Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #53117 > unrolled thread
| Started by | josv@planet.nl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-06 03:40 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-31 06:42 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 149 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
f.) for Gorth josv@planet.nl - 2016-12-06 03:40 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-06 15:48 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-06 17:59 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth josv@planet.nl - 2016-12-06 13:17 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-07 11:11 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 06:11 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-07 17:50 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-07 15:23 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-08 16:18 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth josv@planet.nl - 2016-12-07 06:46 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-07 17:41 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:34 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth josv@planet.nl - 2016-12-09 12:11 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-23 13:23 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-15 15:42 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-07 13:06 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 18:32 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-07 12:41 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 19:49 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-12-08 08:12 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-12-08 18:53 -0500
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-09 00:01 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-09 12:17 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-09 13:01 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-09 11:19 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 07:11 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 22:40 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 23:59 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 21:17 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 08:51 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-09 12:47 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 11:54 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 17:28 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 18:20 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-10 14:26 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 09:14 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-13 19:24 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-14 07:29 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 18:29 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 10:13 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-15 03:45 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-15 10:42 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-15 05:11 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-15 12:36 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-15 07:33 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-15 14:31 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-15 14:34 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-15 16:20 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 16:46 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-19 02:56 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-16 08:10 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-16 10:00 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-18 10:32 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-19 03:22 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-16 14:14 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-12-19 19:41 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-20 03:02 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth mhx@iae.nl - 2016-12-20 01:27 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-20 12:35 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Charles Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2016-12-20 21:23 -0500
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-21 07:29 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Charles Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2016-12-21 22:24 -0500
Re: f.) for Gorth "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2016-12-22 08:10 -0500
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-22 17:39 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-15 12:53 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-15 05:59 -0600
Re: f.) for Gorth "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-01-03 16:15 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-14 17:06 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-18 10:58 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-17 17:26 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-19 13:16 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 19:19 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-19 11:03 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 01:46 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-20 12:14 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 17:34 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-18 19:25 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 19:45 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-22 11:32 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-01-03 19:33 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-03 22:13 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-04 23:03 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-06 22:52 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-07 22:45 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-07 17:23 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-08 09:13 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 17:10 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-09 10:22 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth stephen@mpeforth.com - 2017-01-08 07:00 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-20 14:09 +0200
Re: f.) for Gorth Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2017-01-11 01:14 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-07 12:26 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-08 10:21 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-20 15:45 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-20 15:33 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-22 11:37 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-22 14:19 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-23 12:11 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-22 17:49 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-23 20:41 +1100
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-20 14:21 +0200
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-15 22:31 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-16 18:26 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 16:41 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth stephen@mpeforth.com - 2016-12-20 02:20 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-20 13:04 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 17:27 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-17 10:36 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-17 11:51 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 19:35 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-19 14:17 +0100
