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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15259 > unrolled thread

Re: Article

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700
    Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 01:47 -0700
      Re: Article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-30 12:13 +0000
    Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-30 11:31 -0400
      Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-08-30 10:37 -0500
        Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 10:30 -0700
    Re: Article hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2012-08-30 19:56 -0700
      Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-08-31 12:35 +0200
    Re: Article "Greg Bailey" <greg@greenarraychips.com> - 2012-08-31 17:51 -0700
      Re: Article Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 18:22 -0700
      Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 01:04 -0700
        Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:18 -0700
      Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-01 01:48 -0700
      Re: Article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 18:38 -0400
      Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:59 -0700
      Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-03 13:07 -0500
        Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-03 14:25 -0700
        Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 17:04 -0700
          Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 06:23 +0300
      Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 18:17 -0400
        Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-03 12:37 -1000
          Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-04 04:48 -0400
            Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-04 03:39 -0700
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:48 -0400
            Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-09-04 13:18 +0200
              Re: Article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-04 16:03 +0200
                Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:29 -0400
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:24 -0400
            Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 08:12 -0700
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
            Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-04 11:35 -0500
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:40 -0400
                Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:28 -0700
            Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-04 08:32 -1000
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:22 -0400
                Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:08 -0700
                  Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:07 -0400
                    Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:39 -0700
                Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:35 -0700
              Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-07 17:24 +1000
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-07 05:28 -0400
                Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 03:28 -0700
                Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 13:31 +0300
                  Re: Article jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
                    Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:06 -0700
                Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:03 -0700
          Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 16:45 -0700
        Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 21:38 -0700
          Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:51 -0400
            Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:49 -0700
              Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:20 -0400
          Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
            Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:32 -0700
              Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:50 -0700
                Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 22:34 -0700
                  Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 14:05 -0700
                    Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-08 01:53 +0200
                      Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 18:22 -0700
                        Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:08 +0200
                          Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-08 17:34 -0700
                            Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 15:57 +0200
                              Re: Forth as a polarising language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 08:12 -0700
                                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 22:07 +0200
                              Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 15:14 -0700
                                Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 01:52 +0200
                                  Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 19:17 -0700
                                    Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 15:01 +0200
                                      Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 07:00 -0700
                                        Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 01:07 +0200
                                          Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 18:47 -0700
                                            Re: Forth as a polarising language Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 16:08 -1000
                                            Re: Forth as a polarising language anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-11 07:51 +0000
                                              Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 19:24 +0200
                                              Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 21:40 +0200
                            Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:58 -1000
                              Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 18:24 -0700
                        Re: Forth as a polarising language Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-09 13:42 +0000
                      Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 10:34 +0200
                        Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 07:06 -0400
                          Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:14 +0200
                            DEFER (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 16:47 +0000
                            Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:22 -0400
                        OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 11:38 +0000
                          Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 08:19 -0400
                            Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:41 +0200
                              Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:24 -0400
                                Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 12:03 +0200
                                  Re: Forth as a polarising language "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-09-09 13:20 +0200
                                  Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:33 -0400
                            Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:54 +0200
                              Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:12 -0400
                          OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:28 +0200
                          Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:56 +0200
                            Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 15:00 +0000
                          Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net> - 2012-09-08 11:56 -0500
                            Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:20 -0400
                        Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:15 +0200
                        Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:50 +0200
                          Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 03:12 +0200
                            Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 16:01 +0200
                        Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:54 -1000
                          [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 06:33 -0500
                            Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:16 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:28 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-10 12:43 +0000
                                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:24 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 08:12 -0500
                                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:32 -0400
                              Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:40 -1000
                                Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 14:42 -0500
                          Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 07:59 -0400
                          Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:27 -0400
                            Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:44 -1000
                          Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:30 -0400
              Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-09 14:13 +1000
                Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-11 11:26 -0700
                  Re: Article "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-09-11 21:02 +0100
                  Re: Article vandys@vsta.org - 2012-09-11 20:37 +0000
                  Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:01 +1000
                Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 16:50 -0700
                  Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-12 00:45 -0700
                    Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 18:44 -0700
                    Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 20:26 -0700
                  Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:47 +1000
      Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-06 19:28 -0700
        Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#15562 — Re: Forth as a polarising language

