Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41632 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-01 00:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-06 01:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 132 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 00:49 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-09-01 04:18 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-01 09:51 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Andreas Wagner <andreas.wagner@lowfatcomputing.org> - 2015-09-01 10:23 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 13:53 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 17:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 18:27 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 21:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 00:27 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 21:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 01:10 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 22:19 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 23:31 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 07:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 08:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:05 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:07 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 13:08 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-05 16:32 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-05 22:19 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 13:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-06 12:09 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0500
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-07 15:36 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 09:46 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 14:20 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:52 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 12:11 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 19:56 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-09-06 13:01 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 18:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 19:43 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 19:46 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 13:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-08 17:27 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 19:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-08 20:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 21:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 21:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-09-10 15:20 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-10 14:57 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2015-09-10 20:47 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2015-09-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-11 10:16 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 07:42 +0300
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:41 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 19:24 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 20:59 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 15:47 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-11 08:15 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-04 19:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 17:48 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 21:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-05 00:53 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 03:51 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 18:58 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 23:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 23:44 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-05 08:54 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 01:35 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 02:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:05 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:22 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 15:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 07:49 +0300
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 15:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:16 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:34 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 09:08 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 20:49 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 00:56 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 21:11 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 21:07 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:38 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-10 20:46 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 01:16 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-10 22:50 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 21:21 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 08:26 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:13 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-10 00:12 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 11:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 20:55 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 02:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? november.nihal@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 03:36 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Marek Brunda <marekb@phoenics.org> - 2015-09-09 03:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-09 07:34 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-09 12:32 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-10 17:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-09 18:59 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 12:28 -0700
structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-09 07:10 +0000
Re: structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 02:18 -0700
Re: structs/unions/records rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 23:18 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 09:55 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 18:45 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-08 01:51 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 18:27 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 12:23 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 16:14 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 17:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 01:39 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 03:12 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:02 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:13 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? josv@planet.nl - 2015-09-01 12:37 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-01 22:02 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 03:45 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 07:54 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 19:08 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 15:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 23:18 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? p.lad.work@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 05:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 06:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 18:44 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-05 17:47 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-06 10:55 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 09:13 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 01:37 -0400
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c26f2ad-f4c9-4364-b53e-e58132e52fda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41781 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 1:19:04 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Sharing killfiles is one of the things on my to-do list for a net2o social > network. Most social networks have a way to share friends (invitations), > but no way to share enemies in an unmoderated way. ENEMIES SHARE That would Kick Butt!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Sep6.140911@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #41781 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Sharing killfiles is one of the things on my to-do list for a net2o social
>network.
There was an attempt of that for Usenet, called NoCeM
<http://www.cm.org/faq.html>. Somehow it did not catch on. It did
not have that much support in clients, and apparently traditional
cancelbots were good enough for spam, and traditional killfiles were
good enough for dealing with trolls and kooks for traditional Usenet
users.
There were supposedly many people who did not want to maintain (and
maybe not know about) their own killfiles, and they apparently left
for web fora that had moderators and/or a user-based rating
functionality. In the meantime the web fora are no longer that
popular, either, apparently people now go for social networks or
stackoverflow.com. But these give general ratings, not personalized
ones (while Google and Amazon give personalized results, but under
their, not your control).
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sJqdnTtOxeITGHHInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #41789 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> Sharing killfiles is one of the things on my to-do list for a net2o social >> network. > > There was an attempt of that for Usenet, called NoCeM > <http://www.cm.org/faq.html>. Somehow it did not catch on. [snip] It didn't 'cause it couldn't ;/ It didn't/doesn't address the actual problem. There are those whose posts are inherently "white noise". Those are conveniently handeled by so-called "killfiles". [I've implemented that for c.l.f by marking any post by H... A..... as read and only displaying "unread" posts.] Now if only I could do the same for "H... A..... said/wrote"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Sep7.173621@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #41798 |
Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>>> Sharing killfiles is one of the things on my to-do list for a net2o social
>>> network.
>>
>> There was an attempt of that for Usenet, called NoCeM
>> <http://www.cm.org/faq.html>. Somehow it did not catch on. [snip]
>
>It didn't 'cause it couldn't ;/
>It didn't/doesn't address the actual problem.
