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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #53156 > unrolled thread

Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ...

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

Contents

  Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-12-07 06:05 -0800
    Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 07:34 -0800
      Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 08:27 -0800
      Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-12-07 11:28 -0800
        Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-12-07 23:35 +0000
    Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... Gerard Sontag <gerardsontag@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 12:18 -0800
    Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 12:23 -0800
      Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... minforth@arcor.de - 2016-12-07 13:42 -0800
        Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-12-07 23:49 -0800
          Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-08 00:47 -0800
            Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 03:57 -0800
              Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-09 18:54 -1000
                Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 00:55 -0800
                  Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-10 12:24 -1000
                    Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 04:23 -0800
                      Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-11 16:21 -1000
            Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... minforth@arcor.de - 2016-12-08 22:09 -0800
              Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-09 11:17 +0000
            Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-09 14:00 +0100
          Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-08 20:11 +0100
      Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 19:57 -0800
        Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 03:47 -0800
          Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 05:43 -0800
    Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 05:14 -0800
    Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... jean-pierre@buechi-schmitt.ch - 2016-12-12 07:57 -0800
      Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... minforth@arcor.de - 2016-12-12 12:20 -0800
        Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 01:15 -0800
          Re: Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-13 22:50 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#53156 — Languages to learn for 2017 - Forth is still very much a hidden secret ...

http://blog.hackerearth.com/2016/11/top-programming-language-2017.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#53161

On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 14:05:42 UTC, JUERGEN  wrote:
> http://blog.hackerearth.com/2016/11/top-programming-language-2017.html

Are you encouraging us to take up other languages on the list as there is no mention of forth in the entire blog ?

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

#53162

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 9:34:14 AM UTC-6, novembe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 14:05:42 UTC, JUERGEN  wrote:
> > http://blog.hackerearth.com/2016/11/top-programming-language-2017.html
> 
> Are you encouraging us to take up other languages on the list as there is no mention of forth in the entire blog ?

What he's saying is in the title of the thread:

"Forth is still very much a hidden secret ..."

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

#53168

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 3:34:14 PM UTC, novembe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 14:05:42 UTC, JUERGEN  wrote:
> > http://blog.hackerearth.com/2016/11/top-programming-language-2017.html
> 
> Are you encouraging us to take up other languages on the list as there is no mention of forth in the entire blog ?

Forth has been there since C was born. And the rest that came afterwards.
I was just highlighting that the Forth community is so split that there is no group showing an impact. 
Every language has its place - otherwise it would not exist. 
When MPE introduced SockPuppet to link Forth advantages with other languages the interest here on clf was very low. 
There was probably more interest at the recent HITEX ARM conference as the SockPuppet Plug-In is seen as advantage for OTHER languages for Debugging. 
So, no, I am not encouraging to take up other languages - but if you need money in your pocket you might re-consider your salary options. I will always promote Forth as I like it - or the same linked to other languages via SockPuppet. 
The best proof of this: Today I received 10 ForthMugs with the 8 existing pictures of the Forth eBooks wrapped around it - 
I just found out it is better designed than expected: when I drink out of it, I do not kiss Chuck, Leo, Stephen, or Ting, but just the PCB of the FIG-Forth ICE Board - lucky me ...

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

#53177

Am Wed, 07 Dec 2016 11:28:53 -0800 schrieb JUERGEN:
> When MPE introduced SockPuppet to link Forth advantages with other
> languages the interest here on clf was very low.
> There was probably more interest at the recent HITEX ARM conference as
> the SockPuppet Plug-In is seen as advantage for OTHER languages for
> Debugging.

Yes, of course.  SockPuppet is for people who use other languages, and 
need the advantages of Forth, because their languages don't have these 
advantages.  When you use Forth, you already have the advantages of Forth.

-- 
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]

#53169

Le mercredi 7 décembre 2016 15:05:42 UTC+1, JUERGEN a écrit :
> http://blog.hackerearth.com/2016/11/top-programming-language-2017.html

Hello,
from
http://blog.hackerearth.com/2016/11/top-programming-language-2017.html
>>
TIOBE ranks the languages based on the number of search engine queries which contain the language as a keyword. For TIOBE the numbers are based on searching of Web with certain phrases
<<
So does this mean that Forth is well known and well understood that there is no need to do a search. 
Amicalement

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

#53170

Den onsdag 7 december 2016 kl. 15:05:42 UTC+1 skrev JUERGEN:
> http://blog.hackerearth.com/2016/11/top-programming-language-2017.html

The reason I came in contact with Forth was that it was the perfect language for my small home computer (TI-99A). It was the best alternative. If there had been a efficient basic-like language I might had reject Forth from the beginning. Or maybe not, since I was found of RPN from Hewlett Packards calculators. But once using Forth all the other languages seems awkward.

