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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #57543 > unrolled thread

real to rational number

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

Contents

  real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 04:49 -0700
    Re: real to rational number lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 06:48 -0700
      Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 19:09 -0700
        Re: real to rational number lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 22:53 -0700
          Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-19 04:43 -0700
            Re: real to rational number rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 15:41 -0400
              Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-19 13:03 -0700
                Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-20 17:26 +0000
                Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-20 14:29 -0700
        Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-19 23:44 +0000
          Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-19 19:30 -0700
            Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-20 17:08 +0000
              Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 11:46 -0700
                Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-21 09:47 +0000
              Re: real to rational number lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 20:49 -0700
      Re: real to rational number rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 15:36 -0400
        Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-20 18:44 -0700
    Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-18 07:06 -0700
      Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 19:17 -0700
        Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 19:45 -0700
          Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 19:57 -0700
          Re: real to rational number anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-19 05:35 +0000
        Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-18 23:42 -0700
          Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-19 04:53 -0700
            Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-19 11:32 -0700
    Re: real to rational number minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-18 08:23 -0700
      Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 19:24 -0700
        Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 19:48 -0700
          Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 20:01 -0700
    Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 19:39 -0700
      Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 19:56 -0700
        Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-19 00:41 -0700
          Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-19 04:48 -0700
          Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-19 11:30 -0700
        Re: real to rational number albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-20 20:15 +0200
          Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-20 15:23 -0700
            Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 18:52 -0700
    Re: real to rational number Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 19:58 -0700
      Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-18 20:05 -0700
        Re: real to rational number Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 05:30 -0700
          Re: real to rational number Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 05:35 -0700
            Re: real to rational number Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 05:41 -0700
              Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-19 19:39 -0700
    Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-19 23:16 +0000
      Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-19 19:42 -0700
        Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-20 17:15 +0000
          Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-20 15:11 -0700
            Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-20 15:49 -0700
              Re: real to rational number Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-21 00:20 +0100
                Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-20 18:49 -0700
                  Re: real to rational number The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-21 03:18 -0700
                    Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-21 18:39 -0700
                      Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-21 18:46 -0700
                      Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 21:55 -0700
                        Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-22 08:33 -0700
                          Re: real to rational number Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-22 13:35 -0700
                      Re: real to rational number The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 00:58 -0700
                        Re: real to rational number minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-24 01:08 -0700
                    Re: real to rational number minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-23 02:28 -0700
                  Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-21 18:43 -0700
                    rationalising  reality,   was Re: real to rational number Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-04-22 10:28 +0100
                      Re: rationalising  reality,   was Re: real to rational number Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 02:33 -0700
              Re: real to rational number krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-04-20 16:22 -0700
                Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-20 22:02 -0700
                  Re: real to rational number Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-21 00:12 -0700
                  Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-21 09:55 +0000
                    Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-25 10:52 -0700
                      Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-29 03:16 +0000
                Re: real to rational number "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-21 09:52 +0000
                Re: real to rational number lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-21 05:35 -0700
                  Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-21 19:05 -0700
                    Re: real to rational number The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 01:14 -0700
                      Re: real to rational number Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-04-24 11:31 -0500
                        Re: real to rational number The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 00:52 -0700
                      Re: real to rational number hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-24 11:43 -0700
                        Re: real to rational number The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 00:35 -0700
                        Re: real to rational number The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 01:09 -0700
                          Re: real to rational number minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-26 01:55 -0700

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#57798 — rationalising reality, was Re: real to rational number

I've just noticed that my style pattern for reading c.l.f has
evolved into this:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
[someone] wrote:

> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:49:51 PM UTC-7,
> [someone previously] wrote:

[skip quoted context to save time, getting slightly irritated if
I've already read it twice before and is not directly relevant to
current post]  

> One of the many blunders of [persons name]

[Detect personal attack and skip remainder of post. Make mental
note to skip next handful of posts from same poster to preserve
my generally optimistic state of mind.]

It's like a war of attrition, will we be able to adapt
sufficiently to survive?

