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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 23:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: structs/unions/records |
| Message-ID | <msqt7a$8g3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41885 |
On 9/9/2015 3:10 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > mhx@iae.nl writes: > >> 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 classical way is to write, say CELL+ instead of TREE-RIGHT, or > somesuch. I find code that uses that approach hard to read, because I > have to know what is on the stack to interpret the intention of CELL+, > whereas the intention of TREE-RIGHT is much clearer. I understand that point. I also have seen code that so hides the man behind the curtain that if I need to know more than "TREE-RIGHT", it can be hard. So hiding the information is not a bad thing inherently, but it can be nice if you leave bread crumbs of some sort. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f815922-2144-4290-8add-8f2011b248c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41794 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:39:57 AM UTC-7, Greg wrote: > 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? I really can't imagine anybody seriously programming without structs --- as I said, QBasic is the last language in which that was done. I was in private communication with Jeff Fox in the last year prior to his death and he never denounced my novice package. He seemed to be okay with it. I've never been in communication with Chuck Moore. Elizabeth Rather has said many times that Chuck Moore hated code libraries such as my novice-package, and that he would always hand-write every line of every program in order to make it super-optimized for the task at hand. Can you provide links to quotes from Jeff Fox or Chuck Moore that corroborate this? Maybe this is just her COBOL background speaking, but she is putting her words in Chuck Moore's mouth to give herself more credibility than she would have if she expressed it as her own opinion. Jeff Fox and Chuck Moore did successfully get Forth programs to work --- I find it very difficult to believe that they did this without structs and without code-libraries --- that really sounds like an urban legend: fan-boys promoting Chuck Moore's god-like genius, imagining how super-optimized code flows from his fingertips to the keyboard, and ignoring the reality of how programs actually get written by flesh-and-blood programmers. That LowDraw.4th program of mine was written before the novice package. I did not write super-optimized code. For example, I used a bubble-sort --- I just didn't want to stop in the middle of what I was doing and delve into a complicated sort algorithm, and it was a small array anyway, so I wrote a bubble-sort and continued with minimal interruption --- this is pretty typical of what happens when people program without benefit of code libraries, and it is very rare for them to go back and upgrade that stuff because the low-level code is mixed in with the application code and there is no good way to separate it. Most of the time, if a Forth program proves to be too inefficient, it gets rewritten in C. > 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... Once again, can you provide links? This is what Jeff said to me in private email after I had said to him that I considered Elizabeth Rather to be an "ultra-liberal" because she was using comp.lang.forth to promote homosexual rights, championing John Passaniti in his right to say that my code "sucks" and is "crap" on the basis of him being gay, and also saying that he is a real Forth programmer and I'm not. "Elizabeth Rather is not one of my favorite people. But you should realize that lots of people in c.l.f think she is their only success story. Some also feel that no one should argue with her 'because she is only a woman.' My recommendation is to ignore the Passaniti troll and deal with Rather more thoughtfully. BTW. She doesn't live in California and is anything but a liberal. I don't think she cares about homosexual rights at all but learned that John would quit saying crap about her if she praised him once in a while and that he would also focus on anyone who would argue with her. It is as simple as that." Most likely, Elizabeth Rather was paying John Passaniti to attack her enemies (mostly Jeff Fox, but also myself) --- John Passaniti quit comp.lang.forth after Jeff Fox died, indicating that he had no interest in comp.lang.forth other than attacking Jeff Fox (the only code he ever posted was in Perl, which seems to be the only programming language he knows) --- I think Jeff Fox went to his grave never considering that "the Passaniti troll" was not just a random troll but was actually getting paid to torment him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 12:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1madqle.1b7w7xw6coqf0N%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #41808 |
<hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: Lies and crap as usual. What a bozo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <341cc4af-9190-409d-8c94-3e4993874f17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41813 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 3:57:40 AM UTC-7, Alexander Wegel wrote: > <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > > Lies and crap as usual. What a bozo. You are opposed to structs too? Down with structs! Only bozos put their data in structs! Real Forth programmers use... um, ahh, something else! What do you use to hold data if not structs? Well, lets get some wisdom from our "leading expert" Elizabeth Rather: "Truly, I don't see the point of all this paranoia about reentrancy, particularly in systems without a multitasker. VARIABLE was *designed* for things that would be used in multiple definitions. I remember the horror of (*gasp*) global variables back in the 1960's in Fortran. But, frankly, in 30+ years of programming in Forth I never found them a problem. I think this is all about mythical dragons." So, f** Hugh Aguilar, and the mythical dragon that he rode in on!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mskm0j$kci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41819 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > Lies and crap as usual. What a bozo. How does this creature think that he knows that you did not accurately quote an email from Jeff Fox? With no proof whatsoever, he labels your statements "lies". He must be an absolute punk, and he is probably a cultural Marxist. > > You are opposed to structs too? > > Down with structs! Only bozos put their data in structs! Real > Forth programmers use... um, ahh, something else! These mindless Forth-fanatics who are incapable of learning simple programming techniques really give the language a bad name. Hiring one of them would be like hiring a handyman who knows how to use no tool but a hammer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1maeh4a.vp6w771x49eioN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #41824 |
WJ <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Lies and crap as usual. What a bozo. > > How does this creature think that By utilizing my brain. Unfortunately a butt doesn't work the same way, so you might not understand. >he knows that you did not accurately quote an email from Jeff Fox? Yes i do. For example there's no context given. (Hugh probably bugged J.F. about that "Passaniti conspiracy" until J.F. had to write something back. We all know Hugh can be persistent as a hemorrhoid. And Hugh hinted that JF probably didn't buy his conspiracy nonsense) But that's not even the part that i had in mind writing "lies". Keep on guessing. BTW: Calling other people "creature" as you did earns you the "dumbest goebbels impersonator of the week" awards. Are you collecting them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 01:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msl7po$q6u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41841 |
Alexander Wegel wrote: > BTW: Calling other people "creature" as you did earns you the "dumbest > goebbels impersonator of the week" awards. Are you collecting them? A "don't feed the trolls" to you, as well. It's pretty obvious who the trolls are here, please put them into your killfile, and be done with it. There's no intelligent life out there in these troll caves, every word is wasted. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1maebpt.960b8zq6gq1iN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #41819 |
<hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 3:57:40 AM UTC-7, Alexander Wegel wrote: > > <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Lies and crap as usual. What a bozo. > > You are opposed to structs too? No, i'm pissed off by you persistantly offending people in a mean and stupid way in my favorite forum. But then: Do you even fathom what i'm about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mskkug$fqd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41808 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > This is what Jeff said to me in private email after I > had said to him that I considered Elizabeth Rather to > be an "ultra-liberal" because she was using > comp.lang.forth to promote homosexual rights, > championing John Passaniti in his right to say that my > code "sucks" and is "crap" on the basis of him being > gay, and also saying that he is a real Forth programmer > and I'm not. > > "Elizabeth Rather is not one of my favorite people. But you should realize > that lots of people in c.l.f think she is their only success story. Some > also feel that no one should argue with her 'because she is only a woman.' The Feminist driven into a corner endeavours to save his face by flatly denying matters open to common observation and admitted as obvious by all who are not Feminists. Such facts are the pathological mental condition peculiar to the female sex, commonly connoted by the term hysteria; the absence, or at best the extremely imperfect development of the logical faculty in most women; the inability of the average woman in her judgment of things to rise above personal considerations; and, what is largely a consequence of this, the lack of a sense of abstract justice and fair play among women in general. The aforesaid peculiarities of women, as women, are, I contend, matters of common observation and are only disputed by those persons---to wit Feminists---to whose theoretical views and practical demands their admission would be inconvenient if not fatal. --- E. Belfort Bax, _The Fraud of Feminism_ (1913)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | borota@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b414d33e-4830-4497-8403-2554c82ea011@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41808 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 1:18:41 AM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:39:57 AM UTC-7, Greg wrote: > > 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? > > I really can't imagine anybody seriously programming without structs --- as I said, QBasic is the last language in which that was done. > > I was in private communication with Jeff Fox in the last year prior to his death and he never denounced my novice package. He seemed to be okay with it. I've never been in communication with Chuck Moore. > > Elizabeth Rather has said many times that Chuck Moore hated code libraries such as my novice-package, and that he would always hand-write every line of every program in order to make it super-optimized