People today come in contact with c, java etc. They choose those languages because they are there - and because it's a possible to make a living learning them.

The industrial interest for Forth is limited and the entusiasm of the Forthers is the main force in the Forth movement.

What is needed is a Forth Operating system competing with Linux/c showing Forths fantastic simplicity and compactness - a complete and fast system in RAM.

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

#53172

> What is needed is a Forth Operating system competing with Linux/c showing Forths fantastic simplicity and compactness - a complete and fast system in RAM.

Forth is best in embedded systems. So why do you want to "exbed" it for showing off?   ;-)

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

#53185

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 9:42:02 PM UTC, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
> > What is needed is a Forth Operating system competing with Linux/c showing Forths fantastic simplicity and compactness - a complete and fast system in RAM.
> 
> Forth is best in embedded systems. So why do you want to "exbed" it for showing off?   ;-)

Nothing to do with showing off. If you want to address/convince an audience you have to speak their language and relate to what they are used to. They are intelligent enough to decide later what solves the requirements - and might cut out the unnecessary. 
I could never understand why there is not a LINUX Kernel written in Forth - and connected via SockPuppet or similar to the rest.

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

#53188

JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
> I could never understand why there is not a LINUX Kernel written in
> Forth - and connected via SockPuppet or similar to the rest.

Unix started out as a small minicomputer OS that was in something like
the Forth spirit, but its present-day descendants like Linux are very
large and complicated.  And even given the resources to write a
Linux-like kernel in Forth, it's hard for me to identify any benefits
from doing so.

Forth and C are both low-level languages with similar hazards.  If Forth
programs tend to have fewer bugs than C programs, it's probably from a
combination of Forth programs being smaller (less bug surface), and
Forth programmers being more careful (the interactive, word by word
code-and-test approach, etc).  I'd rather see a new kernel written in a
language with far more built-in error checks.  People have been talking
about using Rust for something like that.  I don't know if there's been
any progress.

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

#53196

Den torsdag 8 december 2016 kl. 09:47:35 UTC+1 skrev Paul Rubin:
> JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
> > I could never understand why there is not a LINUX Kernel written in
> > Forth - and connected via SockPuppet or similar to the rest.
> 
> Unix started out as a small minicomputer OS that was in something like
> the Forth spirit, but its present-day descendants like Linux are very
> large and complicated.  And even given the resources to write a
> Linux-like kernel in Forth, it's hard for me to identify any benefits
> from doing so.
> 
> Forth and C are both low-level languages with similar hazards.  If Forth
> programs tend to have fewer bugs than C programs, it's probably from a
> combination of Forth programs being smaller (less bug surface), and
> Forth programmers being more careful (the interactive, word by word
> code-and-test approach, etc).  I'd rather see a new kernel written in a
> language with far more built-in error checks.  People have been talking
> about using Rust for something like that.  I don't know if there's been
> any progress.

The benefit would be the compactness and the simple relation between human and hardware.

And it would mean a lot for FORTH as a "trade mark" if FOS/FUNIX become a very competitive alternative.

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

#53246

On 12/8/16 1:57 AM, lehs wrote:
> Den torsdag 8 december 2016 kl. 09:47:35 UTC+1 skrev Paul Rubin:
>> JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
>>> I could never understand why there is not a LINUX Kernel written in
>>> Forth - and connected via SockPuppet or similar to the rest.
>>
>> Unix started out as a small minicomputer OS that was in something like
>> the Forth spirit, but its present-day descendants like Linux are very
>> large and complicated.  And even given the resources to write a
>> Linux-like kernel in Forth, it's hard for me to identify any benefits
>> from doing so.
>>
>> Forth and C are both low-level languages with similar hazards.  If Forth
>> programs tend to have fewer bugs than C programs, it's probably from a
>> combination of Forth programs being smaller (less bug surface), and
>> Forth programmers being more careful (the interactive, word by word
>> code-and-test approach, etc).  I'd rather see a new kernel written in a
>> language with far more built-in error checks.  People have been talking
>> about using Rust for something like that.  I don't know if there's been
>> any progress.
>
> The benefit would be the compactness and the simple relation between human and hardware.
>
> And it would mean a lot for FORTH as a "trade mark" if FOS/FUNIX become a very competitive alternative.
>

Forth has been used as a standalone application beneath applications 
since its beginnings in the early 70's (and still functions that way in 
embedded applications). But it has always been oriented toward providing 
the support specifically needed by *this* hardware to be used in *this* 
way. An attempt to deliver the same generality as a general-purpose OS 
(even a relatively simple one such as Linux) would enormously add both 
to its size and complexity. It is still possible that, due to the 
granularity and extensive code re-use of Forth the result would result 
in a smaller product, but a great deal of the complexity is inherent in 
the problem (support any program written in any language doing any kind 
of work on any hardware). As a very complex project, it is unlikely to 
be undertaken as an unpaid hobby, and it's hard to imagine who would 
fund it.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
Elizabeth R. Conklin
FORTH, Inc.
6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA  90045
USA