I'm mad at Thunderbird. They've "fixed" it so that when you're using it 
as a newsreader the "reply" button goes to the individual who wrote the 
last post, and you have to hit a new "Followup" button to reply to the 
newsgroup. As a result, I've sent several replies to individuals that I 
meant to post publicly, in the last couple of days.  I will repost. 
Eventually I'll either get myself reprogrammed or get a new newsreader :-(


On 9/7/12 10:34 PM, Marcel Hendrix wrote:
...
>
> I have been interested in FOOP ever since Dick Pountain wrote his
> BYTE articles (30 years ago?). However, in all that time I have
> *never* seen an interesting Forth program that uses (needed to use)
> OOP. All we get is the same old trivial examples. My own experiments
> were all failures: in their final version the FOOP proved to make
> for unreadable (i.e. too much looking up to do) and unmaintainable
> code. All that withstood time is structure words and a numeric array
> package.
>
> At least your heap/heap1 code is easy to understand and interesting,
> but Mini-OOF results in a ridiculous 7..50 times slowdown.
>
> In my opinion the problem is not that FOOP creators think their
> particular version is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that
> they are not able to convince others that this is indeed the
> case. At least not by example.

Here are a few examples.

The first OOP I worked on was imageForth, which Chuck developed in 
~1976-7, before OOP became poplar. It was an image processing system, 
which we implemented for half-a-dozen different organization each with a 
different image processing system and application, but the basics were 
the same. The fundamental 'object' was an IMAGE (there was only one 
"class"). Each image had properties (dimensions, resolution, current 
window) and methods (reading and writing a row). You could set various 
parameters and then say (for example):

       IMAGE SCREEN

...which defined an image with the current set of parameters and 
methods. There was inheritance: if you defined several similar images, 
you only had to specify the parameters that changed.

The basic operation was PASS. If you said:

	SCAN1 SCREEN PASS

...it would use SCAN1's read method to fetch a line and write it using 
SCREEN's write method, for as many lines as SCAN1 had. There were also 
proccesses that could be applied during a PASS. There was a lot more to 
this, but these are the basics. We wrote several papers on this, but I 
don't think any have survived.

In the late 80's we more consciously used OOP techniques in the 2nd 
generation of polyFORTH's data base system (not the one in the 
recently-released Reference Manual, that was the 1st generation). In 
this system files and fields were classes of objects with properties and 
methods. File methods included such operations as READ, WRITE, and 
SEARCH, and field methods included FETCH, STORE, and DISPLAY.

About the same time, we developed an extensive industrial 
process/manufacturing control system called Express, which also made 
extensive use of OOP. Classes of objects included such things as 
conveyors, lifts, valves, pumps, etc., each with its properties and methods.

I really dislike programming approaches that attempt to view everything 
as some class of object. It's a powerful technique for applications that 
inherently have such things, but many applications (particularly in 
embedded systems) are primarily procedural, and trying to force a 
class/object paradigm on such things just adds overhead and unnecessary 
complexity. But where the application does inherently have such things, 
it's powerful and simplifying.

Cheers,
Elizabeth



-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#15570 — [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> I'm mad at Thunderbird. They've "fixed" it so that when
> you're using it as a newsreader the "reply" button goes to
> the individual who wrote the last post, and you have to hit
> a new "Followup" button to reply to the newsgroup. As a
> result, I've sent several replies to individuals that I
> meant to post publicly, in the last couple of days.  I will
> repost. Eventually I'll either get myself reprogrammed or
> get a new newsreader :-(
>

As a SeaMonkey user, I'm surprised at that situation. 
Everything I've read indicates SeaMonkey is kept in sync 
with Thunderbird and Firefox and I don't see that action here.
[In interim, does right click in message still give all the 
reply options?]

