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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50314 > unrolled thread

Hard Forth

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

Contents

  Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:04 -0700
    Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:12 -0700
      Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:17 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:54 -0700
          Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:26 -0700
            Re: Hard Forth Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200
          Re: Hard Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:37 -0400
            Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 14:51 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:43 -0700
    Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:16 -0700
      Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:20 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-21 01:36 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:41 -0700
    Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-21 14:16 -0500
      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:50 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 19:46 -0700
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 22:29 -0500
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:03 +0300
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 23:13 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:18 +0300
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 22:08 -0700
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-22 00:55 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:27 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:00 -0400
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 23:30 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:04 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-23 16:11 +1000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 23:45 -0700
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:42 -1000
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:57 -0700
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 03:30 -0400
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:37 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-09-16 12:16 +0200
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 12:56 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:39 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 02:13 -0400
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 23:46 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 02:02 -0500
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 00:41 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:51 -0400
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:24 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-18 15:44 -0500
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 00:49 +0000
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-13 03:32 +0200
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 23:34 -0400
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-10-13 04:02 -0500
                          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 15:04 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 00:04 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] mhx@iae.nl - 2016-09-17 01:28 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:04 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 15:38 +0000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 10:20 -0500
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:52 -0400
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 14:18 +0000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:22 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-29 15:33 +0200
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:16 +0800
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:29 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:54 -0700
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 03:03 -0500
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 01:19 -0700
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:32 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-16 13:15 +0200
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 01:05 +0000
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:45 -0500

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

#50385 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:29:49 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> On 8/21/2016 9:46 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > What happened is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to hit FIG (Forth Interest Group) with a lawsuit to stop them
>   from distributing FIG-Forth which was largely copied from Forth Inc.'s 
> MicroForth, and to also stop them from
>   using the name "Forth" --- she wanted Forth to be proprietary to Forth 
> Inc. --- Charles Moore refused to go along
>   with the lawsuit (he was okay with FIG and with there being Forth 
> programmers who didn't pay Forth Inc.) and
>   this is why he had to leave Forth Inc.. Without his support, Elizabeth 
> Rather's lawsuit against FIG died ---
> he is the inventor of Forth after all --- he is the only person who 
> could succeed in court with such a lawsuit.
> >
> 
> Is this documented somewhere? I would like to read it, but Google floods 
> you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the 
> word forth in it?
> -- 
> Cecil - k5nwa

Jeff Fox told me about this. I doubt that the lawsuit was actually filed because doing so would have required Charles Moore to agree to it, which he refused to do. My understanding is that he left Forth Inc. because the argument over the lawsuit was an irreconcilable difference between him and Elizabeth Rather --- without him, she had to give up on the lawsuit --- 12 years later though, ANS-Forth accomplished the same thing for her, in that ANS-Forth trapped the whole Forth community in a pit of incompetence that prevented them from writing commercial software in Forth.

You could ask Charles Moore, except that he doesn't care about the Forth community any more and won't talk to you --- that is pretty sad, that the inventor of Forth isn't on speaking terms with the Forth community --- maybe he thinks that we are all idiots who just make him look stupid, and he now regrets having invented Forth.