for the task at hand. Can you provide links to quotes from Jeff Fox or Chuck Moore that corroborate this? Maybe this is just her COBOL background speaking, but she is putting her words in Chuck Moore's mouth to give herself more credibility than she would have if she expressed it as her own opinion. > > Jeff Fox and Chuck Moore did successfully get Forth programs to work --- I find it very difficult to believe that they did this without structs and without code-libraries --- that really sounds like an urban legend: fan-boys promoting Chuck Moore's god-like genius, imagining how super-optimized code flows from his fingertips to the keyboard, and ignoring the reality of how programs actually get written by flesh-and-blood programmers. > > That LowDraw.4th program of mine was written before the novice package. I did not write super-optimized code. For example, I used a bubble-sort --- I just didn't want to stop in the middle of what I was doing and delve into a complicated sort algorithm, and it was a small array anyway, so I wrote a bubble-sort and continued with minimal interruption --- this is pretty typical of what happens when people program without benefit of code libraries, and it is very rare for them to go back and upgrade that stuff because the low-level code is mixed in with the application code and there is no good way to separate it. Most of the time, if a Forth program proves to be too inefficient, it gets rewritten in C. > > > 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... > > Once again, can you provide links? > > This is what Jeff said to me in private email after I had said to him that I considered Elizabeth Rather to be an "ultra-liberal" because she was using comp.lang.forth to promote homosexual rights, championing John Passaniti in his right to say that my code "sucks" and is "crap" on the basis of him being gay, and also saying that he is a real Forth programmer and I'm not. > > "Elizabeth Rather is not one of my favorite people. But you should realize > that lots of people in c.l.f think she is their only success story. Some > also feel that no one should argue with her 'because she is only a woman.' > > My recommendation is to ignore the Passaniti troll and deal with Rather > more thoughtfully. BTW. She doesn't live in California and is anything > but a liberal. I don't think she cares about homosexual rights at all > but learned that John would quit saying crap about her if she praised > him once in a while and that he would also focus on anyone who would > argue with her. It is as simple as that." > "... when asked, "How would you implement C style structures which are essential to my work?" Chuck's reply was his famous, "I wouldn't." [Moore, 2002] http://www.ultratechnology.com/essence.htm https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/h7dZBYQlSwg/w1J1LsuuGVAJ "... I would be very suprised if Forth Inc. had these kind of problems because they are experts on Classic Forth and teach people how to do it properly." "Forth Inc. doesn't give away their excellent software or their excellent training in how to write and think Forth." I've read other posts like that, and they are found thoroughout this forum. Anyway, the kind of language you are using is not something that I can condone and unless we can stick to discussing technology and what is forum is about, I'll start ignoring your posts. Why not follow Jeff's reasonable advice, BTW?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 16:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mskr3v$afg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41827 |
On 9/7/2015 3:23 PM, borota@gmail.com wrote: > > Anyway, the kind of language you are using is not something that I can condone > and unless we can stick to discussing technology and what is forum is about, > I'll start ignoring your posts. Oh, please, please do! -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 17:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74aa7aa5-f90a-4612-aeb3-ed4b4dccde51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41827 |
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-7, bor...@gmail.com wrote: > "... when asked, "How would you implement C style structures which are > essential to my work?" Chuck's reply was his famous, "I wouldn't." [Moore, 2002] > http://www.ultratechnology.com/essence.htm > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/h7dZBYQlSwg/w1J1LsuuGVAJ > "... I would be very suprised if Forth Inc. had > these kind of problems because they are experts on Classic Forth and > teach people how to do it properly." > > "Forth Inc. doesn't give away their excellent software or their excellent > training in how to write and think Forth." > > I've read other posts like that, and they are found thoroughout this forum. Well, who knows --- maybe Jeff Fox actually hated structs, and hence hated my novice package in which the data-structures rely entirely on structs --- he was just being polite by not telling me my code really does "suck" and really is "crap." > Anyway, the kind of language you are using is not something that I can condone > and unless we can stick to discussing technology and what is forum is about, > I'll start ignoring your posts. Why not follow Jeff's reasonable advice, BTW? Nobody else has ever felt burdened by this need for politeness. Going way back to 2009 when I first visited c.l.f. there has been constant criticism. John Passaniti uses the homo words such as "suck," but the theme is the same even without the vulgar words --- earlier I showed Elizabeth Rather's response to me asking why there is no D/ in ANS-Forth: On Friday, November 20, 2009 at 12:07:12 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D Rather wrote: > Forth's design is pragmatic: it has functions that have been needed and > that have