>
>There are those whose posts are inherently "white noise".
>Those are conveniently handeled by so-called "killfiles".
> [I've implemented that for c.l.f by marking any post by H...
>A..... as read and
> only displaying "unread" posts.]
>
>Now if only I could do the same for "H... A..... said/wrote"
I guess some newsreaders can, if you work hard enough on the kill
rule.
But NoCeMs (or sharing of killfile information) would be another way
to deal with that: The first reader sees such a posting, rates it
down, the newsreader sends out a NoCeM posting, and everyone who reads
the group later and trusts this first reader would not see that
posting.
So if that is "the actual problem", NoCeMs would provide relief (not a
total solution, but still).
Or maybe by combining the two ideas you would get a total solution
(but I would be nervous about having very general rules by other
people automatically added to my killfile).
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff8092a3-9a72-4b99-b2e0-863c9c57cda4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41816 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 8:44:45 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > So if that is "the actual problem", NoCeMs would provide relief (not a > total solution, but still). Wouldn't it be easier just to accept the disambiguifiers? Right now, ANS-Forth completely fails to provide portability between programs. SwiftForth, VFX and gForth all handle tick and FIND completely differently. The special-case words (such as IF etc.) are also sometimes immediate and sometimes non-immediate, and they sometimes work in EXECUTE and sometimes not, plus we have that very bizarre "feature" (your term; I couldn't make this stuff up) in which FIND returns a different xt depending upon whether STATE is true or not at the time that FIND executes. The disambiguifiers fix all of this. Tick and FIND work for all of these words, all of the words are immediate, all of them have an xt (only one xt) and it works when given to EXECUTE. The disambiguifiers are written in ANS-Forth and they allow ANS-Forth code to be totally portable! Also, you don't have to give me any credit at all --- you can say that you invented the disambiguifiers yourself way back in 2009: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/lc53/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ On Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 3:24:06 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Hugh Aguilar <hugoaguilar@rosycrew.com> writes: > >On Nov 25, 4:14=A0am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > >wrote: > >> >On Nov 25, 8:57=3DA0am, Hugh Aguilar <hugoagui...@rosycrew.com> wrote: > >> >> I don't use gforth. What does that error message mean? What is a > >> >> "compile-only word?" > >> > >> A word without interpretation semantics. > >> > >> >It doesn't like you taking the address of ";" , though I don't > >> >understand why. > >> > >> Because ";" has no execution or interpretation semantics. =A0The > >> execution token returned by ['] represents the execution semantics, > >> but since ";" does not have that ... > > > >I don't understand how a word can not have execution semantics. > > That's quite simple: By not defining execution semantics in the > definition of the word in the standard document. Look up the > definition of ";" in the standard, and you will see that there is no > "Execution:" section there; and there are other labeled sections > there, so the "omitted label" sentence of 3.4.3.1 does not apply. > > >For immediate words (IF, ;, etc.) > > IF and ";" are not immediate words in the standard. A system can > implement them as immediate words, but a program cannot rely on their > immediacy. > > >I looked up ['] in the ANS-Forth document and it says: > > > >"Place name's execution token xt on the stack." > > What's the execution token of a word that has no execution semantics. > > Hmm, since you think that ";" is immediate, I guess you want an > execution token that, when executed, performs the compilation > semantics. You can get that as follows. Before the rest of the > program, define: > > : ; postpone ; ; immediate > > Now you have an immediate ";" with an execution semantics that's the > same as the compilation semantics, and you can tick it. I can think of some reasons why you won't accept the disambiguifiers: 1.) If tick and FIND work correctly, the user can write an outer-interpreter, which is a crucial aspect of writing a cross-compiler. Cross-compilers are where the money is (for MPE and Forth Inc.), so you want to prevent gForth from being used to write a cross-compiler in competition with MPE and Forth Inc.. 2.) You want to prevent ANS-Forth programs from being portable. MPE and Forth Inc. rely heavily on vendor lock-in to hold their customers --- they don't want Forth programmers to be able to port programs to a competitor's Forth system --- so you promote the idea that it is legal ANS-Forth for tick and FIND to work (or just abort, as in gForth) completely differently from one ANS-Forth system to the next. 3.) Leon Wagner told you not to accept the disambiguifiers, and you do what he tells you to do --- it is not for you to question why --- you don't actually know why they are disallowed, but you wish Leon Wagner had told you that they were disallowed before you invented them in 2009 and described them in that thread mentioned above (you think that I'm too dumb to invent them myself, and in fact it did take me until 2015 to find the solution on my own).