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

#50387 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 8/22/2016 12:08 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:29:49 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
>> On 8/21/2016 9:46 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What happened is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to hit FIG (Forth Interest Group) with a lawsuit to stop them
>>   from distributing FIG-Forth which was largely copied from Forth Inc.'s
>> MicroForth, and to also stop them from
>>   using the name "Forth" --- she wanted Forth to be proprietary to Forth
>> Inc. --- Charles Moore refused to go along
>>   with the lawsuit (he was okay with FIG and with there being Forth
>> programmers who didn't pay Forth Inc.) and
>>   this is why he had to leave Forth Inc.. Without his support, Elizabeth
>> Rather's lawsuit against FIG died ---
>> he is the inventor of Forth after all --- he is the only person who
>> could succeed in court with such a lawsuit.
>>>
>>
>> Is this documented somewhere? I would like to read it, but Google floods
>> you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the
>> word forth in it?
>> --
>> Cecil - k5nwa
>
> Jeff Fox told me about this. I doubt that the lawsuit was actually filed because doing so would have required Charles Moore to agree to it, which he refused to do. My understanding is that he left Forth Inc. because the argument over the lawsuit was an irreconcilable difference between him and Elizabeth Rather --- without him, she had to give up on the lawsuit --- 12 years later though, ANS-Forth accomplished the same thing for her, in that ANS-Forth trapped the whole Forth community in a pit of incompetence that prevented them from writing commercial software in Forth.
>
> You could ask Charles Moore, except that he doesn't care about the Forth community any more and won't talk to you --- that is pretty sad, that the inventor of Forth isn't on speaking terms with the Forth community --- maybe he thinks that we are all idiots who just make him look stupid, and he now regrets having invented Forth.
>
Second hand testimony that would not hold up in court, actually third 
hand, Jeff Fox is dead and I have not found any comment by him on that 
subject, and I would not think that Mr More would care to get involved 
one way or the other. So this is a case of he said, she said, most 
likely not to be resolved. Mr Moore was not happy with the Standard, but 
associated with FIG for whatever that is worth, guesses as to motives.

I've seen him attend the SVFIG meetings and give some talks so he is 
still involved or was recently, he is 78 now and it shows. Jeff Fox site 
had some videos of Mr Moore but they are gone, one of these days I will 
search for them, I would like to hear what he had to say, but from some 
articles I can see the Forth Community and him are heading in different 
directions, that is neither good nor bad  but it is what it is.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#50390 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:55:11 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> On 8/22/2016 12:08 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:29:49 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> >> On 8/21/2016 9:46 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> What happened is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to hit FIG (Forth Interest Group) with a lawsuit to stop them
> >>   from distributing FIG-Forth which was largely copied from Forth Inc.'s
> >> MicroForth, and to also stop them from
> >>   using the name "Forth" --- she wanted Forth to be proprietary to Forth
> >> Inc. --- Charles Moore refused to go along
> >>   with the lawsuit (he was okay with FIG and with there being Forth
> >> programmers who didn't pay Forth Inc.) and
> >>   this is why he had to leave Forth Inc.. Without his support, Elizabeth
> >> Rather's lawsuit against FIG died ---
> >> he is the inventor of Forth after all --- he is the only person who
> >> could succeed in court with such a lawsuit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this documented somewhere? I would like to read it, but Google floods
> >> you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the
> >> word forth in it?
> >> --
> >> Cecil - k5nwa
> >
> > Jeff Fox told me about this. I doubt that the lawsuit was actually filed because doing so would have required Charles Moore to agree to it, which he refused to do. My understanding is that he left Forth Inc. because the argument over the lawsuit was an irreconcilable difference between him and Elizabeth Rather --- without him, she had to give up on the lawsuit --- 12 years later though, ANS-Forth accomplished the same thing for her, in that ANS-Forth trapped the whole Forth community in a pit of incompetence that prevented them from writing commercial software in Forth.
> >
> > You could ask Charles Moore, except that he doesn't care about the Forth community any more and won't talk to you --- that is pretty sad, that the inventor of Forth isn't on speaking terms with the Forth community --- maybe he thinks that we are all idiots who just make him look stupid, and he now regrets having invented Forth.
> >
> Second hand testimony that would not hold up in court, actually third 
> hand, Jeff Fox is dead and I have not found any comment by him on that 
> subject, and I would not think that Mr More would care to get involved 
> one way or the other. So this is a case of he said, she said, most 
> likely not to be resolved. Mr Moore was not happy with the Standard, but 
> associated with FIG for whatever that is worth, guesses as to motives.

It is well known that Charles Moore was not happy with the ANS-Forth Standard, yet his name appears in the ANS-Forth document as a contributor. Realistically, ANSI would not have certified ANS-Forth if they did not have the inventor's name listed --- they don't actually know anything about Forth --- all they care about is seeing Forth's inventor's name listed, and they give it their stamp of approval.

