Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #52738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 159 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-20 00:53 +0000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 14:46 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-19 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 20:10 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 01:18 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 01:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 02:16 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-20 07:48 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 23:36 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:03 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 21:49 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 03:33 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 08:52 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-20 12:05 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 10:43 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 00:02 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 01:00 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 01:13 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-22 20:54 +0000
Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-27 13:32 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 18:52 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-28 15:00 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-27 18:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 20:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-29 15:22 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 00:42 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-28 22:20 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 17:18 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 23:15 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 07:08 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 21:51 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:09 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 09:43 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-11-30 17:36 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 14:31 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:02 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-01 08:58 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-05 21:28 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 07:41 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-06 18:13 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-05 21:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-08 10:09 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-07 15:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-08 04:22 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 17:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 01:47 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-09 04:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 06:49 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 10:15 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) josv@planet.nl - 2017-04-12 04:47 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-07 14:34 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 18:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 09:38 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-12-06 12:01 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-08 21:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-08 18:57 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 05:28 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 06:45 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-10 16:54 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 17:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-04-11 08:03 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-11 07:50 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-11 11:43 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:16 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 10:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:48 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 23:58 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 00:55 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:51 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:50 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-12 12:55 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:17 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 06:03 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:30 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 08:44 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:01 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:33 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:27 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:02 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 20:10 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:16 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-05 12:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 10:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 18:53 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 11:33 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 22:22 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:29 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 11:32 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 19:06 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:27 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:24 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-30 13:41 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-30 15:15 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-01 09:54 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-01 04:42 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:09 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 08:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 10:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:41 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 13:25 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:45 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 05:53 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:34 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 11:48 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-29 14:24 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 21:27 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 18:15 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-11-30 10:03 