Mozilla support groups carried by news.mozilla.org are 
active and helpful.
Check out mozilla.support.thunderbird .

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

#15572 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

On 9/10/12 7:33 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:

> As a SeaMonkey user, I'm surprised at that situation. Everything I've
> read indicates SeaMonkey is kept in sync with Thunderbird and Firefox
> and I don't see that action here.

Thunderbird is advertised by Mozilla as an email program, not a usenet 
newsgroup program.  So perhaps it's not too surprising that the primary 
action of the reply button is to reply-as-email.  Newsgroup use is an 
added, yet very nice, secondary feature.

> [In interim, does right click in message still give all the reply options?]

A right click on the Reply button brings up a Customize... dialog where 
one can move the Reply button to the far right.  Or remove the button 
altogether and use the menu Message:Reply-to-Sender-Only in its place 
(less likely to accidentally invoke).

-Doug

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

#15573 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

Correct that to:

> So perhaps it's not too surprising that the
> action of the reply button is to reply-as-email.

> -Doug

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

#15575 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> writes:
>On 9/10/12 7:33 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> As a SeaMonkey user, I'm surprised at that situation. Everything I've
>> read indicates SeaMonkey is kept in sync with Thunderbird and Firefox
>> and I don't see that action here.
>
>Thunderbird is advertised by Mozilla as an email program, not a usenet 
>newsgroup program.  So perhaps it's not too surprising that the primary 
>action of the reply button is to reply-as-email.  Newsgroup use is an 
>added, yet very nice, secondary feature.

There are proper newsreaders like the venerable rn (and various
newsreaders that are directly descended (like trn) or at least
inspired by rn (like xrn, which I am using)) that have always used
"reply" to indicate a mail reply and "followup" to indicate a followup
posting to a newsgroup.  In fact I think that most news readers have
such an interface.

It would have been good if Mozilla had also used this kind of
interface from the start, but unfortunately they did not.  Whether it
is a good idea to change this now (alienating Mozilla users to comply
with established interfaces of the wider world) is not clear.  In any
case, I think that Elizabeth will not find that many newsreaders that
are compatible with the way that Thunderbird wired her.

- 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 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/

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

#15579 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

On 9/10/12 8:43 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:

> It would have been good if Mozilla had also used this kind of
> interface from the start, but unfortunately they did not.  Whether it
> is a good idea to change this now (alienating Mozilla users to comply
> with established interfaces of the wider world) is not clear.

Yes.  Switching a long-established user interface item, especially one 
so commonly used, was questionable.  Perhaps the action of the Reply 
button should have been made user-configurable when the recent switch 
was made.  I have moved my Reply button to the far right (more or less 
out of the way) so now the Followup button is physically positioned in 
the most prominent location(where the Reply button was).  It helps.

-Doug

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

#15578 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> On 9/10/12 7:33 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> As a SeaMonkey user, I'm surprised at that situation.
>> Everything I've
>> read indicates SeaMonkey is kept in sync with Thunderbird
>> and Firefox
>> and I don't see that action here.
>
> Thunderbird is advertised by Mozilla as an email program,
> not a usenet newsgroup program.  So perhaps it's not too
> surprising that the primary action of the reply button is to
> reply-as-email.  Newsgroup use is an added, yet very nice,
> secondary feature.

_Historically_ true? I date back to days of Netscape (4.0 
IIRC). USENET access has always been part of the same window 
as email [others being browser, composer, and chat].

>
>> [In interim, does right click in message still give all
>> the reply options?]
>
> A right click on the Reply button brings up a Customize...
> dialog where one can move the Reply button to the far
> right.  Or remove the button altogether and use the menu
> Message:Reply-to-Sender-Only in its place (less likely to
> accidentally invoke).

I didn't follow that. Think I'll have to investigate the 
documentation ;)
It may illuminate a change in behavior in replying to emails 
arriving from some mailing lists to which I'm subscribed.