> I've seen him attend the SVFIG meetings and give some talks so he is 
> still involved or was recently, he is 78 now and it shows. Jeff Fox site 
> had some videos of Mr Moore but they are gone, one of these days I will 
> search for them, I would like to hear what he had to say, but from some 
> articles I can see the Forth Community and him are heading in different 
> directions, that is neither good nor bad  but it is what it is.

I find it odd that Charles Moore never visits comp.lang.forth --- he is the inventor of Forth --- you would think that he would be interested in what the Forth community is doing.

I also find it odd that Charles Moore gave up ownership of Forth Inc. to Elizabeth Rather --- he was the founder of the company --- you would think that he would have kicked her out, rather than himself leave. He didn't get paid anything for his shares in the corporation but gave it up completely.

The obvious explanation for this is that he was required by a court order to give up everything that he owned and everything that he cared about. Most likely, when he and Elizabeth Rather split up it went to court, and he was required to pay alimony. He was required to give up Forth Inc. and to also agree to not interfere with Forth Inc. sales by making contact with Forth Inc.'s customers or potential customers --- everybody on comp.lang.forth is a potential customer of Forth Inc. --- that would explain why he never visits comp.lang.forth.

Were Charles Moore and Elizabeth Rather legally married and they got divorced? Did they have a kid? If there was a kid, then Charles Moore would seriously lose everything that he owned and everything that he cared about, which seems to be what happened. 

Well, it is certainly odd that the inventor of Forth never makes contact with any of us Forth programmers --- it seems unlikely that he hates us for programming in Forth, considering that he supports FIG --- more likely is that he is required by a court order to not make contact with us.

Anyway --- to hell with ANS-Forth and to hell with Forth-200x --- I own them nothing!

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

#50400 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 8/22/2016 2:27 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I find it odd that Charles Moore never visits comp.lang.forth --- he
> is the inventor of Forth --- you would think that he would be
> interested in what the Forth community is doing.

<<< much insane sounding ranting snipped >>>

Really?  Why would anyone working in Forth want here and listen to your 
insane rantings?

-- 

Rick C

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

#50391 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Den måndag 22 augusti 2016 kl. 07:55:11 UTC+2 skrev Cecil - k5nwa:
> On 8/22/2016 12:08 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:29:49 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> >> On 8/21/2016 9:46 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> What happened is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to hit FIG (Forth Interest Group) with a lawsuit to stop them
> >>   from distributing FIG-Forth which was largely copied from Forth Inc.'s
> >> MicroForth, and to also stop them from
> >>   using the name "Forth" --- she wanted Forth to be proprietary to Forth
> >> Inc. --- Charles Moore refused to go along
> >>   with the lawsuit (he was okay with FIG and with there being Forth
> >> programmers who didn't pay Forth Inc.) and
> >>   this is why he had to leave Forth Inc.. Without his support, Elizabeth
> >> Rather's lawsuit against FIG died ---
> >> he is the inventor of Forth after all --- he is the only person who
> >> could succeed in court with such a lawsuit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this documented somewhere? I would like to read it, but Google floods
> >> you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the
> >> word forth in it?
> >> --
> >> Cecil - k5nwa
> >
> > Jeff Fox told me about this. I doubt that the lawsuit was actually filed because doing so would have required Charles Moore to agree to it, which he refused to do. My understanding is that he left Forth Inc. because the argument over the lawsuit was an irreconcilable difference between him and Elizabeth Rather --- without him, she had to give up on the lawsuit --- 12 years later though, ANS-Forth accomplished the same thing for her, in that ANS-Forth trapped the whole Forth community in a pit of incompetence that prevented them from writing commercial software in Forth.
> >
> > You could ask Charles Moore, except that he doesn't care about the Forth community any more and won't talk to you --- that is pretty sad, that the inventor of Forth isn't on speaking terms with the Forth community --- maybe he thinks that we are all idiots who just make him look stupid, and he now regrets having invented Forth.
> >
> Second hand testimony that would not hold up in court, actually third 
> hand, Jeff Fox is dead and I have not found any comment by him on that 
> subject, and I would not think that Mr More would care to get involved 
> one way or the other. So this is a case of he said, she said, most 
> likely not to be resolved. Mr Moore was not happy with the Standard, but 
> associated with FIG for whatever that is worth, guesses as to motives.
> 
> I've seen him attend the SVFIG meetings and give some talks so he is 
> still involved or was recently, he is 78 now and it shows. Jeff Fox site 
> had some videos of Mr Moore but they are gone, one of these days I will 
> search for them, I would like to hear what he had to say, but from some 
> articles I can see the Forth Community and him are heading in different 
> directions, that is neither good nor bad  but it is what it is.
> 
> -- 
> Cecil - k5nwa