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 12:22 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-29 14:31 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-02 23:05 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-12-03 01:58 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-03 22:00 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-23 10:11 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 00:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-23 13:49 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:51 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-24 09:26 -1000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 12:28 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 16:54 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 02:20 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-25 10:39 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-22 04:17 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 10:38 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 13:05 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-29 15:23 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 07:46 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 21:59 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 08:12 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 22:22 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 21:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 01:06 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-25 11:56 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 23:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 18:11 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 18:58 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 14:08 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 00:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <286c841c-743b-4561-9884-3dfb3e170f6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53103 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:12:56 AM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > ... > > I think it was an honest mistake for HAA to assume that I'm multiplying --- that is how > > 1ARRAY 2ARRAY etc. work (although if the dimension is a power of two then it is just a > > shift because LIT*, optimizes internally) --- by ARY doesn't use multiply. > > Perhaps you misread. The "multiply used in simple multidim arrays" was referencing > the CREATE DOES> arrays generally promoted by Forth. An example from > 'Programming Forth': > > : 2Array \ n1 n2 -- ; [child] n1 n2 -- addr ; 2-D array > Create \ create data word > Over , \ save width for run-time > cell * * \ calculate size > Here over erase \ clear memory > allot \ reserve n cells > Does> \ run time gives address of data > Dup @ Rot * Rot + 1+ > cell * > + > ; Sorry that I assumed that you were attacking me --- you were replying to my post, which is why I assumed that you were referring to my code. IIRC, all of the code in "Programming Forth" was derived directly from the "Starting Forth" book. The biggest problem with this code is not efficiency issues involving multiply --- the biggest problem is that it is not general-purpose (here restricted to 2-dimensional arrays with cell elements) --- I think that is what turns off the newbies the most (assuming that they are already familiar with any language other than line-number BASIC, they are going to be unimpressed by "Starting Forth"/"Programming Forth")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 12:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <5846a863.344495697@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #53109 |
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:14:43 -0800 (PST), hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >IIRC, all of the code in "Programming Forth" was derived directly from the = >"Starting Forth" book. You do not remember correctly. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <bdc7b1a9-16fa-42e2-b170-cac1292ce6c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53123 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:01:12 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:14:43 -0800 (PST), hughaguilar96@gmail.com > wrote: > > >IIRC, all of the code in "Programming Forth" was derived directly from the = > >"Starting Forth" book. > > You do not remember correctly. > > Stephen Show me any code written by Elizabeth Rather, in "Programming Forth" or posted on comp.lang.forth or anywhere else, that was not copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book --- I don't think there is any --- I think she is a total fake!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 16:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <d0ae5e89-2d28-4301-82be-0492a0e1d0b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53133 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:21:24 AM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:01:12 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:14:43 -0800 (PST), hughaguilar96@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > >IIRC, all of the code in "Programming Forth" was derived directly from the = > > >"Starting Forth" book. > > > > You do not remember correctly. > > > > Stephen > > Show me any code written by Elizabeth Rather, in "Programming Forth" or posted on comp.lang.forth or anywhere else, that was not copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book --- I don't think there is any --- I think she is a total fake! Well, Stephen, the silence is deafening! You couldn't find any code from Elizabeth Rather that she didn't copy directly out of the "Starting Forth" book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 21:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.20.1704082103260.34075@localhost> |
| In reply to | #53239 |
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 16:27:38 -0800 (PST) > From: hughaguilar96@gmail.com > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > Subject: Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:21:24 AM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:01:12 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:14:43 -0800 (PST), hughaguilar96@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>>> IIRC, all of the code in "Programming Forth" was derived directly from the = >>>> "Starting Forth" book. >>> >>> You do not remember correctly. >>> >>> Stephen >> >> Show me any code written by Elizabeth Rather, in "Programming Forth" or posted on comp.lang.forth or anywhere else, that was not copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book --- I don't think there is any --- I think she is a total fake! > > Well, Stephen, the silence is deafening! > > You couldn't find any code from Elizabeth Rather that she didn't copy directly out of the "Starting Forth" book. > You know, Hugh, your inane and irrational rants against Ms. Rather are growing more than tiresome. It is time to just get over whatever it is that is up your butt and simply move on. Rob Sciuk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 18:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ab9c292d-b386-42ce-959d-e498070a5166@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56884 |