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a419d87-3dd4-4fbf-aa5a-383a9a19b192@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41769 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 9:38:37 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> writes: > >I'm new to Forth. :) I'm enjoying myself and learning a lot. > > Good for you. > > > I don't know w= > >hat my future in the Forth community will be, but if anything is to drive m= > >e out, it'd be stuff like this. It reminds me a lot of the Smug Lisp Weenie= > > and the Insufferable Haskell P***k, of the attitude that "my opinion and v= > >iews are the only valid ones, and if you disagree with me, then you're an i= > >diot and destructive and you don't belong around here." > > Well, most Usenet groups have their kooks, and in Usenet everybody has > to do the rating of posters and postings themselves, and all proper > Usenet clients have killfiles or other mechanisms for that purpose. I > think that Google Groups does not, so in that case just skip the > content manually, or switch to a proper Usenet client. > > - anton Anton Ertl is the same guy who wrote gForth: 1.) In gForth, tick aborts on a significant number (51) of the words in the ANS-Forth standard. 2.) FIND returns an xt for these special-case words, but it is a different xt depending upon whether STATE is true or false at the time that FIND executes. Anton Ertl claims to be an expert on ANS-Forth, and claims that gForth is the reference compiler for ANS-Forth. Why is Anton Ertl considered to be an expert on ANS-Forth, and why is gForth considered to be an ANS-Forth compiler? The answer, is because Elizabeth Rather says so --- ANS-Forth is a cult; it is all about brown-nosing Elizabeth Rather, and it has nothing to do with portability of programs. The reason why Elizabeth Rather appointed Anton Ertl, is because Anton Ertl agreed to make gForth generate code that executes at less than half the speed of SwiftForth code, so gForth would not be competitive with SwiftForth. Now Anton Ertl calls me a "kook" because I point out that Elizabeth Rather is not a Forth programmer: On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is > far more useful than the FSL version: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; This is just gross brown-nosing --- Anton has sold out his integrity to a corporate salesperson.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 20:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e5cdd295-cbd9-487d-a075-6a41ff055939@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41783 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 2:20:04 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 9:38:37 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > > Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> writes: > > >I'm new to Forth. :) I'm enjoying myself and learning a lot. > > > > Good for you. My first-ever ANS-Forth program was the LowDraw.4th program (in the novice package now). It was pretty simple and I didn't run into any problems. Nobody said, "good for you," but nobody denounced me either. My second ANS-Forth program was the LC53 encryption-cracking program: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/lc53/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ In this case, I got denounced for not knowing ANS-Forth, because my program didn't work on gForth (I had only tested it on SwiftForth). It turned out that in gForth tick will abort when given ; to look up. Anton Ertl says that this is not a bug in gForth, but that this compliant with the ANS-Forth standard, and I should have known. I have since rewritten my macro word to use late-binding rather than early-binding so I don't have to obtain xt values anymore, so now my program works under gForth too (everything in the novice package has been tested under SwiftForth, gForth, Win32Forth and now VFX). Anton Ertl has never taken back what he said about me not being an ANS-Forth programmer, and he continues to say that I'm not an ANS-Forth programmer. Elizabeth Rather has always insisted that I'm not a Forth programmer at all --- she conflates ANS-Forth with Forth in general. > > > I don't know w= > > >hat my future in the Forth community will be, but if anything is to drive m= > > >e out, it'd be stuff like this. It reminds me a lot of the Smug Lisp Weenie= > > > and the Insufferable Haskell P***k, of the attitude that "my opinion and v= > > >iews are the only valid ones, and if you disagree with me, then you're an i= > > >diot and destructive and you don't belong around here." > > > > Well, most Usenet groups have their kooks, and in Usenet everybody has > > to do the rating of posters and postings themselves, and all proper > > Usenet clients have killfiles or other mechanisms for that purpose. I > > think that Google Groups does not, so in that case just skip the > > content manually, or switch to a proper Usenet client. > > > > - anton > > Anton Ertl is the same guy who wrote gForth: > 1.) In gForth, tick aborts on a significant number (51) of the words in the ANS-Forth standard. > 2.) FIND returns an xt for these special-case words, but it is a different xt depending upon whether STATE is true or false at the time that FIND executes. Anton Ertl is the worst possible choice to be the chairperson of the Forth-200x committee, because he either doesn't understand the concept of portability or he is actively opposed to it. His bizarre tick and FIND are not compatible with any other ANS-Forth system, and are in fact not compatible with any Forth of any kind that has ever existed. Stephen Pelc (also on the ANS-Forth committee) has a completely different take on the above 51 words. In VFX it is possible to obtain an xt for them with tick or FIND, but the xt aborts when executed (it is a non-executing execution-token). Weirdly enough, these words are non-immediate in VFX, although they are immediate in SwiftForth and every other Forth that I know of going back 30 years. Anyway, I have a way to disambiguify all of these words. With the following code, all of these words will provide an xt when given