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 10:10 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-19 20:33 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 18:11 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 19:03 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-12-20 08:10 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 18:05 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth - what is a number? Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2016-12-21 09:04 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-20 15:26 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-20 11:30 -0600
Language stds (was Re: f.) for Gorth) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-20 19:49 +0000
Re: Language stds (was Re: f.) for Gorth) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-20 20:06 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-20 17:52 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-21 13:47 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 20:46 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-22 14:33 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-22 07:06 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 07:21 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 07:41 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-23 08:33 +0000
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-23 18:22 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 20:28 -0800
Re: f.) for Gorth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-26 18:30 -0800
Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-24 12:12 +1100
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-24 03:28 -0600
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-24 10:02 -0600
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-24 16:13 -0800
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-28 09:24 +1100
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-27 17:10 -0600
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-27 22:58 -0800
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-29 10:12 +1100
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-29 17:03 -0800
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-29 19:35 -0800
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-12-30 05:27 -0800
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 19:11 -0800
Re: Language stds (Re: f.) for Gorth) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-31 06:42 -0800
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-14 10:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <419fd48d-1376-4e4a-97ae-e1406a8a4367@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53324 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-6, The Beez wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > That one is easy: no common practice, don't break code. > Pragmatism rarely leads to good design. > Have a book: https://www.amazon.com/Cats-Paws-Catapults-Mechanical-Worlds/dp/0393319903 I remember it as a long constrast of natural design with human design. Nature makes wet, flexible things; humans make stiff, dry things, and so on. Nature's creations also have to be continuously functional: you don't power a baby off and upgrade its components bit by bit until you arrive at a toddler. But you also don't turn a city off to upgrade its roads. A city has to be continuously suitable as an environment for the functions going on it or it starts to die like anything else. When humans are completely unconstrained we can come up with 'good' designs -- meaning, designs where the final result looks pretty or balanced, and nevermind how it got that way. Humans like designs that make sense when you look at them in one moment of time, no matter how bad they were yesterday or bad they will be tomorrow. When I was in Qatar an American Air Base build a kind of Wal-Mart with one giant fountain inside and three shooting fountains just outside the main entrance. It was a very pretty design. Also, Qatar is a part of the world where a weather condition called 'dust' results in dirt hanging around in the air the way water does in a thick fog. The outer waterworks were shut down by the first 'dust' event and remained non-functional for the remaining months that I was around to observe. The inner waterworks attracted bugs, reduced seating by its own presence and by the moisture it spread over near tables, and was excessively noisy. A concern for common practice, and for not breaking code, when applied to the users of software rather than to the construction of software, is a concern for workflow. How do people actually do their jobs with their actual tools, every day? I've seen employers, through a deficiency of concern for how their employees actually function, repeatedly replace systems with objectively inferior and harder to use systems. Oh--but they're pretty, the salesmen were excellent, and the feature list is to die for. But if it takes you 20 steps to do what used to take 3 steps, you'll hate it and resent having to use it. Pragmatism is nearly the only thing that ever leads to good design. -- Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 03:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <wPidnSI5m5Oq-8_FnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53324 |
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >>> Point is, Forth is Forth and you can't have your cake and eat it >>> too. The sorry state of any current Forth standard reflects >>> this. Because in the end, if you hate state smart words so much, why >>> don't you simply and completely outlaw them? > >> That one is easy: no common practice, don't break code. > > Pragmatism rarely leads to good design. Umm, what? Pragmatism is no more than an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application. Forth is the ultimate blue-collar practical language, eschewing highfalutin theories in favour of what it takes to get real work done. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 10:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Dec15.114203@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #53348 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Forth is the ultimate blue-collar practical language,
>eschewing highfalutin theories in favour of what it takes to get real
>work done.
There is quite a bit of pragmatism around, but also quite a bit of
dogmatism (especially based on Chuck Moore sayings, but I consider
word-counting which gave us "gems" like F~ to also be in that camp),
and then there are opinions without any rationale ("I don't like
..."). And some may see an organizing principle where others see a
highfalutin theory.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 05:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <_O2dnbK3V5P958_FnZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53349 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>Forth is the ultimate blue-collar practical language, eschewing
>>highfalutin theories in favour of what it takes to get real work
>>done.
>
> There is quite a bit of pragmatism around, but also quite a bit of
> dogmatism (especially based on Chuck Moore sayings, but I consider
> word-counting which gave us "gems" like F~ to also be in that camp),
Umm, what? To what does this refer?
> and then there are opinions without any rationale ("I don't like
> ...").
That's just because people are people: there will always be someone
who doesn't like some code style, and there may well be good reasons
for that. Usually, I would have thought, because people get used to
working in a particular way, and that way works well in the domains in
which they work.
A lot may "merely" be simple aesthetics, sure; I don't want to get
dragged into claiming anything stronger than my original statement.
> And some may see an organizing principle where others see a
> highfalutin theory.
Quite so.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Dec15.133627@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #53350 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>Forth is the ultimate blue-collar practical language, eschewing
>>>highfalutin theories in favour of what it takes to get real work
>>>done.