Jan Coombs

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

#57800 — Re: rationalising reality, was Re: real to rational number

On Saturday, 22 April 2017 10:28:23 UTC+1, Jan Coombs  wrote:
> I've just noticed that my style pattern for reading c.l.f has
> evolved into this:
> 
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
> [someone] wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:49:51 PM UTC-7,
> > [someone previously] wrote:
> 
> [skip quoted context to save time, getting slightly irritated if
> I've already read it twice before and is not directly relevant to
> current post]  
> 
> > One of the many blunders of [persons name]
> 
> [Detect personal attack and skip remainder of post. Make mental
> note to skip next handful of posts from same poster to preserve
> my generally optimistic state of mind.]
> 
> It's like a war of attrition, will we be able to adapt
> sufficiently to survive?
> 
> Jan Coombs

It's one of the reasons that I don't stop by CLF much these days.

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

#57675

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 5:49:53 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:

> One of the many blunders of ANS-Forth was to make locals with with TO --- it would have been much better to make the local provide an address and then use @ and ! on that address --- if the local is big enough to contain a double or a float, then D@ and D! as well as F@ and F! can also be used on the local's address.
> ....
[crap clipped]

Your unwarranted and personal rants against Elizabeth Rather completely discredit any positive contributions you make to discussion topics in this newsgroup.

Goodbye.

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

#57689

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 4:22:30 PM UTC-7, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 5:49:53 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > One of the many blunders of ANS-Forth was to make locals with with TO --- it would have been much better to make the local provide an address and then use @ and ! on that address --- if the local is big enough to contain a double or a float, then D@ and D! as well as F@ and F! can also be used on the local's address.
> > ....
> [crap clipped]
> 
> Your unwarranted and personal rants against Elizabeth Rather completely discredit any positive contributions you make to discussion topics in this newsgroup.
> 
> Goodbye.

Goodbye to you --- brown-noser!

Elizabeth Rather said that she hated locals, and locals were completely screwed up in ANS-Forth --- she purposely sabotaged the definition of locals in ANS-Forth --- she wanted everybody in the Forth community to hate locals too, and believe that locals are inherently screwed up.

We see the same thing now in Forth-200x. Stephen Pelc and Elizabeth Rather have both said that they don't know what quotations are for, or how to implement them. Rather than learn anything about the subject, they want a fake implementation to become the standard --- they want everybody in the Forth community to hate quotations too, and believe that quotations are inherently screwed up.

I'm never going to brown-nose the committee! ANS-Forth is a cult --- being an ANS-Forth "programmer" requires willful ignorance --- you are required to know less than your "leading expert" on the subject of programming, and she really knows nothing. Becoming an ANS-Forth programmer is very much like getting a lobotomy --- you have to wipe all knowledge of computer science from your brain.

This is from Stephen Pelc's article on quotations:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Comp/comp.lang.forth/2012-07/msg00791.html
-----------------------------------
Aside from looking obscure and clever and satisfying the "[x] can do it, why not Forth?" test, what on earth does this buy you?
-----------------------------------
Elizabeth Rather, as well as multiple ANS-Forth sycophants, have quoted Stephen Pelc's article on comp.lang.forth., and the RfD is is pretty much a line-by-line copy of the article. They are ignoramuses! What is the point of writing an article about a subject and then admitting in the article that you don't know anything about the subject? Ignoramuses are people who are not only ignorant of a subject, but are proud of their ignorance. Stephen Pelc wrote this article because he was proud of his ignorance, and he wanted to make this public so the ANS-Forth sycophants would know that they are supposed to hate quotations too --- now all of the Forth-200x mailing-list brown-nosers obediently hate quotations --- even when I show them code that works in VFX and SwiftForth and allows the quotation to have access to the parent function's locals, they continue to say that this is impossible.