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

#53251

Den lördag 10 december 2016 kl. 05:54:37 UTC+1 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather:
 
> ... a great deal of the complexity is inherent in 
> the problem (support any program written in any language doing any kind 
> of work on any hardware). As a very complex project, it is unlikely to 
> be undertaken as an unpaid hobby, and it's hard to imagine who would 
> fund it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
> 
> -- 
> Elizabeth R. Conklin
> FORTH, Inc.
> 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
> Los Angeles, CA  90045
> USA

But isn't it enough to provide support for Forth programs doing any kind of work on any hardware? Isn't it secondary to write compilers for other languages (in Forth)?

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

#53268

On 12/9/16 10:55 PM, lehs wrote:
> Den lördag 10 december 2016 kl. 05:54:37 UTC+1 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather:
>
>> ... a great deal of the complexity is inherent in
>> the problem (support any program written in any language doing any kind
>> of work on any hardware). As a very complex project, it is unlikely to
>> be undertaken as an unpaid hobby, and it's hard to imagine who would
>> fund it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elizabeth
>>
>> --
>> Elizabeth R. Conklin
>> FORTH, Inc.
>> 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
>> Los Angeles, CA  90045
>> USA
>
> But isn't it enough to provide support for Forth programs doing any kind of work on any hardware?

That's a far cry from being a "general purpose OS like Linux." And truly 
supporting "any hardware" is a tall order. There are many native Forth 
OSs that will support Forth programs on specific hardware, and have been 
for many years.

> Isn't it secondary to write compilers for other languages (in Forth)?
>

Just being able to arbitrarily run programs or call routines written in 
other languages from a Forth OS is tricky. It's been done in several 
applications I've worked on, but the applications have been specific and 
required cooperation from the other-language side, such as managing a 
non-relocatable table of call addresses.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
Elizabeth R. Conklin
FORTH, Inc.
6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA  90045
USA

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

#53275

Den lördag 10 december 2016 kl. 23:24:34 UTC+1 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather:
> On 12/9/16 10:55 PM, lehs wrote:
> > Den lördag 10 december 2016 kl. 05:54:37 UTC+1 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather:
> >
> >> ... a great deal of the complexity is inherent in
> >> the problem (support any program written in any language doing any kind
> >> of work on any hardware). As a very complex project, it is unlikely to
> >> be undertaken as an unpaid hobby, and it's hard to imagine who would
> >> fund it.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Elizabeth
> >>
> >> --
> >> Elizabeth R. Conklin
> >> FORTH, Inc.
> >> 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
> >> Los Angeles, CA  90045
> >> USA
> >
> > But isn't it enough to provide support for Forth programs doing any kind of work on any hardware?
> 
> That's a far cry from being a "general purpose OS like Linux." And truly 
> supporting "any hardware" is a tall order. There are many native Forth 
> OSs that will support Forth programs on specific hardware, and have been 
> for many years.
> 
> > Isn't it secondary to write compilers for other languages (in Forth)?
> >
> 
> Just being able to arbitrarily run programs or call routines written in 
> other languages from a Forth OS is tricky. It's been done in several 
> applications I've worked on, but the applications have been specific and 
> required cooperation from the other-language side, such as managing a 
> non-relocatable table of call addresses.
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
> 
> -- 
> Elizabeth R. Conklin
> FORTH, Inc.
> 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
> Los Angeles, CA  90045
> USA

I must admit that I don't know much about the subject, but a native Forth that manage to use "all" hardware appears to me to be a complete operating system. Any program written for this OS would be able to use "all" hardware.

Then users could make all kind of extensions and compilers to conform to all kind of needs.