On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 6:06:10 PM UTC-7, Rob Sciuk wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 16:27:38 -0800 (PST) > > From: hughaguilar96@gmail.com > > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > > Subject: Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) > > > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 11:21:24 AM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:01:12 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > >>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 00:14:43 -0800 (PST), hughaguilar96@gmail.com > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> IIRC, all of the code in "Programming Forth" was derived directly from the = > >>>> "Starting Forth" book. > >>> > >>> You do not remember correctly. > >>> > >>> Stephen > >> > >> Show me any code written by Elizabeth Rather, in "Programming Forth" or posted on comp.lang.forth or anywhere else, that was not copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book --- I don't think there is any --- I think she is a total fake! > > > > Well, Stephen, the silence is deafening! > > > > You couldn't find any code from Elizabeth Rather that she didn't copy directly out of the "Starting Forth" book. > > > > You know, Hugh, your inane and irrational rants against Ms. Rather are > growing more than tiresome. It is time to just get over whatever it is > that is up your butt and simply move on. > > Rob Sciuk I'm just telling the truth: Elizabeth Rather has never posted any Forth code on comp.lang.forth that wasn't copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book. Also, the code in her own book wasn't any good: On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is > far more useful than the FSL version: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; This is just the array definer from the "Starting Forth" book that has been slightly upgraded to have a range check --- but she screwed it up because she isn't a programmer --- she should have just stuck with copying the "Starting Forth" code line-by-line. Telling the truth is not "irrational" --- if you expect me to become a liar, and say that Elizabeth Rather is a programmer, that is not going to happen. Anybody who says that Elizabeth Rather is a programmer is just brown-nosing. What is in it for you? Here is another typical example of Elizabeth Rather educating all of us Forth programmers who are (according to her) entirely dependent upon her to teach us Forth: On Friday, September 20, 2013 at 8:52:47 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > For learners, stack comments are especially helpful, since by having to > state them at the beginning of the definition they're led to focus on > the stack going in and coming out, and the comment is there to remind > them. One of the early simple exercises in Forth Application Techniques > involves printing out [n] stars, which many define as: > > : STARS ( n -- ) 0 DO ." * " LOOP DROP ; > > The ones who include the stack comment are far less likely to just type > STARS without an argument or forget the DROP at the end. But the > consequences of forgetting the number are also a good teaching moment. ;-) > > Cheers, > Elizabeth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 05:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <aa0a7a60-8727-4a8c-b178-2cc9f410e5d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56887 |
> > them. One of the early simple exercises in Forth Application Techniques > > involves printing out [n] stars, which many define as: > > > > : STARS ( n -- ) 0 DO ." * " LOOP DROP ; > > This mistake looks very simple. Maybe it is just lack of attention to type this code and see what really happens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 06:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <636429b0-711d-4429-9435-39ded3eeae49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56924 |
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 5:28:15 AM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > them. One of the early simple exercises in Forth Application Techniques > > > involves printing out [n] stars, which many define as: > > > > > > : STARS ( n -- ) 0 DO ." * " LOOP DROP ; > > > > > This mistake looks very simple. Maybe it is just lack of attention to type this code and see what really happens. All of her programming examples are actually just code snippets from the "Starting Forth" book --- in this case, she tried to do it from memory, rather than get out the book and copy the code snippet exactly --- I doubt that she has ever tested any code to see what really happens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 16:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704101649460.3336@rssciuk.lan> |
| In reply to | #56887 |
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> You know, Hugh, your inane and irrational rants against Ms. Rather are >> growing more than tiresome. It is time to just get over whatever it is >> that is up your butt and simply move on. >> >> Rob Sciuk > > I'm just telling the truth: [snip] ... There is nothing to be gained from your continued attacks, and it serves only to detract from the other words you speak. It is also irritating and unbecoming. Shape up. Rob Sciuk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 17:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <0904e405-595a-41cf-b8dc-2163a55ce5c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57016 |