I'm always willing to learn new concepts, and become a better programmer. I don't think that it is a good idea to get stuck in some time period from the past (for Elizabeth Rather and the ANS-Forth cult, this is the early 1970s). I suppose that it feels comforting to the ANS-Forth cult members that they will never be challenged to learn anything new, and so long as they continue to be loyal to their "leading expert" they can continue to be big internet experts. This is a kind of death though --- if they aren't learning anything, how is that different from being dead? --- ANS-Forth cult members are like zombies that continue marching forward into the future despite being brain-dead.

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

#57694

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 12:02:53 AM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com
> I'm always willing to learn new concepts, and become a better programmer.

What you aren't willing to do is learn Forth concepts, and become a
better Forth programmer. Because you think you know all that stuff
already, and don't like it. So you're always saying things like

> You can't just modify strings willy-nilly.

or:

> It is a mistake to force the user to remember which strings can be
> modified, which can not be modified (because they came from S" or
> S\") and which will likely get overwritten

And when you wax on about how things should be, you spend half the
time imposing new restrictions on implementors and programmers, and
removing flexibility that you don't care about.

You're utterly aghast at 'global variables', anyone ever writing
something that's not reentrant, anyone ever writing something that
doesn't work with local variables. When someone proposes that you keep
the entirety of a program in mind, you think this is just absurd. Your
most consistent perspective is that of a programmer who knows nothing
about Forth. What would cause such a person to sneer in derision at
you, Hugh Aguilar, the world's only professional Forth programmer?
Anything like that must be stamped out! Anything like that is an
embarrassment to Forth!

It's "too hard" to remember the properties of strings in a program, so
just use this tool that will manage your memory for you. Some of its
operations are fast and work in fixed memory; some of them (the same
exact operations, applied to different kinds of strings) will copy a
bunch of data for you behind your back. It's auto-magic!

LEARN

RUST

https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/

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

#57708

hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 4:22:30 PM UTC-7,
> krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 5:49:53 PM UTC-5,
> > hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > One of the many blunders of ANS-Forth was to make locals with
> > > with TO --- it would have been much better to make the local
> > > provide an address and then use @ and ! on that address --- if
> > > the local is big enough to contain a double or a float, then D@
> > > and D! as well as F@ and F! can also be used on the local's
> > > address.  ....
> > [crap clipped]
> > 
> > Your unwarranted and personal rants against Elizabeth Rather
> > completely discredit any positive contributions you make to
> > discussion topics in this newsgroup.
> > 
> > Goodbye.
> 
> Goodbye to you --- brown-noser!

That's gross too. 

And I agree with Krishna. 

You can, of course, call me a brown-noser too, but I have absolutely no
affiliation or reason to brown-nose anyone here, so you would be pretty
wrong.

Such (unnecessary) rants, against a single person, reduce your
credibility to almost zero. You could have easily brought your
arguments across without them.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis        http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has
 not faith."
 -- Prophet Muhammad

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

#58106

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:55:30 AM UTC-7, Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 4:22:30 PM UTC-7,
> > krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 5:49:53 PM UTC-5,
> > > hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > One of the many blunders of ANS-Forth was to make locals with
> > > > with TO --- it would have been much better to make the local
> > > > provide an address and then use @ and ! on that address --- if
> > > > the local is big enough to contain a double or a float, then D@
> > > > and D! as well as F@ and F! can also be used on the local's
> > > > address.  ....
> > > [crap clipped]
> > > 
> > > Your unwarranted and personal rants against Elizabeth Rather
> > > completely discredit any positive contributions you make to
> > > discussion topics in this newsgroup.
> > > 
> > > Goodbye.
> > 
> > Goodbye to you --- brown-noser!
> 
> That's gross too. 
> 
> And I agree with Krishna. 
> 
> You can, of course, call me a brown-noser too, but I have absolutely no
> affiliation or reason to brown-nose anyone here, so you would be pretty
> wrong.
> 
> Such (unnecessary) rants, against a single person, reduce your
> credibility to almost zero. You could have easily brought your
> arguments across without them.

This is what Elizabeth Rather says about herself:
-------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------

What part of the term "leading expert" do you not understand? The meaning of this term is that all Forth programmers are required to brown-nose her. There is no other interpretation of her use of this offensive term. 

