Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 126 — 29 participants |
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.
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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-12 00:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ce9e6a48-36a7-4ae2-87ab-0ad787a9c90e@c19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15613 |
On Sep 12, 12:50 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. In large companies, that is definately true. Resitance is futile. You *will* be assimilated. However, I once worked for a very small company (early 90's). There were exactly four staff when I started, including the managing director. I was number five. We eventually got up to seven! Working there was a blast. I was the 'softy' but I was encouraged to 'muck in' and do other jobs where possible, including driving the antiquated fork-lift truck. Soldering boards, making suggestions to the hardware guys, even helping them to de-bug their hardware (by writing little code snippets for them). And they would do the same for me. Anything went. A total atmosphere of collaboration and cooperation. And great great fun. My goodness me, the antics we used to get up to! In these companies, they are definately looking for 'outside the box' thinking (to use a rather phrase). And they don't like "that's not *my* job" snobs... "So, you're the new software engineer, huh? Good. Roll your sleeves up. Grab a soldering iron. We got boards to build!" Unfortunately they got bought by a massive Hong Kong/China outfit. They got assimilated. Resistance was indeed, futile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-12 18:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0512408a-e4a7-4df4-99fa-fb4407fa6d83@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15615 |
On Sep 12, 12:45 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 12, 12:50 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > In large companies, that is definately true. Resitance is futile. You > *will* be assimilated. > > However, I once worked for a very small company (early 90's). There > were exactly four staff when I started, including the managing > director. I was number five. We eventually got up to seven! Working > there was a blast. I was the 'softy' but I was encouraged to 'muck in' > and do other jobs where possible, including driving the antiquated > fork-lift truck. Soldering boards, making suggestions to the hardware > guys, even helping them to de-bug their hardware (by writing little > code snippets for them). And they would do the same for me. Anything > went. A total atmosphere of collaboration and cooperation. And great > great fun. My goodness me, the antics we used to get up to! In these > companies, they are definately looking for 'outside the box' thinking > (to use a rather phrase). And they don't like "that's not *my* job" > snobs... > > "So, you're the new software engineer, huh? Good. Roll your sleeves > up. Grab a soldering iron. We got boards to build!" > > Unfortunately they got bought by a massive Hong Kong/China outfit. > They got assimilated. Resistance was indeed, futile.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Working at Testra was pretty fun. A big company would not have said: "So you wrote a 65c02 cross-compiler as a hobby project --- your job here will be to write the development system for the MiniForth without any help whatsoever and with a specification that changes daily --- good luck!" The downside of course was that I wasn't making enough money to pay my rent and I had to live in my van and sleep in the parking lot. There was a lot of talk about how, just as soon as things got rolling, there was going to be beaucoup money and I would be glad to have gotten in on the ground floor. Unfortunately, no massive Hong Kong outfit ever showed up with suitcases full of cash --- I wrote MFX in 1995 and nothing has happened at Testra since that time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-12 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1d5a4ee-b3d8-4e36-bbdf-cdaf539a18e8@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15615 |
On Sep 12, 12:45 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > "So, you're the new software engineer, huh? Good. Roll your sleeves > up. Grab a soldering iron. We got boards to build!" When I was at Testra I was told many times that I would be a lot more valuable if I were also an electrical technician. I never made that jump though --- that is essentially why I'm not employed there anymore. During the development of the software there was plenty of work. I could put in as many hours as I wanted (I was paid by the hour, not on a salary). As the development of the software concluded however, the hours available dwindled because there just wasn't that much to do anymore. They said: "Well, if we discover any bugs we will call you and you can come in to fix them, but we don't really need anymore features --- and bravo on writing bug-free software, btw!" At this time, they were pretty focused on production (building boards) but research-and-development was something they were glad to be done with (R&D is just a waste of money according to the bean-counters, but boards are like beans in that you can count them as part of the inventory). At this time I was down to 5-ish hours per week at Testra, which wasn't enough to buy food, and nevermind rent. So I got a job at a factory as an inspector (ISO9000, woo hoo!). The problem was that when Testra did find a bug they began screaming that they needed me to fix it right away. They couldn't wait for the weekend when I had time off from the factory. I ended up losing the factory job because I would stay up late at night fixing some bug in the Testra code and then show up late for work the next morning or at least too sleepy to work effectively. Testra was fun, but I wouldn't do it again. I make more money driving a cab. The only downside is my exposure to violence --- it is still better than working in a factory though, which is awfully boring.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-12 20:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <k2pp5n$gf5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15613 |