>>
>> There is quite a bit of pragmatism around, but also quite a bit of
>> dogmatism (especially based on Chuck Moore sayings, but I consider
>> word-counting which gave us "gems" like F~ to also be in that camp),
>
>Umm, what? To what does this refer?
http://forth-standard.org/standard/float/Ftilde
>> and then there are opinions without any rationale ("I don't like
>> ...").
>
>That's just because people are people: there will always be someone
>who doesn't like some code style, and there may well be good reasons
>for that.
Sure, it's ok to have an opinion even if you cannot support it with
arguments, but such opinions have zero weight with me; and I get
pretty annoyed if such an opinion is presented as if it had the same
weight as a well-argued technical argument.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 07:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <36GdneKTusQjBs_FnZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53357 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>>Forth is the ultimate blue-collar practical language, eschewing
>>>>highfalutin theories in favour of what it takes to get real work
>>>>done.
>>>
>>> There is quite a bit of pragmatism around, but also quite a bit of
>>> dogmatism (especially based on Chuck Moore sayings, but I consider
>>> word-counting which gave us "gems" like F~ to also be in that camp),
>>
>>Umm, what? To what does this refer?
>
> http://forth-standard.org/standard/float/Ftilde
I know what F~ is, and I don't much like it either. I don't know what
F~ has to do with dogmatism, though. I suppose it reduces the number
of words in the standard, but having a single word do three different
jobs doesn't fit with any Forth dogma I have ever come across: quite
the reverse.
>>> and then there are opinions without any rationale ("I don't like
>>> ...").
>>
>>That's just because people are people: there will always be someone
>>who doesn't like some code style, and there may well be good reasons
>>for that.
>
> Sure, it's ok to have an opinion even if you cannot support it with
> arguments, but such opinions have zero weight with me; and I get
> pretty annoyed if such an opinion is presented as if it had the same
> weight as a well-argued technical argument.
Very well, but aesthetic considerations are an important part of
computer programming. While it is possible to do research into which
styles of programming result in better reliability, lower lifecycle
costs, and so on, it doesn't capture the essence of what makes a
program beautiful.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Dec15.153114@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #53358 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>>> There is quite a bit of pragmatism around, but also quite a bit of
>>>> dogmatism (especially based on Chuck Moore sayings, but I consider
>>>> word-counting which gave us "gems" like F~ to also be in that camp),
>>>
>>>Umm, what? To what does this refer?
>>
>> http://forth-standard.org/standard/float/Ftilde
>
>I know what F~ is, and I don't much like it either. I don't know what
>F~ has to do with dogmatism, though. I suppose it reduces the number
>of words in the standard, but having a single word do three different
>jobs doesn't fit with any Forth dogma I have ever come across: quite
>the reverse.
There is a "minimize the number of words" dogma around, and especially
in standardization some poeple put much weight in it, arguing for an
interface that's more complex to use and/or to implement because it
has fewer words than the simpler (to use and/or implement) interface.
F~ is an example where this dogma has succeeded.
>>>> and then there are opinions without any rationale ("I don't like
>>>> ...").
>>>
>>>That's just because people are people: there will always be someone
>>>who doesn't like some code style, and there may well be good reasons
>>>for that.
>>
>> Sure, it's ok to have an opinion even if you cannot support it with
>> arguments, but such opinions have zero weight with me; and I get
>> pretty annoyed if such an opinion is presented as if it had the same
>> weight as a well-argued technical argument.
>
>Very well, but aesthetic considerations are an important part of
>computer programming.
That may be the case, but if two programmers disagree on aesthetics,
they should find technical arguments supporting their case or shut up.