If you are polite to her after she insults you in such a gross manner, then you are a brown-noser. Your meek acceptance of the this blatant insult completely discredits any positive contributions you make to discussion topics in this newsgroup --- it is obvious that you don't have a shred of self-respect --- this is very comparable to accepting the nickname "puto" because you want to be accepted by the in-crowd, and your motto in life is: "Go along to get along."

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

#58328

hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:

> This is what Elizabeth Rather says about herself:

<yawn>

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. Get over it.


-- 
Rudy Velthuis        http://www.rvelthuis.de

"Descended from the apes? Let us hope that it is not true. But 
 if it is, let us pray that it may not become generally known."
 -- FA Montagu.

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

#57707

krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote:

> Your unwarranted and personal rants against Elizabeth Rather
> completely discredit any positive contributions you make to
> discussion topics in this newsgroup.

Fully agreed.



-- 
Rudy Velthuis        http://www.rvelthuis.de

"I am become death, shatterer of worlds."
 -- Robert J. Oppenheimer (1904-1967) (citing from the 
    Bhagavad Gita, after witnessing the world's first nuclear 
    explosion)

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

#57716

Den fredag 21 april 2017 kl. 01:22:30 UTC+2 skrev krishna...@ccreweb.org:
> ...
> Your unwarranted and personal rants against Elizabeth Rather completely discredit any positive contributions you make to discussion topics in this newsgroup.
> 
> Goodbye.

I agree. Unlike Hugh Aguilar Elizabeth Rather Conklin is a likable asset here. She always answer kindly and interesting.

Hugh is totally fixed with the excellence of his own code and culturing conspiracy in Forth community. I'm no psychiatrist but from introspection and Wikipedia I guess on diseases as paranoia, megalomania and Tourettes syndrome. Maybe all of them.

Goodbye for me too.

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

#57764

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:35:37 AM UTC-7, lehs wrote:
> Den fredag 21 april 2017 kl. 01:22:30 UTC+2 skrev krishna...@ccreweb.org:
> > ...
> > Your unwarranted and personal rants against Elizabeth Rather completely discredit any positive contributions you make to discussion topics in this newsgroup.
> > 
> > Goodbye.
> 
> I agree. Unlike Hugh Aguilar Elizabeth Rather Conklin is a likable asset here. She always answer kindly and interesting.

The subject of continued fractions has been discussed here before:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/BcWvGxFFuzA%5B1-25%5D

I was trying to port the CF program of Nathaniel Grossman to ANS-Forth and I was frustrated that there was no double-precision division in ANS-Forth. Way back in 1984 Grossman had to write UD/MOD in high-level Forth because Elizabeth Rather had failed to provide it in Forth-83. Then when ANS-Forth came out, Elizabeth Rather failed to provide it again.

This was my first-ever contact with Elizabeth Rather:

On Friday, November 20, 2009 at 12:07:12 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
> Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> ...
> > The problem is the ANS-Forth standard. Really, how obvious was the
> > need for double-precision arithmetic? This could have been an
> > extension to the language similar to floating-point. Compiler-writers
> > working on small microprocessors could decline to implement it if they
> > didn't want to.
> > 
> > I am frustrated with the ANS-Forth standard because I believe that the
> > bad design of the standard is the #1 reason for the failure of Forth
> > to become an important language. Forth was doing pretty well in the
> > 1980s, but we needed a standard. What we got was Forth-83, and then
> > ANS-Forth-94, both of which were badly designed. With some more
> > thoughtful leadership we could have succeeded.
> 
> There are D+, D-, M*, M/, and M*/ (and the unsigned operators).  These 
> were adequate in a very wide variety of projects over a 30 year period, 
> many of which were extremely computation-intensive and running on slow 
> 16-bit processors.
> 
> Forth's design is pragmatic: it has functions that have been needed and 
> that have proven their usefulness *in Forth*, not necessarily those that 
> have been required in other languages.  Generally speaking, Forth has 
> the most flexible set of *integer* arithmetic operators of any language. 
>   In particular, M*/ was one of Chuck's most brilliant innovations.  I'm 
> sure if Chuck were trying to do your continued fractions that is what he 
> would rely on.  Yes, that sometimes requires thinking differently, like 
> many other things in Forth.
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth

My interpretation of this post is that she is telling me that I can never be an ANS-Forth programmer. She is playing her trump card, which is that she learned Forth directly from Charles Moore in the 1970s and hence knows everything there is to know about Forth, and this give her alone the right to define what Forth is. How can I beat the trump card? I have never met Charles Moore, and I didn't learn Forth until 1984. With her trump card, she can beat me every day, and no Forth code that I write can ever have any value.

Paul Rubin is well aware that ANS-Forth lacks double-precision division, which is why he wrote his continued-fraction program in Haskell. This qualifies him to be an ANS-Forth programmer! By comparison, I can't be an ANS-Forth programmer because my continued-fraction program is written in ANS-Forth --- this disqualifies me from being an ANS-Forth programmer because my program shines a spotlight on the failure of ANS-Forth to provide double-precision arithmetic --- a loyal cult member never mentions the many failings of ANS-Forth, but will instead write their code in Haskell or whatever, while continuing to declare that ANS-Forth is a viable language.

All of this talk about "thinking differently" implies that ANS-Forth is a cult. All cults declare themselves to be the standard, and everybody else in the world to be non-standard wanna-bees. All cults require their members to "think differently" --- that is: differently from reality --- the cult is founded entirely upon fantasy, so reality is what they hate and fear the most.

> Hugh is totally fixed with the excellence of his own code and culturing conspiracy in Forth community. I'm no psychiatrist but from introspection and Wikipedia I guess on diseases as paranoia, megalomania and Tourettes syndrome. Maybe all of them.

All cults' arguments eventually (and usually quickly) devolve into calling everybody else in the world insane. This is the hallmark of cult behavior.

> Goodbye for me too.

What have you ever written in Forth other than your big-number package? 

I don't need you.

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

#57977

Although Hugh's rude comments and ad hominem attacks would warrant immediate deletion on any of my blogs and my high respect for Elizabeth D Rather goes without saying, I have to agree with Hugh on this one:

> > The problem is the ANS-Forth standard. Really, how obvious was the
> > need for double-precision arithmetic? This could have been an
> > extension to the language similar to floating-point. Compiler-writers
> > working on small microprocessors could decline to implement it if they
> > didn't want to.

When I designed 4tH that was exactly a point I wanted to fix: a Forth without double words. Hence, <#, #, #> work on single cell numbers and S>D and D>S do nothing to allow for easy porting.

Yes, nowadays 4tH has got the whole shebang, but as a LOADABLE library - just like floating point. The inclusion of a few mixed and double words in the core is half hearted and IMHO the language would win some consistency if that stuff was moved completely to a separate library.

Sure, it would break some code - but that's how it is when you fix errors of the past. During the development of 4tH I broke code several times - and I'm happy today that I did. Note lots of languages (Perl, Python) break lots of code in order to get better and better.

Hans Bezemer

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

#58003

On 4/24/2017 3:14 AM, The Beez wrote:
> Although Hugh's rude comments and ad hominem attacks would warrant immediate deletion on any of my blogs and my high respect for Elizabeth D Rather goes without saying, I have to agree with Hugh on this one:
> 
>>> The problem is the ANS-Forth standard. Really, how obvious was the
>>> need for double-precision arithmetic? This could have been an
>>> extension to the language similar to floating-point. Compiler-writers
>>> working on small microprocessors could decline to implement it if they
>>> didn't want to.
> 
> When I designed 4tH that was exactly a point I wanted to fix: a Forth without double words. Hence, <#, #, #> work on single cell numbers and S>D and D>S do nothing to allow for easy porting.
> 
> Yes, nowadays 4tH has got the whole shebang, but as a LOADABLE library - just like floating point. The inclusion of a few mixed and double words in the core is half hearted and IMHO the language would win some consistency if that stuff was moved completely to a separate library.
> 
> Sure, it would break some code - but that's how it is when you fix errors of the past. During the development of 4tH I broke code several times - and I'm happy today that I did. Note lots of languages (Perl, Python) break lots of code in order to get better and better.
> 
> Hans Bezemer
> 

What is your procedure to test and develop 4th code?