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 1:51:29 PM UTC-7, Rob Sciuk wrote: > On Sat, 8 Apr 2017, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > >> You know, Hugh, your inane and irrational rants against Ms. Rather are > >> growing more than tiresome. It is time to just get over whatever it is > >> that is up your butt and simply move on. > >> > >> Rob Sciuk > > > > I'm just telling the truth: [snip] ... > > There is nothing to be gained from your continued attacks, and it serves > only to detract from the other words you speak. It is also irritating and > unbecoming. Shape up. > > Rob Sciuk I care about Forth --- I'm trying to rescue Forth from Elizabeth Rather's cult --- that is what is to be gained. Elizabeth Rather and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009 that I could never be a Forth programmer. Any "other words" that I may have had were killed at that time, and forever after. They told me to go away. But I didn't go away --- and I didn't begin brown-nosing them either, in the hopes of being allowed to be a Forth programmer --- they created this situation, not me. Would it have really killed them to admit that I'm a Forth programmer? Instead, they have their sycophants endlessly saying that I'm utterly incompetent, don't know what pointers are, etc.. What are they afraid of? I said before: "Anybody who says that Elizabeth Rather is a programmer is just brown-nosing. What is in it for you?" You haven't answered the question. What is in it for you? Do you not know that cult membership is unbecoming? Forth is totally unknown. People go through a C.S. major in college and never hear about Forth. When I tell programmers that I'm a Forth programmer, they almost always think that I mispronounced "Fortran" --- they have never heard of Forth. The very few mentions of Forth made in the literature use Forth as an example of incompetence. For example, the only mention of Forth in Abrash's famous book (read by every x86 assembly-language programmer) was of a Forther writing a toy Forth who was so ignorant of basic assembly-language that he didn't know that the cells need to be aligned on the x86 for a big performance gain (this was in the 1990s before the data-cache was introduced). Coincidentally, in SwiftForth up through version-2, ALIGN and ALIGNED were both no-ops because Elizabeth Rather doesn't know this either. None of the Forth Inc. books mention structs at all. Elizabeth Rather doesn't know what structs are! She would not be able to write even a simple program such as my recent video game ARENA.4TH because even that needed structs. You believe that brown-nosing Elizabeth Rather is necessary for every Forth programmer. How has that plan worked out so far? People such as yourself say that when I shine a spotlight on Elizabeth Rather's abysmal incompetence this is destructive to Forth. Really? How could Forth be destroyed any further than it already has been? Forth is a joke in the computer science world! If your plan of brown-nosing Elizabeth Rather has gotten us here, maybe we should try a different plan? Do you think? It is time to press the flush lever. Get rid of ANS-Forth. Start over with a new standard. Kick Elizabeth Rather out of the Forth community --- just as she and Stephen Pelc tried to kick me out of the Forth community in 2009 --- there is no other way for Forth to succeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 08:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <20170411080300.6f582d73@t530.lan> |
| In reply to | #57024 |
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:21:39 -0700 (PDT) hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 1:51:29 PM UTC-7, Rob Sciuk wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Apr 2017, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >> You know, Hugh, your inane and irrational rants against > > >> Ms. Rather are growing more than tiresome. It is time to > > >> just get over whatever it is that is up your butt and > > >> simply move on. > > >> > > >> Rob Sciuk > > > > > > I'm just telling the truth: [snip] ... > > > > There is nothing to be gained from your continued attacks, > > and it serves only to detract from the other words you > > speak. It is also irritating and unbecoming. Shape up. > > > > Rob Sciuk > > I care about Forth --- I'm trying to rescue Forth from > Elizabeth Rather's cult --- that is what is to be gained. With dead things, like buildings, you often need full destruction, site clearance before you can rebuild. It is quite different with living things like people, or forth. The best option for improvement is co-operative re-growth, as Rob Pemberton mentions. The majority of an individual's work for change must be positive, building up, not negative and tearing down, otherwise the refurbishment is impossible. If many people do this then there will only be a wreaked useless building left. If I see deliberate personal insults in posts I assume that the writer is so concerned about their own ego that they put this in front of cooperative work towards mutual benefit. Then I tend to skip further posts from the same person to avoid becoming further infected with this deadly attitude. Taking deep offence about something is like a person who puts a large dirty rock on their own shoulder, then complains to everyone about getting exhausted and dirty. The solution is simple and obvious to most. I'd enjoy c.l.f much more with _more_ consideration expressed. Well well trimmed posts show courtesy to readers, as does avoiding making negative personal comments about others. [snipped poop] Jan Coombs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 07:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr11.095023@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #57035 |
Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> writes:
>With dead things, like buildings, you often need full
>destruction, site clearance before you can rebuild.
>
>It is quite different with living things like people, or forth.
Buildings are renovated and repurposed all the time; e.g., my office
is in an early-20th-century appartment building where running water
was not yet available in the appartments (if you look closely, you can
still see the places where the public taps were in the stairwell).
Now it has water etc. in the former appartments; it also has
electricity, multiple ethernet connections in every office, and WLAN.
It is now used as an office building instead of as an appartment
building, plus some lecture rooms on the ground floor. It used to
have a lift in the stairwell (you can still see the hinges of the
outer doors to the lift, but now has a lift a few meters further on
(no idea why).
I would be surprised if the proportion of software that is used >100
years after initial construction will be as high as for buildings;
but, ok, the software industry is still young. Maybe in a few hundred
years, we will have learned to make software that is as enduring as
buildings. Or maybe not; software is a good part of planned
obsolescence, so long-lived software is not in the interest of many in
the industry.