Hugh Aguilar wrote: > On Sep 8, 9:12 pm, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote: > > ... > > 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. I know about bosses who treat staff like children and do their best to control them. Thankfully they weren't all like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 19:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16463978-d023-4819-84ec-ad8bd30b8486@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15349 |
On Aug 31, 5:51 pm, "Greg Bailey" <g...@greenarraychips.com> wrote: > For the record, the original polyFORTH model was created in a pleasant one > day session involving mainly Chuck, Elizabeth, Dean Sanderson, and me. > Since that model included code and configuration decisions contributed by > each of the four of us based on real world application work we had each been > doing recently for real paying customers, I would like to correct the above > assertion. Chuck Moore did not "write polyFORTH". I've never heard of anything being created in one day. This reminds me of how Elizabeth Rather said that she designed the database for the FedEx project. I've heard sales-people say that before. It usually means that they interviewed the customer and found out what fields each record needs. When I was working as an IBM370 programmer I sometimes had a CSR (customer service rep) and sometimes I was my own CSR in which case I got to "design" the program as well as write it. I definitely preferred to have a CSR deal with the customer, as the customer was usually a blithering idiot and it could take hours to nail them down on a specification that was at least self-consistent. It is a common psychological technique for salespeople to "identify with the product" --- what this means in practice is an irksome habit of taking credit for everything. I don't take credit for anything unless I actually write it, and (the important part) it actually works. For example, I wrote MFX entirely myself and it worked. There was another programmer who wrote a few low- level assembly-language functions that I was unprepared to write myself (such as the 16 by 16 bit integer addition), but there was not much like this that he did, and I could have figured it out myself eventually --- he was just giving me a hand, but I was always the designer/programmer of MFX. All of the advice that my boss John Hart gave me regarding MFX design was bad and I didn't follow it. He was expecting a traditional onboard Forth system, but MFX really had to be a cross-compiler and that is what I wrote --- I think they later used MFX to write an onboard Forth system to get interactive development, but I wasn't involved in that. > Finally, if Elizabeth looked at my code and told me she believed it sucked, > I would take her comment seriously and grok where she was coming from. But > then I have been a professional programmer for 47 years and so perhaps that > makes it easier for me not to take honest criticism personally. As I said, Elizabeth Rather has never looked at my code. Why don't you? With your 47 years of experience you should be able to quickly determine if it "sucks" --- and, more importantly, articulate this opinion without any vulgarity. That would be something new for comp.lang.forth! :-) Here it is: http://www.forth.org/novice.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6cc1b4e1-e66b-45a0-a58b-39a153d543c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15504 |
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 10:28:26 PM UTC-4, Hugh Aguilar wrote: > As I said, Elizabeth Rather has never looked at my code. Why don't > you? With your 47 years of experience you should be able to quickly > determine if it "sucks" --- and, more importantly, articulate this > opinion without any vulgarity. That would be something new for > comp.lang.forth! :-) You're setting a pretty low bar for yourself, Hugh. Asking people to look at your code is asking them to evaluate your skills as a coder. Now, there are people who are very good coders. They can take descriptions of algorithms and data structures that others have worked out and come up with very good code. On that, I have no real opinion of your code in symtab. As I've written many times before, it may be the best implementation possible of the code. Bravo! But you didn't come into comp.lang.forth claiming you were a good coder. You came here and offered symtab as a completely original idea for how to efficiently handle symbol tables. But it's not original (you only think so because you refuse to do research) and it's not efficient (you aren't counting the memory or processor cycles cost). *THAT* is what sucks about symtab, and that takes a bit more thought in evaluating than just quickly scanning your code. But hey, set that bar lower, Hugh! As for vulgarity, maybe you're right. People with delicate sensibilities like yourself may see the word "sucks" and immediately jump from the colloquial sense that I used it in to something more racy. The vast majority of the rest of the planet doesn't do that, but hey, you're special. So let me apologize for saying symtab sucks. I should have been more professional, more carefully picking my words. How about this: Symtab is an optimal implementation of a sub-optimal idea. There, are we all better now?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web