Stupid of me joking about Forth community and Charles Moore. Of course Forth could have been a trade secret, but the important issue is the development of Forth since the community and Charles Moore drifted apart.

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

#50393 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> writes:
> the important issue is the development of Forth since the community
> and Charles Moore drifted apart.

I think Chuck's interests moved away from the Forth language and into
Forth hardware some decades ago, so he hasn't cared much about how
people used Forth on conventional computers.  He was involved with
GreenArrays he's traditionally attended Forth day at SVFIG, including
last year.  

I don't know if GreenArrays is very active these days, now that its
legal disputes are afaik resolved.

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

#50418 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

lehs wrote:
> ...
> Of course Forth could have
> been a trade secret,
> ...

From a speech by Chuck reprinted in FD v1n6 (1980) ...

"... The conclusion was that maybe it [FORTH] could be patented, but it
would take Supreme Court action to do it.  NRAO wasn't interested.  As
inventor I had fall-back rights but I didn't want to spend $10,000 either,
so FORTH was not patented.  This probably was a good thing."

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

#50419 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Den tisdag 23 augusti 2016 kl. 08:11:21 UTC+2 skrev HAA:
> lehs wrote:
> > ...
> > Of course Forth could have
> > been a trade secret,
> > ...
> 
> From a speech by Chuck reprinted in FD v1n6 (1980) ...
> 
> "... The conclusion was that maybe it [FORTH] could be patented, but it
> would take Supreme Court action to do it.  NRAO wasn't interested.  As
> inventor I had fall-back rights but I didn't want to spend $10,000 either,
> so FORTH was not patented.  This probably was a good thing."

Yes, but what I ment was that trade secrets are not much for real conspiracy theorist. 

https://iesho.blogspot.se/2015/02/21-murder-of-swedish-prime-minister.html

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

#50398 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 8/21/16 5:29 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
>
>
> On 8/21/2016 9:46 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> What happened is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to hit FIG (Forth
>> Interest Group) with a lawsuit to stop them
>  from distributing FIG-Forth which was largely copied from Forth Inc.'s
> MicroForth, and to also stop them from
>  using the name "Forth" --- she wanted Forth to be proprietary to Forth
> Inc. --- Charles Moore refused to go along
>  with the lawsuit (he was okay with FIG and with there being Forth
> programmers who didn't pay Forth Inc.) and
>  this is why he had to leave Forth Inc.. Without his support, Elizabeth
> Rather's lawsuit against FIG died ---
> he is the inventor of Forth after all --- he is the only person who
> could succeed in court with such a lawsuit.
>>
>
> Is this documented somewhere?

No, because it didn't happen.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

> I would like to read it, but Google floods
> you with bad links when I looked for it. What lawsuit does not have the
> word forth in it?


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

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

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

#51022 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Everybody else in the world understood that the whole purpose of the x86
> was to address more than 64KB and they figured out how to use the segment
> registers to do this.

x86 segmentation was an absolutely stupid pain in the bum. Other architectures (e.g. 68000-family) figured out how to address more memory *without* segmentation. And as a bonus, because you were using linear 32-bit addresses to begin with, the transition to full 32-bit processors (68020 and later) was fairly painless.