to tick or FIND, it will be immediate, and it will work properly when the xt is given to EXECUTE. I figured out how to write disambiguifiers in this thread (although Anton Ertl had already hinted about how to write disambiguifiers in the thread mentioned above): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/oXXQAGDKP7w%5B1-25%5D And, (drum roll.....), here are the disambiguifiers: : +loop state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: +LOOP ***" postpone +loop ; immediate : ." state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: .quote ***" postpone ." ; immediate : ; state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ; ***" postpone ; ; immediate : >r state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: >R ***" postpone >r ; immediate : abort" state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ABORTquote ***" postpone abort" ; immediate : begin state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: BEGIN ***" postpone begin ; immediate : do state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: DO ***" postpone do ; immediate : does> state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: DOES> ***" postpone does> ; immediate : else state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ELSE ***" postpone else ; immediate : exit state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: EXIT ***" postpone exit ; immediate : I state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: I ***" postpone I ; immediate : if state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: IF ***" postpone if ; immediate : J state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: J ***" postpone J ; immediate : leave state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: LEAVE ***" postpone leave ; immediate : literal state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: LITERAL ***" postpone literal ; immediate : loop state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: LOOP ***" postpone loop ; immediate : postpone state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: POSTPONE ***" postpone postpone ; immediate : r> state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: R> ***" postpone r> ; immediate : r@ state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: R@ ***" postpone r@ ; immediate : recurse state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: RECURSE ***" postpone recurse ; immediate : repeat state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: REPEAT ***" postpone repeat ; immediate : s" state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: Squote ***" postpone s" ; immediate : then state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: THEN ***" postpone then ; immediate : unloop state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: UNLOOP ***" postpone unloop ; immediate : until state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: UNTIL ***" postpone until ; immediate : while state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: WHILE ***" postpone while ; immediate : [ state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: [ ***" postpone [ ; immediate : ['] state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ['] ***" postpone ['] ; immediate : [char] state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: [CHAR] ***" postpone [char] ; immediate : 2>r state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: 2>R ***" postpone 2>r ; immediate : 2r> state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: 2R> ***" postpone 2r> ; immediate : 2r@ state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: 2R@ ***" postpone 2r@ ; immediate : ?do state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ?DO ***" postpone ?do ; immediate : again state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: AGAIN ***" postpone again ; immediate : c" state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: Cquote ***" postpone c" ; immediate : case state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: CASE ***" postpone case ; immediate : compile, state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: COMPILE, ***" postpone compile, ; immediate : endcase state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ENDCASE ***" postpone endcase ; immediate : endof state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ENDOF ***" postpone endof ; immediate : of state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: OF ***" postpone of ; immediate : [compile] state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: [COMPILE] ***" postpone [compile] ; immediate : 2literal state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: 2LITERAL ***" postpone 2literal ; immediate : fliteral state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: FLITERAL ***" postpone fliteral ; immediate : (local) state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: (LOCAL) ***" postpone (local) ; immediate : locals| state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: LOCALS| ***" postpone locals| ; immediate : ;code state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: ;CODE ***" postpone ;code ; immediate : ahead state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: AHEAD ***" postpone ahead ; immediate : cs-pick state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: CS-PICK ***" postpone cs-pick ; immediate : cs-roll state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: CS-ROLL ***" postpone cs-roll ; immediate : sliteral state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: SLITERAL ***" postpone sliteral ; immediate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bb01cbd-4c6c-4b40-9681-97e0ca39e479@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41760 |