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#58069

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 6:31:44 PM UTC+2, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> What is your procedure to test and develop 4th code?
- First, write or port code;
- Second, get it to compile - return to 1 if it fails;
- Third, get it to run - if it performs flawless, goto 6;
- 4tH, try to pinpoint the error (decompile);
- Fifth, strategically place .S markers, go to 3;
- Sixth, decompile again and see if it can be optimized, goto 2;
- Seventh, place it SVN;
- Eighth, "desktop debug" it, a lost art IMHO, goto 1 if required;
- Nineth, goto 1.

I use KDE Kate 99% of the time, since I have easy access to the prompt there.

Hans Bezemer

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

#58014

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 1:14:47 AM UTC-7, The Beez wrote:
> Although Hugh's rude comments and ad hominem attacks would warrant immediate deletion on any of my blogs and my high respect for Elizabeth D Rather goes without saying, I have to agree with Hugh on this one:
> 
> > > The problem is the ANS-Forth standard. Really, how obvious was the
> > > need for double-precision arithmetic? This could have been an
> > > extension to the language similar to floating-point. Compiler-writers
> > > working on small microprocessors could decline to implement it if they
> > > didn't want to.

Everybody wants to be an expert on ethics! I'm unimpressed by Beez and his self-proclaimed status as an expert on ethics.

Where are the big ANS-Forth ethics experts on when ad hominem attacks are made against me? John Passaniti, Alex McDonald, Rick Collins and Julien Fondren all do this routinely. Apparently the ANS-Forth ethics experts are too busy brown-nosing Elizabeth Rather to notice --- their silence is deafening!

Consider this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/ohE8mx7tWQU%5B1-25%5D
Here my name is listed as a supporter (or contributor, or participant, or whatever) of the Paysan-faked quotations. This is the second time this has happened. I threatened a libel lawsuit previously to make them stop, but here they are doing it again, so I have to threaten a libel lawsuit again. Alex McDonald claims that my complaint about them putting my name in the RfD as a supporter against my wishes is "piggy squealing" and that the Forth-200x committee has the right to do this. Piggy squealing??? That sounds like an ad hominem attack to me. The ANS-Forth ethics experts are silent because they want Fort-200x to appear to have the support of every piggy in the entire Forth community, including myself.

Julien Fondren has made death threats against myself and Darin Murphy, but the ANS-Forth ethics experts are silent because Julien Fondren brown-noses Elizabeth Rather and hence is given free rein to attack anybody who threatens Forth Inc. --- apparently he believed that Darin had the potential to eventually compete against Forth Inc., because he was writing actual code rather than just proclaiming himself to be an expert without writing any code as is usual on comp.lang.forth.

Consider this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/Mfi54CwQVCo
Here Juergen Pintaske threatens to find Gavino's employer and family (his granny!) and harass them. The ANS-Forth ethics experts are silent because Juergen Pintaske is an employee of Stephen Pelc and hence is given free rein to attack anybody who threatens MPE --- how Gavino represents a threat to MPE is unclear though; he's just a galoot with a two-minute attention-span.

Consider this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/D_w4krw4B0s
Here Alex McDonald clearly states that writing ANS-Forth doesn't make me an ANS-Forth programmer, or even a programmer at all. He himself is a mighty great ANS-Forth programmer though, because he brown-noses Elizabeth Rather. This, of course, bolsters my claim that ANS-Forth is a cult.