In any case, at least Chuck Moore always seemed to promote to rewrite
software from scratch instead of reusing it.
- 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 | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 11:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <alpine.DEB.2.11.1704111134110.3336@rssciuk.lan> |
| In reply to | #57024 |
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > I care about Forth --- I'm trying to rescue Forth from Elizabeth > Rather's cult --- that is what is to be gained. > > Elizabeth Rather and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009 that I could > never be a Forth programmer. Any "other words" that I may have had were > killed at that time, and forever after. They told me to go away. But I > didn't go away --- and I didn't begin brown-nosing them either, in the > hopes of being allowed to be a Forth programmer --- they created this > situation, not me. The "situation" as you describe it, is entirely a creation of your imagination. Hugh, there is no secret society of "forth programmers". There is only individuals doing interesting things with a cool language. Some get paid for it, others do not. Rather than publicly venting your spleen, if you feel that you have been wronged, avenge yourself by doing interesting things and sharing them with the community. Elizabeth and Stephen have no say in your life, any more than I do, and their alleged opinions on what you may or may not be (poet, philosopher, Forth programmer) should have had no impact upon you, or the trajectory of your life. Man up. Move on. Find the true purpose you seem to be missing. Mostly, let go the anger, and smell the roses. Rob Sciuk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 10:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <fd831aff-7bc1-41cb-9baa-f8f86db4e58e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57047 |
When I got Forth for the TI-99a I become like hungry wolf and teared it to pieces to found out how it worked. I devoured 'Starting Forth' and I had real fun. Later on came 'Thinking Forth', but it was a great disappointment to me since I didn't like to be told how to think or not. I guess that I never could have become a professional Forth programmer. Obviously Hugh is a Forth programmer, but likewise obvious he isn't a professional Forth programmer which can cooperate with other Forth programmers under direction of a superior. So Hugh, let go! Develope your own ideas without faulty ambitions and without developing your paranoia further. When absorbing an idea to do something we somewhat program ourselfs to develope the idea. Resources will be allocated in our unconscious and the problem is processed even when we sleep. Concentrate on having fun with Forth and you will succeed. While your obsession will allocate your resurses in a very destructive manner, if you can't manage and become the master of yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 10:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <87efwyn9l6.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #57049 |
lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> writes: > I devoured 'Starting Forth' and I had real fun. Later on came > 'Thinking Forth', but it was a great disappointment to me since I > didn't like to be told how to think or not. I guess that I never could > have become a professional Forth programmer. That's interesting. I thought Starting Forth was an ok beginners' tutorial but Thinking Forth was a really interesting book about programming methodology and even philosophy. It predated the so-called agile movement by decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 10:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <02805d1c-e5c8-4a9f-bdf3-e12543d42d32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57050 |
A lot of people like 'Thinking Forth' but for me it was just irritating. I guess my inability to appreciate the book is a part of my personality. I understand some ideas well, like algorithms and likewise, while philosophical questions often goes over my head. It could also depent of not being native english speaking. The shades are hard to see in a foreign language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 23:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <b6741cfd-0105-4a50-a35d-3aebe9c9a609@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57049 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:16:27 AM UTC-7, lehs wrote: > Obviously Hugh is a Forth programmer, but likewise obvious he isn't a professional Forth programmer which can cooperate with other Forth programmers under direction of a superior. I don't consider Elizabeth Rather to be my "superior." The problem with Elizabeth Rather is that she doesn't compromise on the matter. This is what she says about herself: https://www.forth.com/resources/forth-programming-language/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Rather is the co-founder of FORTH, Inc. and is a leading expert in the Forth programming language. Elizabeth was a colleague of Chuck Moore when he worked at NRAO in the early 1970s. During his development of Forth, she became the second ever Forth programmer. Since then, she has become a leading expert in the language and one of its main proponents. Elizabeth was the chair of the ANSI Technical Committee that produced the ANSI Standard for Forth (1994). She is an author of several books on Forth and gave many training seminars on its usage. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ She uses the term "leading expert" more than once to describe herself. There is no way to interpret this except that she is the superior of every Forth programmer in the world. She does not allow any role for anybody, except to suck. There is no compromise here --- you have to suck --- or she will tell you that you aren't a Forth programmer, which she and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009. The same thing is true of her use of the word Standard (with a capital 'S'). There is no way to interpret this except that ANS-Forth is the superior of every Forth in the world. There is no compromise here --- you have to suck --- or she will tell you that aren't a Forth programmer. How many people in Jim Jones' cult believed that they were members of a cult? None! All of them believed that they were defining the standard for Christianity and that all others were non-standard wanna-bees. Cults are always like this. They don't know that they are a cult. Everybody else notices though... Forth will never succeed until ANS-Forth is gone. Forth-200x will fail because it tries to build on ANS-Forth --- but ANS-Forth is corrupt to the core --- there is nothing in ANS-Forth of any technical merit; it is pure salesmanship.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 03:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ockjhu$9q6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57111 |
On 4/12/2017 2:58 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:16:27 AM UTC-7, lehs wrote: >> Obviously Hugh is a Forth programmer, but likewise obvious he isn't >> a professional Forth programmer which can cooperate with other >> Forth programmers under direction of a superior. > > I don't consider Elizabeth Rather to be my "superior." Just so anyone actually reading all this understands, Hugh developed his paranoid schizophrenic attitudes towards Elizabeth Rather and Forth, Inc when he bought the Forth, Inc tool and was not able to get an update without paying for the following year maintenance fee. He felt that because there was a "bug" in the code he is entitled to subsequent versions ad infinitum until the software is totally bug free. If his insane hatred of Forth, Inc predates his buying their software, his buying their software would be adequate proof of his mental state. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 00:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <70b906f8-5617-4946-b7d5-8a4503b3975e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57111 |
Den onsdag 12 april 2017 kl. 08:58:23 UTC+2 skrev hughag...@gmail.com: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:16:27 AM UTC-7, lehs wrote: > > Obviously Hugh is a Forth programmer, but likewise obvious he isn't a professional Forth programmer which can cooperate with other Forth programmers under direction of a superior. > > I don't consider Elizabeth Rather to be my "superior." > > The problem with Elizabeth Rather is that she doesn't compromise on the matter. This is what she says about herself: > https://www.forth.com/resources/forth-programming-language/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Elizabeth Rather is the co-founder of FORTH, Inc. and is a leading expert in the Forth programming language. Elizabeth was a colleague of Chuck Moore when he worked at NRAO in the early 1970s. During his development of Forth, she became the second ever Forth programmer. Since then, she has become a leading expert in the language and one of its main proponents. Elizabeth was the chair of the ANSI Technical Committee that produced the ANSI Standard for Forth (1994). She is an author of several books on Forth and gave many training seminars on its usage. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > She uses the term "leading expert" more than once to describe herself. There is no way to interpret this except that she is the superior of every Forth programmer in the world. > > She does not allow any role for anybody, except to suck. There is no compromise here --- you have to suck --- or she will tell you that you aren't a Forth programmer, which she and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009. > > The same thing is true of her use of the word Standard (with a capital 'S'). There is no way to interpret this except that ANS-Forth is the superior of every Forth in the world. There is no compromise here --- you have to suck --- or she will tell you that aren't a Forth programmer. > > How many people in Jim Jones' cult believed that they were members of a cult? None! All of them believed that they were defining the standard for Christianity and that all others were non-standard