proven their usefulness *in Forth*, not necessarily those that > have been required in other languages. Generally speaking, Forth has > the most flexible set of *integer* arithmetic operators of any language. > In particular, M*/ was one of Chuck's most brilliant innovations. I'm > sure if Chuck were trying to do your continued fractions that is what he > would rely on. Yes, that sometimes requires thinking differently, like > many other things in Forth. Within days of that, she denounced me for being homophobic and said that I was not a Forth programmer. Then within days of that we had this fun thread in which Marcel Hendrix posted my code with my name removed from the copyright notice: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM%5B1-25%5D In this thread Anton Ertl denounced me for not expecting that tick would abort on semicolon --- he has never given me credit for being an ANS-Forth programmer since that time, or of being a Forth programmer as he conflates ANS-Forth with Forth --- I think part of the reason for why gForth has these bizarre features is that Anton enjoys having confused students come to him with questions, so he can educate them and get some brown-nosing out of them. This is why I consider ANS-Forth to be a cult. It is all about brown-nosing --- my question about D/ was very inappropriate, so I got smacked down by a fabulous tale of how Chuck Moore would use M*/ (if he were writing my code for me, and if he had magical powers that give arithmetic functions more precision than they actually have). I was expected to apologize --- say something like: "You are the master and I am just a grasshopper!" Same with Anton telling me that tick is supposed to abort on most of the words in the language, and that nobody would expect FIND to return the same xt for a given word every time: "You are the master and I am just a grasshopper!" Same with Bernd Paysan telling me that it is impossible for a quotation to access the local variables in the parent function, and that nobody would ever want that anyway: "You are the master and I am just a grasshopper!" I think that everybody who "succeeds" at ANS-Forth does it this way --- you will too, when you get past writing simple programs and start bumping into the many many problems in ANS-Forth --- when I wrote my first-ever ANS-Forth program (LowDraw.4th) I was an ANS-Forth programmer, but I haven't been since then according to the committee, because I didn't stick with the simplistic style of programming that is required. Now everybody self-promotes themselves to be the lofty judge of internet etiquette so they can denounce me for saying that Elizabeth Rather is not actually a programmer at all, and providing evidence (the only Forth code she has ever posted that wasn't copied directly out of "Starting Forth"): 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 + ; But all of these lofty judges are mysteriously silent when I get attacked (presumably distracted by adjusting their halos). Here are just a few typical quotes from Alex McDonald (John Passaniti's replacement): "You have a serious misunderstanding of how pointers work." "Most, if not all, of your macros [in the novice package] would benefit by not being macros." "You really don't understand how CREATE DOES> works." On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 2:36:05 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: > Then, as Hugh complains about Bernd's "faked quotations", his FMITE is no > more than :NONAME syntactic sugar. Perhaps worse, as from what I read > there the language does not permit use of the quotation outside of its > enclosing word. I get sick and tired of this. It is impossible to discuss technical issues on c.l.f. because every time that I do I get some snarky retort such as this --- Forth-200x is a cult --- they rely entirely upon describing anybody who isn't loyal to them as a low-grade moron who doesn't know what pointers are, doesn't know how CREATE DOES> works, etc., and they avoid technical discussions like the plague. How hard would it be to just accept the disambiguifiers? They work perfectly! In one fell swoop they allow portability between the several grossly divergent ANS-Forth compilers (VFX, SwiftForth, gForth, and everything else afaik) --- and they are ANS-Forth compliant themselves --- I would really expect praise for solving this problem, but instead Anton calls me a "kook" and recommends that nobody ever read a word that I write. All of the Forth-200x committee members are afraid --- they just refuse to allow themselves to be drawn into any technical discussion of Forth, even of fundamental concepts such as how tick and FIND work --- this reek of fear is the sign of cults everywhere (no doubt the Heaven's Gate members had a similar fear of technical discussions regarding comets).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 01:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <msls83$a05$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41845 |