> Ah well. I imagine I'll be called an idiot now, after which point I'll just let the matter drop. I just wanted to add my point of view on what is *really* destructive. Welcome to forth! Appreciate your comment and chiming in. I've been on and off this group over the years and I really would like to see forth become more mainstream. It's exactly the things you mentioned that made me (try) to make an effort and put a positive spin on all things forth and the philosophy around it. -Mux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aee1940a-1660-4476-959a-0ebf68d21134@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41760 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 8:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alfred Singlestone wrote: > "my opinion and views are the only valid ones, and if you disagree with me, then you're an idiot and destructive and you don't belong around here." That is the attitude of the ANS-Forth-Standard promoters --- that is, in fact, the definition of the word "Standard" --- Elizabeth Rather has had this attitude since 1994 when ANS-Forth became the Standard (with a capital 'S') for the entire Forth community. She was likely saying this before 1994 too --- but she didn't have the ANSI certification then --- after 1994 she had a club to beat people over the head with, that she had lacked previously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg <borota@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da26bc07-688b-4107-821f-ec06254c2a8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41786 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 9:56:59 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 8:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alfred Singlestone wrote: > > "my opinion and views are the only valid ones, and if you disagree with me, then you're an idiot and destructive and you don't belong around here." > > That is the attitude of the ANS-Forth-Standard promoters --- that is, in fact, the definition of the word "Standard" --- Elizabeth Rather has had this attitude since 1994 when ANS-Forth became the Standard (with a capital 'S') for the entire Forth community. > > She was likely saying this before 1994 too --- but she didn't have the ANSI certification then --- after 1994 she had a club to beat people over the head with, that she had lacked previously. Searching this forum for miscellaneous things one can run into some great ideas some bright minds have contributed here over the years. But there seems to be a need to shift through a lot of "ore" before one can get to the scattered pieces of gold. Here are some questions though that I have based on some posts I run into while searching the forum for who knows what: 1) Jeff Fox on his http://www.ultratechnology.com and some of the posts here seemed to be so anti-ANSI and anti-'C' yet they decided at iTV to use, of all, a Forth implemented in 'C' and an ANSI one - gForth. And opposite to some of the posts in this thread, he was quite positive about its performance claiming it surpassed some of the commercial offerings out there. 2) I know Jeff Fox is no longer here to defend but it will help me to understand if it is worth spending some of the limited time I have on investigating Jeff's claims/ideas. To me it seemed like he had a little tendency to exaggerate what he was able to do, what had been accomplished, etc. He and his team would have been "able" to take on MS and steal their cash cow from them, yet when faced with reality they didn't even implement their own "best" non-ANSI Forth but settled for a 'C' based, ANS Forth, open source implementation. Am I missing something here? Or did he became Anti-'C'/Anti-Ans Forth after iTV going belly up? 3) It would seem that Jeff and Chuck would dismiss a library like Hugh's novice package as just another attempt to 'C'-ify Forth. But then my question is, what would you use instead of say C structures/unions (or records in Pascal) which to me seem essential? By the way, Jeff Fox was quite positive about Elizabeth teaching abilities and the good Forth skills/techniques those who follow her books/classes acquire, in a bunch of the posts here that I run into...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62e1ded5-1982-4887-95e5-113c5f47eee1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41794 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:39:57 PM UTC+2, Greg wrote: [..] > 3) It would seem that Jeff and Chuck would dismiss a library [..] > as just another attempt to 'C'-ify Forth. I think they dismiss(ed) libraries not because of C-isms, but because of their belief one should solve the immediate problem, and *only* the immediate problem (i.e. every incarnation will be slightly different from the previous one). > But then my question > is, what would you use instead of say C structures/unions > (or records in Pascal) which to me seem essential? Which immediate computing problem do *you personally* have that needs generalized structures/unions/records (*not* somebody else's problem or the one from the C/Pascal cookbooks)? I have written thousands of Forth programs that didn't need structures, and those where I attempted s/u/r the constructs probably wouldn't survive a rewrite if I revised them. There are cases where *something like* s/u/r naturally follows from the problem, but where Forth allows one to implement it in a way that is not normally recognized as a structure. A C-program I help maintain has an enormous amount of structures. It also has structures that contain pointers to other structures (but also other things :-), and where macros are used to abbreviate the syntax of these nested constructs. The end result is that one is completely dependent on very advanced tools (Intellisense) to understand what is going on. It leads to having to recompile the complete programma so you can use the debugger to see what the source code means. -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | borota@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e63bf537-5a12-4a17-87b4-36f14639bebd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41799 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 3:01:46 PM UTC-5, m...