After all, de gustibus non est disputandum.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 14:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <xrGdnQ2zzu_MY8_FnZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53360 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>>> There is quite a bit of pragmatism around, but also quite a bit of >>>>> dogmatism (especially based on Chuck Moore sayings, but I consider >>>>> word-counting which gave us "gems" like F~ to also be in that camp), >>>> >>>>Umm, what? To what does this refer? >>> >>> http://forth-standard.org/standard/float/Ftilde >> >>I know what F~ is, and I don't much like it either. I don't know what >>F~ has to do with dogmatism, though. I suppose it reduces the number >>of words in the standard, but having a single word do three different >>jobs doesn't fit with any Forth dogma I have ever come across: quite >>the reverse. > > There is a "minimize the number of words" dogma around, and especially > in standardization some poeple put much weight in it, arguing for an > interface that's more complex to use and/or to implement because it > has fewer words than the simpler (to use and/or implement) interface. It's a matter of degree, I suppose. Taken to extremes (as in F~) it becomes absurd. But, to be generous, I can understand people with very small systems wanting F~, and perhaps that was important back in the 1980s. If so, it's much more of a practical consideration than dogma, but I'm just making this up: I have no knowledge about the history. >>> Sure, it's ok to have an opinion even if you cannot support it with >>> arguments, but such opinions have zero weight with me; and I get >>> pretty annoyed if such an opinion is presented as if it had the same >>> weight as a well-argued technical argument. >> >>Very well, but aesthetic considerations are an important part of >>computer programming. > > That may be the case, but if two programmers disagree on aesthetics, > they should find technical arguments supporting their case or shut up. > After all, de gustibus non est disputandum. But that is to presume that any question which cannot in principle be answered in a definite and indisputable way is not worth discussing. If we were all to take that view we'd miss a great deal of what is important and interesting. IMO. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 16:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87inqk208f.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #53363 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > I can understand people with very small systems wanting F~, and > perhaps that was important back in the 1980s. Were those systems likely to have floating point words at all?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-15 16:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cdf399fd-6f00-4e85-9416-2ba9d6562fb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53371 |
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:20:33 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > > I can understand people with very small systems wanting F~, and > > perhaps that was important back in the 1980s. > > Were those systems likely to have floating point words at all? Yes? And I bet they knew exactly how many MegaFLOPs they could count on. Chuck wasn't getting weird looks for asking about 'integer performance' when the new hotness was low power computing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e33c4b99-68fa-4361-9488-dcd13ca358ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53372 |
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:46:02 PM UTC-6, Julian Fondren wrote: > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:20:33 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote: > > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > > > I can understand people with very small systems wanting F~, and > > > perhaps that was important back in the 1980s. > > > > Were those systems likely to have floating point words at all? > > Yes? And I bet they knew exactly how many MegaFLOPs they could count > on. Chuck wasn't getting weird looks for asking about 'integer > performance' when the new hotness was low power computing. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=floating+point&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfloating%20point%3B%2Cc0 Rose sharply throughout 80s, peaked at 1990, downhill since. Any idea what the dip before 1980s is about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 02:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <R4ydnTkMhZNVPcrFnZ2dnUU78SmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53389 |
Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:46:02 PM UTC-6, Julian Fondren wrote: >> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:20:33 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote: >> > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> > > I can understand people with very small systems wanting F~, and >> > > perhaps that was important back in the 1980s. >> > >> > Were those systems likely to have floating point words at all? >> >> Yes? And I bet they knew exactly how many MegaFLOPs they could count >> on. Chuck wasn't getting weird looks for asking about 'integer >> performance' when the new hotness was low power computing. > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=floating+point&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cfloating%20point%3B%2Cc0 > > Rose sharply throughout 80s, peaked at 1990, downhill since. > > Any idea what the dip before 1980s is about? Microprocessors were all the rage in the 1970s, and hardware FP in microprocessors emerged circa 1980. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 08:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Dec16.091052@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #53363 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>>> http://forth-standard.org/standard/float/Ftilde
>>>
>>>I know what F~ is, and I don't much like it either. I don't know what
>>>F~ has to do with dogmatism, though. I suppose it reduces the number
>>>of words in the standard, but having a single word do three different
>>>jobs doesn't fit with any Forth dogma I have ever come across: quite
>>>the reverse.
>>
>> There is a "minimize the number of words" dogma around, and especially
>> in standardization some poeple put much weight in it, arguing for an
>> interface that's more complex to use and/or to implement because it
>> has fewer words than the simpler (to use and/or implement) interface.