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

#15580 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

On 9/10/12 9:12 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:


>> A right click on the Reply button brings up a Customize...
>> dialog where one can move the Reply button to the far
>> right.  Or remove the button altogether and use the menu
>> Message:Reply-to-Sender-Only in its place (less likely to
>> accidentally invoke).
>
> I didn't follow that. Think I'll have to investigate the documentation ;)

I'm using a Mac and TB version 15.0.  Don't know if other OS versions of 
TB behave the same.

My right mouse button is configured to deliver a control-click event. 
So you may want to try control-click (ctrl-click?) on the Reply button 
to summon the Customize feature.

-Doug

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

#15590 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

On 9/10/12 2:16 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote:
> On 9/10/12 7:33 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> As a SeaMonkey user, I'm surprised at that situation. Everything I've
>> read indicates SeaMonkey is kept in sync with Thunderbird and Firefox
>> and I don't see that action here.
>
> Thunderbird is advertised by Mozilla as an email program, not a usenet
> newsgroup program.  So perhaps it's not too surprising that the primary
> action of the reply button is to reply-as-email.  Newsgroup use is an
> added, yet very nice, secondary feature.
>
>> [In interim, does right click in message still give all the reply
>> options?]
>
> A right click on the Reply button brings up a Customize... dialog where
> one can move the Reply button to the far right.  Or remove the button
> altogether and use the menu Message:Reply-to-Sender-Only in its place
> (less likely to accidentally invoke).

Thank you! Much better!

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#15593 — Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language]

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 9/10/12 2:16 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote:
>> On 9/10/12 7:33 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>>> As a SeaMonkey user, I'm surprised at that situation.
>>> Everything I've
>>> read indicates SeaMonkey is kept in sync with Thunderbird
>>> and Firefox
>>> and I don't see that action here.
>>
>> Thunderbird is advertised by Mozilla as an email program,
>> not a usenet
>> newsgroup program.  So perhaps it's not too surprising
>> that the primary
>> action of the reply button is to reply-as-email.
>> Newsgroup use is an
>> added, yet very nice, secondary feature.
>>
>>> [In interim, does right click in message still give all
>>> the reply
>>> options?]
>>
>> A right click on the Reply button brings up a Customize...
>> dialog where
>> one can move the Reply button to the far right.  Or remove
>> the button
>> altogether and use the menu Message:Reply-to-Sender-Only
>> in its place
>> (less likely to accidentally invoke).
>
> Thank you! Much better!
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>

I just subscribed to mozilla.support.support and found a 
thread (54 messages) starting 8/28/2012 titled "TB 15 now 
has both reply and followup buttons in newsgroup mode" which 
seems to discuss the problem.

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

#15571 — Re: Forth as a polarising language

On 9/9/12 8:54 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> I'm mad at Thunderbird. They've "fixed" it so that when you're using it
> as a newsreader the "reply" button goes to the individual who wrote the
> last post, and you have to hit a new "Followup" button to reply to the
> newsgroup.

I'll second that lament!  I've had exactly the same problem with the new 
Thunderbird.

> I really dislike programming approaches that attempt to view everything
> as some class of object.

Agreed.  Smalltalk, as the extreme example, goes way too far for my tastes.

> It's a powerful technique for applications that
> inherently have such things, but many applications (particularly in
> embedded systems) are primarily procedural, and trying to force a
> class/object paradigm on such things just adds overhead and unnecessary
> complexity.

Yes.  I think these kinds of "toy" object use illustrations have 
contributed to Marcel's problem: "... I have
*never* seen an interesting Forth program that uses (needed to use)
OOP. All we get is the same old trivial examples."  It is easy to see 
how those trivial examples could be done more simply without objects. 
I've been guilty of posting such toy examples, which are only useful for 
illustrating the techniques and are not an attempt to convince anyone of 
the value of objects.