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

#51023 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 9/16/2016 2:57 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Everybody else in the world understood that the whole purpose of the x86
>> was to address more than 64KB and they figured out how to use the segment
>> registers to do this.
>
> x86 segmentation was an absolutely stupid pain in the bum. Other architectures (e.g. 68000-family) figured out how to address more memory *without* segmentation. And as a bonus, because you were using linear 32-bit addresses to begin with, the transition to full 32-bit processors (68020 and later) was fairly painless.

Sure, it is easy to look back from this high vantage point and say, 
"They should have gone this way".  But Intel had an 8 bit processor they 
wanted to be instruction and register compatible with while Motorola 
make little effort to be compatible with their existing 8 bit processors.

In the end Intel ended up with a full 32 bit CPU with 32 bit addressing 
and a 64 bit CPU with 64 bit addresses.  The purpose of the segment 
registers now is not so much a way to utilize a large address space, but 
to separate the various memory sections and support security.

-- 

Rick C

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

#51028 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>On 9/16/2016 2:57 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Everybody else in the world understood that the whole purpose of the x86
>>> was to address more than 64KB and they figured out how to use the segment
>>> registers to do this.
>>
>> x86 segmentation was an absolutely stupid pain in the bum. Other architectures (e.g. 68000-family) figured out how to address more memory *without* segmentation. And as a bonus, because you were using linear 32-bit addresses to begin with, the transition to full 32-bit processors (68020 and later) was fairly painless.
>
>Sure, it is easy to look back from this high vantage point and say, 
>"They should have gone this way". 

It was also obvious at the time, as evidenced by the fact that
everybody else (68k, Z8000, NS32K) provided longer addresses; OTOH,
Intel was first to market in the beyond-8-bit area, which got them the
IBM PC design win, so in a way their decisions were right.

>But Intel had an 8 bit processor they 
>wanted to be instruction and register compatible with while Motorola 
>make little effort to be compatible with their existing 8 bit processors.

Intel 8086 was not binary compatible with the 8080, but instead was
assembly-source compatible.  Not sure how much this helped, but
Intel's focus on compatibility certainly helped later (80286, 386, and
especially 486 when the RISCs looked like the future), and when they
strayed from it (IA-64), they failed.

Anyway, Intel could have achieved assembly-source compatibility while
still providing a flat address space.

>In the end Intel ended up with a full 32 bit CPU with 32 bit addressing 
>and a 64 bit CPU with 64 bit addresses.  The purpose of the segment 
>registers now is not so much a way to utilize a large address space, but 
>to separate the various memory sections and support security.

The only purpose of segment registers (in 64-bit mode) is to provide
thread-local storage.  Instead of extending segment descriptors for
64-bit use (which would have required more space), segments in 64-bit
mode were reduced in capability and can no longer be used for
security; they have not been used for security before that, anyway.
Segment fans always whine about security; paging goes home and fscks
the system:-).

- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/

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

#51031 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
> Intel was first to market in the beyond-8-bit area, which got them the
> IBM PC design win, so in a way their decisions were right.

There are a few different versions of that story.  Maturity and time to
market seems to have been one concern, but also cost:

    68000 was carefully considered.  "An excellent architecture chip, it
    has proven to be a worthy competitor to the Intel-based
    architecture."  There were four major concerns:

    1) 16 bit data path would require more bus buffers, therefore a more
       expensive system board.

    2) more memory chips for a minimum configuration.

    3) while it had a performance advantage, the 68000 was not as memory
       efficient.

    4) Companion and support chips not as well covered as Intel.

    He also felt the the 68000 didn't have as good software and support
    tools, and the similar register model allowed the porting of 8080
    tools to the 8086/8088.