>
>It's a matter of degree, I suppose. Taken to extremes (as in F~) it
>becomes absurd.
>
>But, to be generous, I can understand people with very small systems
>wanting F~
I don't. Why would a small system want F~ rather than the simpler
component words?
Here's the implementation of F~ in Gforth:
: f~abs ( r1 r2 r3 -- flag ) \ gforth
\G Approximate equality with absolute error: |r1-r2|<r3.
frot frot f- fabs fswap f< ;
: f~rel ( r1 r2 r3 -- flag ) \ gforth
\G Approximate equality with relative error: |r1-r2|<r3*|r1+r2|.
frot frot fover fabs fover fabs f+ frot frot
f- fabs frot frot f* f< ;
: f~ ( r1 r2 r3 -- flag ) \ float-ext f-proximate
\G ANS Forth medley for comparing r1 and r2 for equality: r3>0:
\G @code{f~abs}; r3=0: bitwise comparison; r3<0: @code{fnegate f~rel}.
fdup f0=
IF \ bitwise comparison
fp@ float+ 1 floats over float+ over str=
fdrop fdrop fdrop
EXIT
THEN
fdup f0>
IF
f~abs
ELSE
fnegate f~rel
THEN ;
The implementation in VFX (Ndp387.fth) inlines F~ABS and F~REL, and
uses a different implementation for r3=0, but is not any simpler.
SwiftForth (fpmath.f) also inlines F~ABS and F~REL, and uses F= for
the r3=0 case (which is correct for SwiftForth because it does not
have -0e).
All of these systems have F=, and F0= (both not standardized), and use
these words for implementing F~.
Do you know of a significantly simpler implementation of F~? If not,
standardizing F=, F~ABS and F~REL would have been a better solution to
standardizing F~ (and would have allowed small systems to implement
only a subset of these words); but that would have run counter to
dogma of minimizing the number of words, so we got F~.
>>>> Sure, it's ok to have an opinion even if you cannot support it with
>>>> arguments, but such opinions have zero weight with me; and I get
>>>> pretty annoyed if such an opinion is presented as if it had the same
>>>> weight as a well-argued technical argument.
>>>
>>>Very well, but aesthetic considerations are an important part of
>>>computer programming.
>>
>> That may be the case, but if two programmers disagree on aesthetics,
>> they should find technical arguments supporting their case or shut up.
>> After all, de gustibus non est disputandum.
>
>But that is to presume that any question which cannot in principle be
>answered in a definite and indisputable way is not worth discussing.
No, there can be objective arguments for several sides of the issue,
and it's worth discussing and weighing those, and maybe look for more
technical arguments, in order to make the final decision.
But if the only argument you have is "I don't like ...", "I am not a
fan of ...", or the like, and if others disagree, and also have only
subjective reasons, then yes, this is not worth discussing. What
would you base the discussion on, after all?
>If we were all to take that view we'd miss a great deal of what is
>important and interesting. IMO.
Such as?