-Doug

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

#15587 — Re: Forth as a polarising language

On 9/9/2012 8:54 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> I'm mad at Thunderbird. They've "fixed" it so that when you're using it
> as a newsreader the "reply" button goes to the individual who wrote the
> last post, and you have to hit a new "Followup" button to reply to the
> newsgroup. As a result, I've sent several replies to individuals that I
> meant to post publicly, in the last couple of days. I will repost.
> Eventually I'll either get myself reprogrammed or get a new newsreader :-(

I am using Thunderbird and I don't see that behavior.  If I click 
"Reply" it replies to the newsgroup exclusively.

Rick

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

#15592 — Re: Forth as a polarising language

On 9/10/12 6:27 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/9/2012 8:54 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> I'm mad at Thunderbird. They've "fixed" it so that when you're using it
>> as a newsreader the "reply" button goes to the individual who wrote the
>> last post, and you have to hit a new "Followup" button to reply to the
>> newsgroup. As a result, I've sent several replies to individuals that I
>> meant to post publicly, in the last couple of days. I will repost.
>> Eventually I'll either get myself reprogrammed or get a new newsreader
>> :-(
>
> I am using Thunderbird and I don't see that behavior.  If I click
> "Reply" it replies to the newsgroup exclusively.

What version? This seems to have come in with 15.0.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#15589 — Re: Forth as a polarising language

On 9/9/2012 8:54 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> I'm mad at Thunderbird. They've "fixed" it so that when you're using it
> as a newsreader the "reply" button goes to the individual who wrote the
> last post, and you have to hit a new "Followup" button to reply to the
> newsgroup. As a result, I've sent several replies to individuals that I
> meant to post publicly, in the last couple of days. I will repost.
> Eventually I'll either get myself reprogrammed or get a new newsreader :-(

If I use the pull down arrow and choose "Reply to all" it includes the 
author as well as the newsgroup.

Is there a configuration setting somewhere?  I'm pretty sure I haven't 
customized this version in the month or so I've been working to learn to 
use it.

I don't find Thunderbird too bad for newsgroups.  I don't care for it 
for email and as a calendar program (Lightning addon) I find it pretty 
buggy.  I have lost entire calendar files because of bugs.

Rick

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

#15548

John Passaniti wrote:
> ...
> Yep.  Aside from the numerous articles I've read about the quasi-controversy over companies
> mining the Internet for information about job candidates, I myself had this happen to me the
> last time I was looking for work (about 2.5 years ago).  I was informed that as part of the
> interview process, they Googled me.  They did, and I now work for that company.

The least exposure the better.  Unknown persons at least have a
prospect of being employed.

I can imagine Forth vendors having a mental list of "do not employ"
persons based on what they've read on c.l.f.  Employers want doers -
not talkers.

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

#15603

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:12:31 AM UTC-4, Ed wrote:
> > Yep.  Aside from the numerous articles I've read about the 
> > quasi-controversy over companies mining the Internet for 
> > information about job candidates, I myself had this happen 
> > to me the last time I was looking for work (about 2.5 years 
> > ago).  I was informed that as part of the interview process, 
> > they Googled me.  They did, and I now work for that company.
> 
> The least exposure the better.  Unknown persons at least have 
> a prospect of being employed.

Not in my experience, the experience of many people I know, and increasingly younger workers who have embraced social media.  I'm not suggesting that every online expression is necessarily a good thing for a job candidate.  But there is seldom a downside to having a profile page on a site like LinkedIn, a project blog, links to code you've written on GitHub, or showing your participation on Stack Overflow or similar.

> I can imagine Forth vendors having a mental list of "do not employ"
> persons based on what they've read on c.l.f.  Employers want doers -
> not talkers.

Thank you for today's illustration of the logically fallacy of false dichotomy.

