVEs in their operating systems, so their software is the most defective in total; even more defective than Adobe's Flash; doesn't seem to hurt them, either); if not, their customers (like handset makers on Android) take over the liability from Google. These are big and shareholder-beloved companies, too. Google invests some money (more than anybody else) to make free software higher quality. The thing you describe happens in the cover-you-ass parallel universe, which is filled with lame companies that produce excuses and blame instead of real products. You don't get big if you only cover your ass. You get big by taking risks and with some luck. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 20:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n8cnk1$1bo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #45074 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > HAA wrote: > > > Bernd Paysan wrote: > >> ... > >> Just point me to the lawsuit were somebody won a lawsuit against a > >> software manufacturer who had buggy software, i.e. not intentionally > >> buggy, but accidentially so, following normal development procedures. > > > > I don't spend my days looking. The only way a manufacturer can be exempt > > liability is if there were legislation to that effect. Can you point to > > such legislation for software manufacturers? > > Since de facto nothing happens against real software manufacturer, the > legislation is not interpreted as you depict it. Your fictive liability in > practise is limited to very obvious malfunction. You appear to underestimate just how far legal liability can extend. Take any incident resulting in death and everyone's role is examined in detail. Any failing by any party, direct to the incident or not, that's found is prosecuted by the government and penalties are applied. It's possible to plead 'not guilty' of course but that just drags the process out with hefty lawyer bills to pay. Not fiction. You can find stories such as this aplenty in newspapers. How many more cases involving liability must there be that don't make it into the papers. > nothing happens against real software manufacturer I wouldn't count on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 16:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n8dahs$kic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #45134 |
HAA wrote: > Bernd Paysan wrote: >> HAA wrote: >> >> > Bernd Paysan wrote: >> >> ... >> >> Just point me to the lawsuit were somebody won a lawsuit against a >> >> software manufacturer who had buggy software, i.e. not intentionally >> >> buggy, but accidentially so, following normal development procedures. >> > >> > I don't spend my days looking. The only way a manufacturer can be >> > exempt >> > liability is if there were legislation to that effect. Can you point >> > to such legislation for software manufacturers? >> >> Since de facto nothing happens against real software manufacturer, the >> legislation is not interpreted as you depict it. Your fictive liability >> in practise is limited to very obvious malfunction. > > You appear to underestimate just how far legal liability can extend. Take > any incident resulting in death and everyone's role is examined in detail. > Any failing by any party, direct to the incident or not, that's found is > prosecuted by the government and penalties are applied. It's possible to > plead 'not guilty' of course but that just drags the process out with > hefty lawyer bills to pay. > > Not fiction. You can find stories such as this aplenty in newspapers. > How many more cases involving liability must there be that don't make > it into the papers. Surprising liabilities always make it into the news. That's how news work. "Dog bites man" is not in the news. "Man bites dog" is. >> nothing happens against real software manufacturer > > I wouldn't count on it. On the other hand, we have exatly these people in the Forth community. People who make surgical instruments. People who operate pharmacy production (bigForth has been used for 20 years in an VME bus controller to do that, and this was under a commerical license, not under the GPL; of course it ran like a precision clockwork and never failed). Bomb disposal robots (MPE). Roket scientists and stuff inside commercial planes. People who do code audit for these critical things. To get this kind of project through the authorities, you must provide evidence that you followed the necessary painstakingness to make such a product, i.e. test procedures, audit, and so on. In case someone dies, this evidence relieves you of "involuntary manslaughter": you already have proven that you care. This is the duty of the actual developer of the product, it does not reach through to the compiler maker. The developer has to elaborate why he thinks the compiler is good enough for the job. In any case, you can't pass the liability through. If you don't evaluate that your compiler produces good binaries, it is your fault in such a life-critical software. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-21 20:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b502b05c-acfa-410d-9f08-7b7f8b3989b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #44981 |
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:29:08 PM UTC-5, HAA wrote: > ... > The point is that manufacturers are legally liable for what their produce. > If their product results in serious damage and/or loss of life there will be > consequences. If I were writing Forth commercially, I (or the comany I > worked for) would be legally liable. It's a strong incentive to buy tools > from an established vendor who is also legally liable. Holy crap. Are you actually being serious? Do you truly believe that a commercial development environment that allows a programmer to write ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE THAT CAN CRASH THE COMPUTER provides a "safer" environment for than an open-source environment that provides the same ability to crash the system? By that same logic, nobody should use GCC, and everyone should use Visual Studio because ... what a minute ... umm ... WHY? That line of thinking makes no sense at all, at least not to me. Or is it that when you crash the system because your code was crap, you have someone you can sue because you don't know how to program a computer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web