@iae.nl wrote: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:39:57 PM UTC+2, Greg wrote: > [..] > > 3) It would seem that Jeff and Chuck would dismiss a library [..] > > as just another attempt to 'C'-ify Forth. > > I think they dismiss(ed) libraries not because of C-isms, > but because of their belief one should solve the immediate > problem, and *only* the immediate problem (i.e. every > incarnation will be slightly different from the previous > one). > > > But then my question > > is, what would you use instead of say C structures/unions > > (or records in Pascal) which to me seem essential? > > Which immediate computing problem do *you personally* > have that needs generalized structures/unions/records > (*not* somebody else's problem or the one from the > C/Pascal cookbooks)? > > I have written thousands of Forth programs that didn't > need structures, and those where I attempted s/u/r the > constructs probably wouldn't survive a rewrite if I > revised them. There are cases where *something like* > s/u/r naturally follows from the problem, but where > Forth allows one to implement it in a way that is not > normally recognized as a structure. > > A C-program I help maintain has an enormous amount of > structures. It also has structures that contain pointers > to other structures (but also other things :-), and > where macros are used to abbreviate the syntax of > these nested constructs. The end result is that one > is completely dependent on very advanced tools > (Intellisense) to understand what is going on. It > leads to having to recompile the complete programma > so you can use the debugger to see what the source > code means. > > -marcel Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. But it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the first things I do is identifying and designing the structures (classes).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a208c85f-e1eb-497f-9497-fe4b63e7ce78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41804 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:48:05 PM UTC-7, bor...@gmail.com wrote: > Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. > But it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the first things I do is identifying and designing the structures (classes). All of my programs rely heavily structs --- the novice package's data-structures obviously require structs to hold the data --- I don't think that anybody can write a "real Forth application" without structs. The last time that I programmed without benefit of structs, was QBasic --- I worked around the lack of structs by having an array for each field, and using an index rather than an address --- that was pretty crude. BTW: I don't know what "s/u/r" means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | borota@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <040e4ebb-4f0f-45d4-91a0-fe06cf4ddf1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41805 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:43:14 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:48:05 PM UTC-7, bor...@gmail.com wrote: > > Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. > > But it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the first things I do is identifying and designing the structures (classes). > > All of my programs rely heavily structs --- the novice package's data-structures obviously require structs to hold the data --- I don't think that anybody can write a "real Forth application" without structs. > > The last time that I programmed without benefit of structs, was QBasic --- I worked around the lack of structs by having an array for each field, and using an index rather than an address --- that was pretty crude. > > BTW: I don't know what "s/u/r" means. s/u/r - I just re-used Marcel's abbreviation for structure/union/record. Hugh, on a more personal note, I am almost cringing when I am replying to you, because I totally not agree with the kind of language you are using in your posts, personal attacks and name callings. I can see you have a very bright mind but your emotional IQ seems to have not quite catch up. I and probably others on this forum would love to have some fruitful exchange with you, because you do have lots to give but as long as some level of decent civility is not achieved, that would not be possible. It's hard for me to figure that a person as bright as you and with such and impressive resume as yours, can't find a decently paid work in the field you love and have invested so much energy in. Could it be that it's not Elizabeth's or Forth's fault for such a state of things??? Right now there is a huge demand for software developers in US. Such that even rookies get paid well into the 6 figures salaries. My company would certainly be very much interested to hire somebody like you - we hire people all over US. But could I "risk" recommending you, when I see what you are you doing here on this forum?... Sometimes we are own worst enemy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 19:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msndv8$7as$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41805 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:48:05 PM UTC-7, bor...