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

#15606

John Passaniti wrote:

> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:12:31 AM UTC-4, Ed wrote:
>> > Yep.  Aside from the numerous articles I've read about the
>> > quasi-controversy over companies mining the Internet for
>> > information about job candidates, I myself had this happen
>> > to me the last time I was looking for work (about 2.5 years
>> > ago).  I was informed that as part of the interview process,
>> > they Googled me.  They did, and I now work for that company.
>> 
>> The least exposure the better.  Unknown persons at least have
>> a prospect of being employed.
> 
> Not in my experience, the experience of many people I know, and
> increasingly younger workers who have embraced social media.  I'm not
> suggesting that every online expression is necessarily a good thing for a
> job candidate.  But there is seldom a downside to having a profile page on
> a site like LinkedIn, a project blog, links to code you've written on
> GitHub, or showing your participation on Stack Overflow or similar.
> 
>> I can imagine Forth vendors having a mental list of "do not employ"
>> persons based on what they've read on c.l.f.  Employers want doers -
>> not talkers.
> 
> Thank you for today's illustration of the logically fallacy of false
> dichotomy.

One of the job offers I received came to me from my participation here and 
in comp.arch.embedded. The person offering the job seemed to like what I had 
said.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#15607

John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The least exposure the better.  Unknown persons at least have 
>> a prospect of being employed.
> Not in my experience, the experience of many people I know, and
> increasingly younger workers who have embraced social media.

Also valuable is to have open source work with your name on it.  When we find
that, our confidence in the candidate can increase dramatically.  Reading
their code, along with interactions on mailing lists with users.  That can
tell you more than any interview cycle, no matter how extensive.

-- 
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

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

#15616

John Passaniti wrote:
> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:12:31 AM UTC-4, Ed wrote:
> > > Yep.  Aside from the numerous articles I've read about the
> > > quasi-controversy over companies mining the Internet for
> > > information about job candidates, I myself had this happen
> > > to me the last time I was looking for work (about 2.5 years
> > > ago).  I was informed that as part of the interview process,
> > > they Googled me.  They did, and I now work for that company.
> >
> > The least exposure the better.  Unknown persons at least have
> > a prospect of being employed.
>
> Not in my experience, the experience of many people I know, and increasingly younger workers
> who have embraced social media.  I'm not suggesting that every online expression is
> necessarily a good thing for a job candidate.  But there is seldom a downside to having a
> profile page on a site like LinkedIn, a project blog, links to code you've written on
> GitHub, or showing your participation on Stack Overflow or similar.

A profile page is like any job application.  One is going to be careful
what is revealed.  Whether such pages do any good is questionable.
Jobs usually result from responding to an employer's advert or by
recommendation.

Politicians avoid social media for the reason it is too easy to be caught
up in controversy and/or reveal too much - which then limits their prospects.

> > I can imagine Forth vendors having a mental list of "do not employ"
> > persons based on what they've read on c.l.f.  Employers want doers -
> > not talkers.
>
> Thank you for today's illustration of the logically fallacy of false dichotomy.

No - thank you for illustrating the point.  Public participation is a battleground
and what's at stakes is one's reputation.

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

#15613

On Sep 8, 9:12 pm, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote:
> John Passaniti wrote:
> > ...
> > Yep.  Aside from the numerous articles I've read about the quasi-controversy over companies
> > mining the Internet for information about job candidates, I myself had this happen to me the
> > last time I was looking for work (about 2.5 years ago).  I was informed that as part of the
> > interview process, they Googled me.  They did, and I now work for that company.
>
> The least exposure the better.  Unknown persons at least have a
> prospect of being employed.
>
> I can imagine Forth vendors having a mental list of "do not employ"
> persons based on what they've read on c.l.f.  Employers want doers -
> not talkers.

What employers mostly want is an employee who will kiss their butt.
Their greatest fear is an employee who has his own ideas on how to do
the work, especially if these ideas have been done successfully in the
past which tends to harden the employee's resolve.

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

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web