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

#53289

On 12/11/16 2:23 AM, lehs wrote:
> Den lördag 10 december 2016 kl. 23:24:34 UTC+1 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather:
>> On 12/9/16 10:55 PM, lehs wrote:
>>> Den lördag 10 december 2016 kl. 05:54:37 UTC+1 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather:
>>>
>>>> ... a great deal of the complexity is inherent in
>>>> the problem (support any program written in any language doing any kind
>>>> of work on any hardware). As a very complex project, it is unlikely to
>>>> be undertaken as an unpaid hobby, and it's hard to imagine who would
>>>> fund it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Elizabeth
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Elizabeth R. Conklin
>>>> FORTH, Inc.
>>>> 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
>>>> Los Angeles, CA  90045
>>>> USA
>>>
>>> But isn't it enough to provide support for Forth programs doing any kind of work on any hardware?
>>
>> That's a far cry from being a "general purpose OS like Linux." And truly
>> supporting "any hardware" is a tall order. There are many native Forth
>> OSs that will support Forth programs on specific hardware, and have been
>> for many years.
>>
>>> Isn't it secondary to write compilers for other languages (in Forth)?
>>>
>>
>> Just being able to arbitrarily run programs or call routines written in
>> other languages from a Forth OS is tricky. It's been done in several
>> applications I've worked on, but the applications have been specific and
>> required cooperation from the other-language side, such as managing a
>> non-relocatable table of call addresses.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elizabeth
>>
>> --
>> Elizabeth R. Conklin
>> FORTH, Inc.
>> 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
>> Los Angeles, CA  90045
>> USA
>
> I must admit that I don't know much about the subject, but a native Forth
> that manage to use "all" hardware appears to me to be a complete operating
> system. Any program written for this OS would be able to use "all" hardware.
>
> Then users could make all kind of extensions and compilers to conform to
> all kind of needs.

That is true providing you're willing to do all your programming in 
Forth and compile your program on this system, and indeed there have 
been many of these. When I hear someone asking for "an OS like Linux," 
that adds a requirement of being able to run programs written in any 
language, compiled elsewhere and in an executable package. Supplying all 
services with that level of generality adds a significant amount of 
complexity.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
Elizabeth R. Conklin
FORTH, Inc.
6080 Center Drive, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA  90045
USA

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

#53214

> I'd rather see a new kernel written in a
> language with far more built-in error checks.  People have been talking
> about using Rust for something like that.  I don't know if there's been
> any progress.

http://www.redox-os.org/news/this-summer-in-redox-15/
is telling about the complexities of rewriting kernels.
Try that in Forth and you'd get bonkers..

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

#53222

In article <fb781178-61c5-4805-84e9-7bf8ae6186ea@googlegroups.com>, 
minforth@arcor.de says...
> > I'd rather see a new kernel written in a
> > language with far more built-in error check
> 

Indeed.


-- 

john

=========================
http://johntech.co.uk

"Bleeding Edge Forum"
http://johntech.co.uk/forum/ 

=========================

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

#53223

In article <8737hy6c4b.fsf@nightsong.com>,
Paul Rubin  <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
>> I could never understand why there is not a LINUX Kernel written in
>> Forth - and connected via SockPuppet or similar to the rest.
>
>Unix started out as a small minicomputer OS that was in something like
>the Forth spirit, but its present-day descendants like Linux are very
>large and complicated.  And even given the resources to write a
>Linux-like kernel in Forth, it's hard for me to identify any benefits
>from doing so.
>
>Forth and C are both low-level languages with similar hazards.  If Forth
>programs tend to have fewer bugs than C programs, it's probably from a
>combination of Forth programs being smaller (less bug surface), and
>Forth programmers being more careful (the interactive, word by word
>code-and-test approach, etc).  I'd rather see a new kernel written in a
>language with far more built-in error checks.  People have been talking
>about using Rust for something like that.  I don't know if there's been
>any progress.

Oberon has been expanded into an OS.
See wikipedia oberon (operating system)
Oberon is the successor to Pascal-> Modulo by Wirth.

It is both simple and practical, but it is not popular.
If Wirth can't pull this off, very few people can.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

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

#53206

In article <7f39aa26-557e-4a1a-8012-e9c5991cf2c9@googlegroups.com>,
JUERGEN  <epldfpga@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 9:42:02 PM UTC, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
>> > What is needed is a Forth Operating system competing with Linux/c showing Forths fantastic simplicity and compactness - a complete and fast system in RAM.
>>
>> Forth is best in embedded systems. So why do you want to "exbed" it for showing off?   ;-)
>
>Nothing to do with showing off. If you want to address/convince an audience you have to speak their language and relate to what they are used to. They are intelligent enough to decide later what solves the requirements - and might cut out the unnecessary.
>I could never understand why there is not a LINUX Kernel written in Forth - and connected via SockPuppet or similar to the rest.

Because most of LINUX is GNU. GNU were the recreated Linux tools. That
could be done by a fanatic professor (Stalman) and his students because
it was many independant parts and the specs were there.

In Forth the spec's for the recreated tools would have to be done with
Forth in mind. No way that there would be enough converging Forthers
to pull that off.

At present of course there is another reason. Creating another linux
would be plain silly for the amount of work alone.

Some of the linux tools may be better in Forth than in C. I'm probably
the only one working on that. If you never hear about it, well, now
you know.

I mean
    apt-get install some-tool
where some-tool is written in Forth not C.
(No, a Forth implementation doesn't count. The criterion is whether
users are in general not aware that it is Forth.)

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web