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 10:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <TpqdndZRZeYrksnFnZ2dnUU7-W_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53375 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> >>It's a matter of degree, I suppose. Taken to extremes (as in F~) it >>becomes absurd. >> >>But, to be generous, I can understand people with very small systems >>wanting F~ > > I don't. Why would a small system want F~ rather than the simpler > component words? > > Do you know of a significantly simpler implementation of F~? No. > If not, standardizing F=, F~ABS and F~REL would have been a better > solution to standardizing F~ (and would have allowed small systems > to implement only a subset of these words); but that would have run > counter to dogma of minimizing the number of words, so we got F~. You may well be right. I don't know what the thinking was. >>> but if two programmers disagree on aesthetics, they should find >>> technical arguments supporting their case or shut up. After all, >>> de gustibus non est disputandum. >> >>But that is to presume that any question which cannot in principle be >>answered in a definite and indisputable way is not worth discussing. > > No, there can be objective arguments for several sides of the issue, > and it's worth discussing and weighing those, and maybe look for more > technical arguments, in order to make the final decision. But that's still to assume that questions which have objective arguments are the only ones worth discussing, and that technical arguments are automagically more meritorious than non-technical ones. > But if the only argument you have is "I don't like ...", "I am not a > fan of ...", or the like, and if others disagree, and also have only > subjective reasons, then yes, this is not worth discussing. What > would you base the discussion on, after all? An exchange of opinions: I'm interested in what people think. I think you're dangerously close to falling into the logical positivist trap of declaring that only statements verifiable through empirical observation are meaningful. Of course, that statement is not verifiable through empirical observation, so it is meaningless! >>If we were all to take that view we'd miss a great deal of what is >>important and interesting. IMO. > > Such as? Almost any discussion of programming style and programming beauty. A lot of what we do is driven as much by psychology as anything strictly technical. I'll grant you that it is possible to measure some of this by, for example, looking at the error rates and productivity of different programming styles, but that doesn't really capture the essence of what it means for a program to be elegant. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 10:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Dec18.113217@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #53381 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>>> but if two programmers disagree on aesthetics, they should find
>>>> technical arguments supporting their case or shut up. After all,
>>>> de gustibus non est disputandum.
>>>
>>>But that is to presume that any question which cannot in principle be
>>>answered in a definite and indisputable way is not worth discussing.
>>
>> No, there can be objective arguments for several sides of the issue,
>> and it's worth discussing and weighing those, and maybe look for more
>> technical arguments, in order to make the final decision.
>
>But that's still to assume that questions which have objective
>arguments are the only ones worth discussing
Certainly. What point is there in discussing subjective preferences?
A: I like blue.
B: I am not a fan of blue.
Moderator: Good discussion.
> and that technical
>arguments are automagically more meritorious than non-technical ones.
For certain values of "technical", they are; I actually used
"objective" to confer what I mean.
>> But if the only argument you have is "I don't like ...", "I am not a
>> fan of ...", or the like, and if others disagree, and also have only
>> subjective reasons, then yes, this is not worth discussing. What
>> would you base the discussion on, after all?
>
>An exchange of opinions: I'm interested in what people think.
Sure, everybody can express their subjective preferences, but that's
not a discussion, and since the preferences are subjective, there is
no point in discussing them further. What else should be discussed in
the exchange between A and B above?
>I think you're dangerously close to falling into the logical
>positivist trap of declaring that only statements verifiable through
>empirical observation are meaningful.
This is not about statements, this is about discussions and
decision-making about technical issues by a group. The statement "I
am not a fan of blue" certainly is meaningful, but there is no point
in discussing it. A will not be able to convince B that blue is
preferable by expressing his subjective preference; nor will B be able
to convince A that blue is not preferable by expressing his subjective
preference.
>>>If we were all to take that view we'd miss a great deal of what is
>>>important and interesting. IMO.
>>
>> Such as?
>
>Almost any discussion of programming style and programming beauty.
While many such discussions are based more on religious beliefs than
on scientific knowledge, the arguments typically refer to objective
issues such as productivity, readability, maintainability, errors,
performance, etc., and they make claims that are in principle
falsifiable, even though not that much has been done in this area
(which is surprising, given the amount of money spent on developing
software).
Few people outside the Forth community try to convince others in such
discussions with statements like "I am not a fan of ..."; they may
state their preference, but they then typically also support it with
some objective argument. E.g., in the book "Beautiful Code", many of
the authors argue that their code is beautiful because it is efficient.
>A
>lot of what we do is driven as much by psychology as anything strictly
>technical. I'll grant you that it is possible to measure some of this
>by, for example, looking at the error rates and productivity of
>different programming styles, but that doesn't really capture the
>essence of what it means for a program to be elegant.