    "In summary the 8088 was selected because it allowed the lowest cost
    implementation of an architecture that provided a migration path to
    a larger address space and higher performance implementations.
    Because it was a unique choice relative to competitive system
    implementations, IBM could be viewed as a leader, rather than a
    follower.  It had a feasible software migration path that allowed
    access to the large base of existing 8080 software.

http://yarchive.net/comp/ibm_pc_8088.html

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

#51035 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> Intel was first to market in the beyond-8-bit area, which got them the
>> IBM PC design win, so in a way their decisions were right.
>
>There are a few different versions of that story.  Maturity and time to
>market seems to have been one concern, but also cost:
[reasons snipped]
>http://yarchive.net/comp/ibm_pc_8088.html

Yes, there were a number of factors involved, and the 8086
segmentation was not something in favour (but also not something
detrimental, which may have to do with the memory sizes at the time).

One interesting aspect is that both Intel and Motorola had two CPU
projects going on in the late 70s, one an evolutionary design, and the
other a forward-looking groundbreaking design.  The evolutionary
results were the 8086 and the 6809 (assembly-source compatible to the
8080 and the 6800, respectively), while the groundbreaking results
were the iAPX432 and the 68000.  Intel expected the 8086 to be
surpassed by the iAPX432 soon (as happened with 6809 and 68000); IBM
did not expect a long future for the IBM PC, either, so the 8088 was a
good match.  The 6809 was too small (marketed as 8-bit, and limited to
64k address space) for the IBM PC, though, and as stated, the 68000
was, in a way, too large.

- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/

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

#51037 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 9/16/2016 2:57 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It was also obvious at the time, as evidenced by the fact that
> everybody else (68k, Z8000, NS32K) provided longer addresses; OTOH,
> Intel was first to market in the beyond-8-bit area, which got them the
> IBM PC design win, so in a way their decisions were right.

Indeed so.

> Intel 8086 was not binary compatible with the 8080, but instead was
> assembly-source compatible.  Not sure how much this helped,

I think it helped a lot.  It got them Microsoft BASIC, which was a
very big deal at the time.

Andrew.

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

#51055 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 9/16/2016 4:37 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 9/16/2016 2:57 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:47:00 PM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Everybody else in the world understood that the whole purpose of the x86
>>>> was to address more than 64KB and they figured out how to use the segment
>>>> registers to do this.
>>>
>>> x86 segmentation was an absolutely stupid pain in the bum. Other architectures (e.g. 68000-family) figured out how to address more memory *without* segmentation. And as a bonus, because you were using linear 32-bit addresses to begin with, the transition to full 32-bit processors (68020 and later) was fairly painless.
>>
>> Sure, it is easy to look back from this high vantage point and say,
>> "They should have gone this way".
>
> It was also obvious at the time, as evidenced by the fact that
> everybody else (68k, Z8000, NS32K) provided longer addresses; OTOH,
> Intel was first to market in the beyond-8-bit area, which got them the
> IBM PC design win, so in a way their decisions were right.
>
>> But Intel had an 8 bit processor they
>> wanted to be instruction and register compatible with while Motorola
>> make little effort to be compatible with their existing 8 bit processors.
>
> Intel 8086 was not binary compatible with the 8080, but instead was
> assembly-source compatible.  Not sure how much this helped, but
> Intel's focus on compatibility certainly helped later (80286, 386, and
> especially 486 when the RISCs looked like the future), and when they
> strayed from it (IA-64), they failed.
>
> Anyway, Intel could have achieved assembly-source compatibility while
> still providing a flat address space.

Huh?  The 8080 has a flat address space.  How do you extend that to a 
larger address space without sectors.  The basic instructions assume 16 
bit addresses.  Are you suggesting a totally different instruction set 
on *top* of the 8 bit register instructions?