On 9/7/2015 8:39 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:23:36 PM UTC-7, bor...@gmail.com wrote: >> "... when asked, "How would you implement C style structures which are >> essential to my work?" Chuck's reply was his famous, "I wouldn't." [Moore, 2002] >> http://www.ultratechnology.com/essence.htm >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/h7dZBYQlSwg/w1J1LsuuGVAJ >> "... I would be very suprised if Forth Inc. had >> these kind of problems because they are experts on Classic Forth and >> teach people how to do it properly." >> >> "Forth Inc. doesn't give away their excellent software or their excellent >> training in how to write and think Forth." >> >> I've read other posts like that, and they are found thoroughout this forum. > > Well, who knows --- maybe Jeff Fox actually hated structs, and hence hated my novice package in which the data-structures rely entirely on structs --- he was just being polite by not telling me my code really does "suck" and really is "crap." > >> Anyway, the kind of language you are using is not something that I can condone >> and unless we can stick to discussing technology and what is forum is about, >> I'll start ignoring your posts. Why not follow Jeff's reasonable advice, BTW? > > Nobody else has ever felt burdened by this need for politeness. Going way back to 2009 when I first visited c.l.f. there has been constant criticism. John Passaniti uses the homo words such as "suck," but the theme is the same even without the vulgar words --- earlier I showed Elizabeth Rather's response to me asking why there is no D/ in ANS-Forth: > > On Friday, November 20, 2009 at 12:07:12 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D Rather wrote: >> Forth's design is pragmatic: it has functions that have been needed and >> that have proven their usefulness *in Forth*, not necessarily those that >> have been required in other languages. Generally speaking, Forth has >> the most flexible set of *integer* arithmetic operators of any language. >> In particular, M*/ was one of Chuck's most brilliant innovations. I'm >> sure if Chuck were trying to do your continued fractions that is what he >> would rely on. Yes, that sometimes requires thinking differently, like >> many other things in Forth. > > Within days of that, she denounced me for being homophobic and said that I was not a Forth programmer. Then within days of that we had this fun thread in which Marcel Hendrix posted my code with my name removed from the copyright notice: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM%5B1-25%5D > > In this thread Anton Ertl denounced me for not expecting that tick would abort on semicolon --- he has never given me credit for being an ANS-Forth programmer since that time, or of being a Forth programmer as he conflates ANS-Forth with Forth --- I think part of the reason for why gForth has these bizarre features is that Anton enjoys having confused students come to him with questions, so he can educate them and get some brown-nosing out of them. > > This is why I consider ANS-Forth to be a cult. It is all about brown-nosing --- my question about D/ was very inappropriate, so I got smacked down by a fabulous tale of how Chuck Moore would use M*/ (if he were writing my code for me, and if he had magical powers that give arithmetic functions more precision than they actually have). I was expected to apologize --- say something like: "You are the master and I am just a grasshopper!" Same with Anton telling me that tick is supposed to abort on most of the words in the language, and that nobody would expect FIND to return the same xt for a given word every time: "You are the master and I am just a grasshopper!" Same with Bernd Paysan telling me that it is impossible for a quotation to access the local variables in the parent function, and that nobody would ever want that anyway: "You are the master and I am just a grasshopper!" I think that everybody who "succeeds" at ANS-Forth does it this way --- you will too, when you get past w riting simple programs and start bumping into the many many problems in ANS-Forth --- when I wrote my first-ever ANS-Forth program (LowDraw.4th) I was an ANS-Forth programmer, but I haven't been since then according to the committee, because I didn't stick with the simplistic style of programming that is required. > > Now everybody self-promotes themselves to be the lofty judge of internet etiquette so they can denounce me for saying that Elizabeth Rather is not actually a programmer at all, and providing evidence (the only Forth code she has ever posted that wasn't copied directly out of "Starting Forth"): > > 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 + ; > > But all of these lofty judges are mysteriously silent when I get attacked (presumably distracted by adjusting their halos). Here are just a few typical quotes from Alex McDonald (John Passaniti's replacement): > > "You have a serious misunderstanding of how pointers work." > > "Most, if not all, of your macros [in the novice package] would benefit by not being macros." > > "You really don't understand how CREATE DOES> works." > > On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 2:36:05 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote: >> Then, as Hugh complains about Bernd's "faked quotations", his FMITE is no >> more than :NONAME syntactic sugar. Perhaps worse, as from what I read >> there the language does not permit use of the quotation outside of its >> enclosing word. > > I get sick and tired of this. It is impossible to discuss technical issues on c.l.f. because every time that I do I get some snarky retort such as this --- Forth-200x is a cult --- they rely entirely upon describing anybody who isn't loyal to them as a low-grade moron who doesn't know what pointers are, doesn't know how CREATE DOES> works, etc., and they avoid technical discussions like the plague. > > How hard would it be to just accept the disambiguifiers? They work perfectly! In one fell swoop they allow portability between the several grossly divergent ANS-Forth compilers (VFX, SwiftForth, gForth, and everything else afaik) --- and they are ANS-Forth compliant themselves --- I would really expect praise for solving this problem, but instead Anton calls me a "kook" and recommends that nobody ever read a word that I write. > > All of the Forth-200x committee members are afraid --- they just refuse to allow themselves to be drawn into any technical discussion of Forth, even of fundamental concepts such as how tick and FIND work --- this reek of fear is the sign of cults everywhere (no doubt the Heaven's Gate members had a similar fear of technical discussions regarding comets). The Japanese declared war on the US in a message of 13 parts. The Unabomber had the papers publish his manifesto. I think you could take some of Hugh's longer rants and string them together as a manifesto in 13 parts, especially since he seems to be declaring war on Forth. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 03:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mse4i3$vdg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41747 |