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 1:16:07 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote:
> On 4/23/2017 04:54, Ron Aaron wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 23/04/2017 1:01, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> >> My point is that if you want speed, then you need to write in assembly-language
> > 
> > Incorrect.
> > 
> > A poorly-written ASM program will not out-perform a well-written (choose
> > your language) program.
> > 
> > A great ASM program using a poor algorithm will not out-perform (for
> > long) a poorly written HLL program using an excellent algorithm.
> > 
> > A complex program in ASM may take many (many!) times longer to write
> > than an equivalent HLL program.  So even if theoretically the ASM
> > program would run faster, your customer will long since have fired you
> > for lack of delivery.
> > 
> > There is more than one variable to consider.
> 
> Yes. In particular, there is a tendency for some to write & post code, 
> and demand that others do so, without too much consideration to design, 
> maintenance, applicability etc.
> 
> Our resident Ruby/Scheme/Python obsessive is a case in point. 
> WJ/waxman/Robert L or whatever handle he's using this week is a 
> minimalist; he finds an esoteric problem, a library to call, and writes 
> some fantastically arcane incantation in a single line so he can declare 
> victory. "In Forth?" being his signature flourish.
> 
> Hugh is at the opposite end of the spectrum; volume and yardage counts 
> here. Piles of code, endlessly repeated, A sneering "In Forth?" is 
> replaced by novel's worth of hollering and shouting at everyone that 
> they're sales clowns because they're not advanced programmers liek wot 
> he is coz novice code innit.
> 
> Neither is a programmer, but neither can see it.
> 
> -- 
> Alex

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

#58067

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:43:32 PM UTC+2, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, You totally ignored my diplomatic attempt to agree with the issue you posed without agreeing with your rant and steer the discussion back to your bruised ego. I know rants. I can give you a few when I started 4tH back in 1994. Brush it off, man!

You're not interested in my bruised ego and I'm certainly not interested in yours. And that's OK. Whatever I may think of you as a person, there is a little bit of Hugh code in 4tH and that benefits my users.

If I can increase that amount of code I'm happy to let you beat me up every day.

Hans Bezemer

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

#58071

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 8:43:32 PM UTC+2, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here Alex McDonald clearly states that writing ANS-Forth doesn't make me an ANS-Forth programmer, or even a programmer at all. He himself is a mighty great ANS-Forth programmer though, because he brown-noses Elizabeth Rather. This, of course, bolsters my claim that ANS-Forth is a cult.

Only 16 year old girls are interested in other peoples opinions. I still post code here, knowing some of the self proclaimed experts here will burn it without considering the design objectives. I, for one, don't care stack acrobatics in library code - nor the length of some words if I can't get some significant factoring advantages (less opcodes) or structure that allows enhancement. 

https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/4th.src/lib/tabs.4th

On the other hand, they don't know what I think of their code. And yes, there are times I can only gasp at the beautiful and elegant code some people design sometimes.

A bit of pragmatism isn't too bad every now and then. And that also goes for ANS Forth. Yes, a certain compatibility with ANS Forth isn't bad. You can get your hands on a lot more code and it makes it much easier to port it. Wil Baden convinced me of that when I still used Forth-79 for 4tH back in the last century.

There is a lot of ANS code I ported and a lot of 4tH code I ported back - with much more ease. And yes, there are still Forth-79 features in 4tH, like the value of TRUE, -1 +LOOP, etc. That's the thing if you write your own compiler. You can make that choices. It's a lot more fruitful than banging your head against the wall IMHO.

Hans Bezemer

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

#58175

Am Dienstag, 25. April 2017 10:09:37 UTC+2 schrieb The Beez:
> On the other hand, they don't know what I think of their code. And yes, there are times I can only gasp at the beautiful and elegant code some people design sometimes.

Well spoken. It's these rare intellectually inspiring gems that keeps software analysis interesting (otherwise it can be very boring). And sometimes one is also allowed to be proud of one's own creations.

Even if it's only a small Forth compiler.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web