wanna-bees. Cults are always like this. They don't know that they are a cult. Everybody else notices though... > > Forth will never succeed until ANS-Forth is gone. > > Forth-200x will fail because it tries to build on ANS-Forth --- but ANS-Forth is corrupt to the core --- there is nothing in ANS-Forth of any technical merit; it is pure salesmanship. Well as I wrote: you are not a professional Forth programmer, at least not a good professional Forth programmer, i.e. because of your problems of cooperation. You are also a lousy marketer of your ideas since no one wants to deal with your monomaniac baggage. I like ANS-Forth. Forth community needs a standard. Forth itselves is not a standard but an eternal idea. The ideal standard is a oxymoron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 00:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <fab3d51b-dcc3-4b3a-9214-c1441917789d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57114 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 12:29:36 AM UTC-7, lehs wrote: > Den onsdag 12 april 2017 kl. 08:58:23 UTC+2 skrev hughag...@gmail.com: > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:16:27 AM UTC-7, lehs wrote: > > > Obviously Hugh is a Forth programmer, but likewise obvious he isn't a professional Forth programmer which can cooperate with other Forth programmers under direction of a superior. > > > > I don't consider Elizabeth Rather to be my "superior." > > > > The problem with Elizabeth Rather is that she doesn't compromise on the matter. This is what she says about herself: > > https://www.forth.com/resources/forth-programming-language/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Elizabeth Rather is the co-founder of FORTH, Inc. and is a leading expert in the Forth programming language. Elizabeth was a colleague of Chuck Moore when he worked at NRAO in the early 1970s. During his development of Forth, she became the second ever Forth programmer. Since then, she has become a leading expert in the language and one of its main proponents. Elizabeth was the chair of the ANSI Technical Committee that produced the ANSI Standard for Forth (1994). She is an author of several books on Forth and gave many training seminars on its usage. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > She uses the term "leading expert" more than once to describe herself. There is no way to interpret this except that she is the superior of every Forth programmer in the world. > > > > She does not allow any role for anybody, except to suck. There is no compromise here --- you have to suck --- or she will tell you that you aren't a Forth programmer, which she and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009. > > > > The same thing is true of her use of the word Standard (with a capital 'S'). There is no way to interpret this except that ANS-Forth is the superior of every Forth in the world. There is no compromise here --- you have to suck --- or she will tell you that aren't a Forth programmer. > > > > How many people in Jim Jones' cult believed that they were members of a cult? None! All of them believed that they were defining the standard for Christianity and that all others were non-standard wanna-bees. Cults are always like this. They don't know that they are a cult. Everybody else notices though... > > > > Forth will never succeed until ANS-Forth is gone. > > > > Forth-200x will fail because it tries to build on ANS-Forth --- but ANS-Forth is corrupt to the core --- there is nothing in ANS-Forth of any technical merit; it is pure salesmanship. > > Well as I wrote: you are not a professional Forth programmer, at least not a good professional Forth programmer, i.e. because of your problems of cooperation. I'm one of a very few people in the world who has worked as a professional Forth programmer. MFX continues to be used today for commercial use. If I'm "not a good professional Forth programmer" then how could I have managed to write MFX? And, btw, what have you written professionally? Also, I don't think that I have "problems of cooperation" --- I have repeatedly said that I want to cooperate with Forth programmers on designing a Forth standard --- I don't declare myself by fiat to be the "leading expert" of all Forth programmers and demand that all Forth programmers accept that I am their "superior" (note that the word "superior" was introduced into this discussion by you, not me). > You are also a lousy marketer of your ideas since no one wants to deal with your monomaniac baggage. Elizabeth Rather has been claiming to be the "leading expert" of the Forth community since 1982 --- but you don't consider this to be monomania? --- at least we agree that she is a great marketer! ;-) > I like ANS-Forth. Forth community needs a standard. Forth itselves is not a standard but an eternal idea. The ideal standard is a oxymoron. I agree that the Forth community needs a standard. Our disagreement seems to be that I think a Forth standard needs to be designed by Forth programmers, whereas you are in favor of a Forth marketer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web