For me it does. Sure, there is some intuitive reaction to seeing some
program, and considering it elegant or not, just as there is for
everything, but that intuition is based on objective issues, and it is
honed by then considering the program in more depth and re-evaluating
it with respect to objective criteria.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 03:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Mpadndu5v9tIO8rFnZ2dnUU78VHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53406 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> But if the only argument you have is "I don't like ...", "I am not a >>> fan of ...", or the like, and if others disagree, and also have only >>> subjective reasons, then yes, this is not worth discussing. What >>> would you base the discussion on, after all? >> >>An exchange of opinions: I'm interested in what people think. > > Sure, everybody can express their subjective preferences, but that's > not a discussion, and since the preferences are subjective, there is > no point in discussing them further. What else should be discussed in > the exchange between A and B above? Nothing much, but that's an extreme case. >>I think you're dangerously close to falling into the logical >>positivist trap of declaring that only statements verifiable through >>empirical observation are meaningful. > > This is not about statements, this is about discussions and > decision-making about technical issues by a group. The statement "I > am not a fan of blue" certainly is meaningful, but there is no point > in discussing it. A will not be able to convince B that blue is > preferable by expressing his subjective preference; nor will B be > able to convince A that blue is not preferable by expressing his > subjective preference. True enough, that's a reductio ad absurdum argument in a case where not everything is black-and-white, not everything is true or false. And it's still interesting to know that some people prefer some colours. IMO, YMMV. >>>>If we were all to take that view we'd miss a great deal of what is >>>>important and interesting. IMO. >>> >>> Such as? >> >>Almost any discussion of programming style and programming beauty. > > While many such discussions are based more on religious beliefs than > on scientific knowledge, the arguments typically refer to objective > issues such as productivity, readability, maintainability, errors, > performance, etc., and they make claims that are in principle > falsifiable, even though not that much has been done in this area > (which is surprising, given the amount of money spent on developing > software). Even Dijkstra, who was as much of a stickler for terminological exactitude as has ever lived, was just as happy to talk about the beauty of an algorithm or a programming technique as its correctness. (Of course he wouldn't regard an incorrect algorithm as beautiful, but then he wouldn't regard an incorrect algorithm as an algorithm at all.) > Few people outside the Forth community try to convince others in > such discussions with statements like "I am not a fan of ..."; they > may state their preference, but they then typically also support it > with some objective argument. E.g., in the book "Beautiful Code", > many of the authors argue that their code is beautiful because it is > efficient. And that's a somewhat orthogonal concern. Efficient code can be beautiful, but may not be. IMO it's a shame that people feel the need to justify beautiful code in that way. >>A lot of what we do is driven as much by psychology as anything >>strictly technical. I'll grant you that it is possible to measure >>some of this by, for example, looking at the error rates and >>productivity of different programming styles, but that doesn't >>really capture the essence of what it means for a program to be >>elegant. > > For me it does. Well, alright. That seems to me to be an extreme position, but it is (at the very least) not the only possible position, and certainly not one that we should simply accept. > Sure, there is some intuitive reaction to seeing some program, and > considering it elegant or not, just as there is for everything, but > that intuition is based on objective issues, and it is honed by then > considering the program in more depth and re-evaluating it with > respect to objective criteria. Each to their own, I suppose. (De gustibus non est disputandum? :-) Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 14:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o30pb8$8le$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #53363 |