@gmail.com wrote: > > Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth > > application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. But Why? Why would depriving yourself of structures make programming easier? Why would depriving yourself of structures make your programs more readable and maintainable? Do you really want to accept the advice of a simpleton as the word of God? Having no structs in Forth doesn't make things easier for the users of Forh. It may, however, make it easier for the lazy implementors of Forth. > > it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, > > because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the > > first things I do is identifying and designing the > > structures (classes). > > All of my programs rely heavily structs --- the novice > package's data-structures obviously require structs to hold > the data --- I don't think that anybody can write a "real > Forth application" without structs. "Ms." Rather's assertion that Forth doesn't need structures (records) because different programs use different data arranged in different ways is mindless. One could say that Forth doesn't need strings for the same reason. Some can't grasp that different programs use strings that are different in length and that contain different characters. Similarly, different programs use structures that have different fields. The data layout doesn't have to be the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | borota@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03bbb5ce-d533-46d5-ab0f-861e191deb3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41858 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:48:45 PM UTC-5, WJ wrote: > hughaguilar96 wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:48:05 PM UTC-7, bor...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth > > > application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. But > > Why? > > Why would depriving yourself of structures make programming easier? > > Why would depriving yourself of structures make your programs > more readable and maintainable? > > Do you really want to accept the advice of a simpleton as the > word of God? > > Having no structs in Forth doesn't make things easier for the > users of Forh. It may, however, make it easier for the lazy > implementors of Forth. > > > > > it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, > > > because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the > > > first things I do is identifying and designing the > > > structures (classes). > > > > All of my programs rely heavily structs --- the novice > > package's data-structures obviously require structs to hold > > the data --- I don't think that anybody can write a "real > > Forth application" without structs. > > "Ms." Rather's assertion that Forth doesn't need structures > (records) because different programs use different data > arranged in different ways is mindless. > > One could say that Forth doesn't need strings for the same > reason. Some can't grasp that different programs use strings that > are different in length and that contain different characters. > > Similarly, different programs use structures that have different > fields. The data layout doesn't have to be the same. At this stage I am learning Forth just to expand my horizon. So to be real honest, who cares? For mind "expansion", learning to program without structures would be an interesting mind exercise indeed. I learn Forth completely as a hobby, I don't really need to, my day work is in a much different fold, a fold where almost everything is done opposite of how things are advocated here. Also note that both Jeff Fox (when he was amongst us) and Chuck Moore are of exactly the same mindset as Elizabeth as far as this topic is concerned. So maybe the ala HA epithets don't quite apply? I haven't been around these parts much, but I already begin to wonder if HA and WJ have something in common, like being one and the same person?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jim.brakefield@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 17:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ceeed2c-264c-4849-adfb-3b9c8f7f15d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41859 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:28:19 PM UTC-5, bor...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:48:45 PM UTC-5, WJ wrote:
> > hughaguilar96 wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:48:05 PM UTC-7, bor...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth
> > > > application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. But
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Why would depriving yourself of structures make programming easier?
> >
> > Why would depriving yourself of structures make your programs
> > more readable and maintainable?
> >
> > Do you really want to accept the advice of a simpleton as the
> > word of God?
> >
> > Having no structs in Forth doesn't make things easier for the
> > users of Forh. It may, however, make it easier for the lazy
> > implementors of Forth.
> >
> >
> > > > it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me,
> > > > because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the
> > > > first things I do is identifying and designing the
> > > > structures (classes).
> > >
> > > All of my programs rely heavily structs --- the novice
> > > package's data-structures obviously require structs to hold
> > > the data --- I don't think that anybody can write a "real
> > > Forth application" without structs.
> >
> > "Ms." Rather's assertion that Forth doesn't need structures
> > (records) because different programs use different data
> > arranged in different ways is mindless.
> >
> > One could say that Forth doesn't need strings for the same
> > reason. Some can't grasp that different programs use strings that
> > are different in length and that contain different characters.
> >
> > Similarly, different programs use structures that have different
> > fields. The data layout doesn't have to be the same.