>> In the end Intel ended up with a full 32 bit CPU with 32 bit addressing
>> and a 64 bit CPU with 64 bit addresses.  The purpose of the segment
>> registers now is not so much a way to utilize a large address space, but
>> to separate the various memory sections and support security.
>
> The only purpose of segment registers (in 64-bit mode) is to provide
> thread-local storage.  Instead of extending segment descriptors for
> 64-bit use (which would have required more space), segments in 64-bit
> mode were reduced in capability and can no longer be used for
> security; they have not been used for security before that, anyway.
> Segment fans always whine about security; paging goes home and fscks
> the system:-).

You seem to be totally ignoring the incremental nature of the 
development of the technology.  Remember how the 8086 was available 
earlier than the 68000?  That's because they didn't try to solve 
tomorrow's problems today.  The 68000 has numerous issues such as higher 
transistor count and slower throughput compared to the 8086.  It was 
only if you looked many years ahead that the 68000 looked like a better 
design.  In the end the x86 line dominated, so clearly it was the better 
choice.

-- 

Rick C

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

#51057 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:13:10 PM UTC+12, rickman wrote:
> The 68000 has numerous issues such as higher 
> transistor count and slower throughput compared to the 8086.

Yet Microsoft Windows (on x86) was not able to match the performance of the Macintosh (on 680x0). It was only when all the Windows code was able to move to a flat 32-bit address space (late 1990s onwards) that it was finally able to pull ahead. The segmented-address issue delayed this transition by about a decade compared to the Macintosh.

> In the end the x86 line dominated, so clearly it was the better 
> choice.

It was a triumph of marketing over technology.

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

#51059 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:13:10 PM UTC+12, rickman wrote:
>> The 68000 has numerous issues such as higher 
>> transistor count and slower throughput compared to the 8086.
> 
> Yet Microsoft Windows (on x86) was not able to match the performance
> of the Macintosh (on 680x0).

Well, sure, if you need a 32-bit address space, then having true
32-bit hardware helps.  As for the rest of it, I don't know how you
can compare two very different code bases on two very different
processors and declare that the difference is due to the processors.

> It was only when all the Windows code was able to move to a flat
> 32-bit address space (late 1990s onwards) that it was finally able
> to pull ahead. The segmented-address issue delayed this transition
> by about a decade compared to the Macintosh.

>> In the end the x86 line dominated, so clearly it was the better 
>> choice.
> 
> It was a triumph of marketing over technology.

I think it was a triumph of manufacturing and process technology.
Motorola didn't keep up, initially with RISC, losing Sun and then
Apple, then with Intel.

Andrew.

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

#51064 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 7:02:11 PM UTC+12, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:13:10 PM UTC+12, rickman wrote:
>>> The 68000 has numerous issues such as higher 
>>> transistor count and slower throughput compared to the 8086.
>> 
>> Yet Microsoft Windows (on x86) was not able to match the performance
>> of the Macintosh (on 680x0).
> 
> Well, sure, if you need a 32-bit address space, then having true
> 32-bit hardware helps.  As for the rest of it, I don't know how you
> can compare two very different code bases on two very different
> processors and declare that the difference is due to the processors.

Either that, or Microsoft writes crap code...

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

#51081 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

On 9/17/2016 2:46 AM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:13:10 PM UTC+12, rickman wrote:
>> The 68000 has numerous issues such as higher
>> transistor count and slower throughput compared to the 8086.
>
> Yet Microsoft Windows (on x86) was not able to match the performance of the Macintosh (on 680x0). It was only when all the Windows code was able to move to a flat 32-bit address space (late 1990s onwards) that it was finally able to pull ahead. The segmented-address issue delayed this transition by about a decade compared to the Macintosh.

Huh?  How can you compare two different machines with two different OS 
and say the difference is purely the hardware?


>> In the end the x86 line dominated, so clearly it was the better
>> choice.
>
> It was a triumph of marketing over technology.

That's your opinion.  The x86 was the design the world wanted at the 
time.  In other words, it best met the needs of users.  Only gear heads 
argue about which CPU *should* have won the race.

-- 

Rick C

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

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

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

csiph-web