In article <xrGdnQ2zzu_MY8_FnZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>>>> There is quite a bit of pragmatism around, but also quite a bit of >>>>>> dogmatism (especially based on Chuck Moore sayings, but I consider >>>>>> word-counting which gave us "gems" like F~ to also be in that camp), >>>>> >>>>>Umm, what? To what does this refer? >>>> >>>> http://forth-standard.org/standard/float/Ftilde >>> >>>I know what F~ is, and I don't much like it either. I don't know what >>>F~ has to do with dogmatism, though. I suppose it reduces the number >>>of words in the standard, but having a single word do three different >>>jobs doesn't fit with any Forth dogma I have ever come across: quite >>>the reverse. >> >> There is a "minimize the number of words" dogma around, and especially >> in standardization some poeple put much weight in it, arguing for an >> interface that's more complex to use and/or to implement because it >> has fewer words than the simpler (to use and/or implement) interface. > >It's a matter of degree, I suppose. Taken to extremes (as in F~) it >becomes absurd. > >But, to be generous, I can understand people with very small systems >wanting F~, and perhaps that was important back in the 1980s. If so, >it's much more of a practical consideration than dogma, but I'm just >making this up: I have no knowledge about the history. I can't. Why would somebody with a small system not make it a loadable extension, then not use it? The control variable merely leads to code bloat. Actually, Anton's explanation is the first one that makes me understand how this word came into existence. With dozen of exponentional and geometric functions around it doesn't even make sense to try and minimize the number of words. (A get a flash: if it is 1 do a sine, it it is 2 do a cosine, if it is 3 do a arc sine hyperbolic, ...) > >Andrew. Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o39d4p$tu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #53363 |
Am Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:34:25 -0600 schrieb Andrew Haley: > It's a matter of degree, I suppose. Taken to extremes (as in F~) it > becomes absurd. > > But, to be generous, I can understand people with very small systems > wanting F~, and perhaps that was important back in the 1980s. Very small systems rarely have floating point, so F~ is not implemented on them in any case. F~ABS F~REL and F== (for "representation is identical" instead of just "Number is identical", which would e.g. return true for -0e 0e f=) would be better. The other question is on what kind of system the name headers of these three words are too expensive, but the logic to program F~ is not. At least so far, I didn't ever had the urge to use F~ at all. -- 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 03:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <HKSdnUNw5_MWbsXFnZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53436 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> wrote: > At least so far, I didn't ever had the urge to use F~ at all. I don't think anyone has. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 01:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c710b65d-1694-4d4e-b105-79ee9acb7918@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53441 |
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 10:02:09 AM UTC+1, Andrew Haley wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> wrote: > > > At least so far, I didn't ever had the urge to use F~ at all. > > I don't think anyone has. > > Andrew. Most of the uses below are for *testing* F~ (excluded here). The others are to find out if two floats are "close". It is a useful word, but a library routine would have sufficed. I guess F~ is in the standard because there might be 'homegrown' FP implementations where it is not obvious how to do perform this function portably. -marcel Searching for: F~ examples\dictaat\hbeb\lampmodels.frt(127): wanted 1e-3 F~ IF I (set-temperature) UNLOOP EXIT ENDIF examples\LTSPICE\SPIFSIM\jorge\halfbridge.frt(285): Pout_prev @Pout 1e-3 F~ ( 1 mWatts ) examples\nrc\chapter2_Linear_Algebraic_Equations\apps\llc.frt(730): <VO> FSQR Rl F/ PWANTED -0.01e F~ ; examples\numeric\division.frt(34): 1e-17 F~ ?LEAVE examples\numeric\tpf.frt(206): wy wsize F~ examples\numeric\tpf.frt(207): wx wsize F~ AND ; PRIVATE examples\numeric\tpfgr.frt(190): wy wsize F~ examples\numeric\tpfgr.frt(191): wx wsize F~ AND ; PRIVATE include\marquard.frt(266): -1e-3 F~ ; include\miscutil.frt(1269): : 0e? ( F: +/-0 -- c-addr u ) -0e 0e F~ IF S" -0 " ELSE S" 0 " ENDIF ; PRIVATE include\miscutil.frt(1270): : 0e?+BL ( F: +/-0 -- c-addr u ) -0e 0e F~ IF S" -0 " ELSE S" 0 " ENDIF ; PRIVATE include\miscutil.frt(1409): [UNDEFINED] SF= [IF] : SF= FDUP F0= FOVER F0= OR IF 1e-6 ELSE -1e-6 ENDIF F~ ; [THEN] include\miscutil.frt(1410): [UNDEFINED] SF<> [IF] : SF<> FDUP F0= FOVER F0= OR IF 1e-6 ELSE -1e-6 ENDIF F~ INVERT ; [THEN] include\spifsim.frt(2943): F2DUP F= closeness F~ OR ; PRIVATE ... Found 310 occurrence(s) in 22 file(s)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web