On 9/5/2015 1:19 AM, Mux wrote: >> Elizabeth Rather's contribution has always been negative --- she drives away far more people than she attracts --- worse, she drives away real programmers and attracts idiots, giving the Forth community the reputation of being a haven for idiots who have failed at programming the mainstream languages. >> > The world isn't filled with 'real' programmers. I'd argue that the majority of programmers in the world are mediocre. That said, in order for forth to become a more mainstream language, you have to attract and educate those programmers in order to bring them over. If you don't end this it will continue *ad nauseam*. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxaudioresearch@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <867c182d-0924-4bfa-bc51-ce393e6db117@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41751 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 3:12:50 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > On 9/5/2015 1:19 AM, Mux wrote: > >> Elizabeth Rather's contribution has always been negative --- she drives away far more people than she attracts --- worse, she drives away real programmers and attracts idiots, giving the Forth community the reputation of being a haven for idiots who have failed at programming the mainstream languages. > >> > > The world isn't filled with 'real' programmers. I'd argue that the majority of programmers in the world are mediocre. That said, in order for forth to become a more mainstream language, you have to attract and educate those programmers in order to bring them over. > > If you don't end this it will continue *ad nauseam*. > > -- > > Rick That must be what I am feeling in my stomach. BF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msf6b8$vij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41745 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > Forth's popularity plummeted after ANS-Forth came out in 1994 It seemed to me that ANS-Forth took the fun out of Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a93ce311-88f4-4231-a5bf-0757cc3f80db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41770 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:49:28 PM UTC-4, WJ wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > Forth's popularity plummeted after ANS-Forth came out in 1994 > > It seemed to me that ANS-Forth took the fun out of Forth. I find myself mostly unaffected by ANS Forth. I started with Jonesforth about a month ago and have been slowly transforming it into something that's my own, something personal but still Forthy. (For example, the if-else-endif sequence is more or less second nature to me, so I use "endif" instead of "then".) My plan to maintain the fun, and even to accelerate it if I can. So far so good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | josv@planet.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc2cc202-05e0-4a76-95ca-e8b44f672e66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41632 |
On September 1st, 2015 09:49:33 UTC+2 Mark Wills wrote: > At last? > > Check out this link: > > https://moonforth.github.io/ > > Someone has spent a LOT of time on that. Also check out the links, which link to a lot of Forth related stuff that I haven't seen before. > > Brilliant stuff. The page tells: "The reason why Forth is now seldom used is allegedly because it is extremely low-level without having the performance advantages of C." I wonder what kind of performance advantages that are. Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 22:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ms504m$rgl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41645 |
josv@planet.nl wrote: > The page tells: > "The reason why Forth is now seldom used is allegedly because > it is extremely low-level without having the performance advantages of C." > > I wonder what kind of performance advantages that are. If you write your own simple threaded code Forth, it's a lot slower than C, especially if you use another slow interpretative language to start with (yes, people do that). If you use an analytical compiler like VFX or iForth, it's about as fast. If you use something in between like gforth- fast, you lose a factor 2, for some codes that benefit particularly from an analytic compiler even more. That's for doing the same thing. Since C programmer rarely do the same thing as Forth programmers (especially keeping it stupid simple), the real world is different. -- 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 | Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 03:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b9c5435-729c-4e4a-9775-b01262fadaff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41632 |
So while we're on (de)structs... In ye olde days of 6502 programming, I used what I called 'vertical arrays' which is basically a struct, and to this day, I use as an alternative to structs. variable x 16 allot variable y 16 allot variable z 16 allot : get_x ( index -- x ) x + @ ; : get_y ( index -- y ) y + @ ; : get_z ( index -- z ) z + @ ; while technically not a struct in the C sense in that the, it's every bit as powerful without having to declare / create structures in forths that don't have them. -Mux
[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