>
> At this stage I am learning Forth just to expand my horizon. So to be real
> honest, who cares? For mind "expansion", learning to program without
> structures would be an interesting mind exercise indeed. I learn Forth
> completely as a hobby, I don't really need to, my day work is in a much
> different fold, a fold where almost everything is done opposite of how
> things are advocated here.
>
> Also note that both Jeff Fox (when he was amongst us) and Chuck Moore are
> of exactly the same mindset as Elizabeth as far as this topic is concerned.
> So maybe the ala HA epithets don't quite apply? I haven't been around these
> parts much, but I already begin to wonder if HA and WJ have something in
> common, like being one and the same person?
Have mixed feelings about Forth and why it never outgrew its roots:
It's great to have a complete environment on a small embedded processor.
Forth is great for embedded debug/development. Highly factored Forth words result in the best code density available.
However, the notation is archaic. ( ) [ ] { } are all taken and have idiosyncratic usage. Tick has the right meaning. Would prefer JSON be supported: [ ] { } and : would need to have dedicated meanings that would break most existing Forth code? Of course one can create a JSON vocabulary and overwrite existing usage for the duration of the JSON data (done already?).
Then there is optimization: ITC, DTC, subroutine threaded, etc. are understood and supported. However conditionals and looping can be expressed at a higher level using concatenative or JSON syntax and letting the compiler inline the anonymous subroutines into the traditional conditional and loop code format. It would open up usage of higher level functional programming constructs.
A way forward is for the Forth standard to embrace as many higher level abstractions (both data and code) as possible and state the meaning. Let the vendors and open source community worry about implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 03:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mso29a$g6t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41867 |
jim.brakefield@ieee.org wrote: > A way forward is for the Forth standard to embrace as many higher level > abstractions (both data and code) as possible and state the meaning. Let > the vendors and open source community worry about implementation. The standard is made by the vendors and free software community that worry about the implementation. It's not like standards come out of thin air and someone else has to implement them. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 19:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87fv2otihy.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #41867 |
jim.brakefield@ieee.org writes: > A way forward is for the Forth standard to embrace as many higher > level abstractions (both data and code) as possible and state the > meaning. I think part of the Forth spirit is to collapse away abstraction rather than add more. This is both enabling and limiting, in their own ways.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5013f13c-174d-41a5-a508-d3b8badbbc04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41873 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 7:48:59 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote: > jim.brakefield@ieee.org writes: > > A way forward is for the Forth standard to embrace as many higher > > level abstractions (both data and code) as possible and state the > > meaning. > > I think part of the Forth spirit is to collapse away abstraction rather > than add more. This is both enabling and limiting, in their own ways. According to Temple Grandin, the distinction between humans and animals is that humans abstractify the world whereas animals view the world primarily in concrete terms with very little abstraction. She is autistic and consequently does much less abstractification than regular people do, and she believes that her own view of the world gives her insight into how animals view the world. The advantage of abstract thinking is that you can free your mind from a lot of tedious detail. For example, if you are walking and you see a dog, you immediately classify it as a dog and you immediately know a lot about it, and you can continue without giving it any further thought and can focus your mind on more important matters. An autistic person can't think abstractly and will have to mentally compare the dog to remembered images of specific animals seen in the past (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) and will have to use a best-match to determine what kind of animal it is. This is very time-consuming and largely prevents autistic people from thinking about important matters, as they get bogged down in thinking about tedious details that regular people skim over. The disadvantage of abstract thinking is that if you see something you have never seen before, you will typically misclassify it and you will not realize that you have seen something new. Regular people don't look at the details, but they assume they see everything they need to know by subconsciously abstractifying what they see, and consequently they can have huge blind spots and be totally unaware of this. BTW: Another thing that I'm sick and tired of, is people talking about the "Forth spirit" as if it were some mystical state of mind that distinguishes Forth programmers from regular people. This is also what Elizabeth Rather was saying: "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." This is nonsense --- just focus on reality --- there is no need to "think differently" like some quasi-mystical dealer in mumbo-jumbo. I don't think that you are qualified to tell us about the "Forth spirit." I remember not long ago that you showed up on comp.lang.forth as a newbie, and I don't recall have ever seen you post any Forth code since that time. I think that you are similar to Elizabeth Rather in that you have promoted yourself to be a teacher of Forth without having ever written any Forth programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web