Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #35035 > unrolled thread
| Started by | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 340 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-20 03:40 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 13:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-21 21:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 16:32 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-22 03:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2014-12-22 00:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 13:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 03:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 11:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 07:51 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 15:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-23 11:17 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 06:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-23 12:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 13:12 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 07:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 10:31 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:04 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-25 02:43 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-12-26 11:40 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 21:33 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-06 10:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:13 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 00:41 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 14:59 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-06 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:16 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 18:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 18:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-25 12:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-27 09:48 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-29 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:13 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:16 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 17:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:14 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 12:07 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 11:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:26 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:31 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 11:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 14:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:58 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:38 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 02:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 06:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 22:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:32 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:39 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 01:21 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:06 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 21:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-25 23:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 02:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 05:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 16:13 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-27 04:41 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 11:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-31 15:02 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-26 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-26 10:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 14:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-26 16:36 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 21:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:17 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-01 21:07 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-02 11:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-01-02 12:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-02 23:42 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 14:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-06 03:51 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-05 20:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 19:25 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 14:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 08:04 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:14 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 16:25 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-09 09:10 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:35 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:51 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 11:29 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 03:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 15:58 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 16:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:53 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 11:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-11 11:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:56 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 19:47 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:03 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:05 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-31 10:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-09 23:01 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:43 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:09 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 10:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:31 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 23:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 22:22 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 13:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 13:02 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 15:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 01:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 15:23 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 19:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 17:52 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 21:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 19:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 05:07 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 15:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 12:41 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-07 11:09 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-07 11:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 14:14 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 20:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:57 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-11 19:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 22:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-15 22:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-16 08:56 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-07 12:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 14:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 06:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 18:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 16:48 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 08:50 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-07 10:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:32 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 18:28 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 07:31 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 14:02 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 09:26 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 17:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-07 17:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 09:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 03:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:21 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 18:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-08 14:49 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 17:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:42 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:13 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 02:52 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 18:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 20:29 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 11:14 -0800
Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-10 03:15 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 20:56 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 03:02 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-12 10:14 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 11:39 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 18:08 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 20:04 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-14 02:43 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-14 13:34 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 02:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-15 12:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 06:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 19:15 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 12:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 19:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-11 09:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-11 14:45 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 18:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-12 17:12 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 20:55 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 03:48 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 06:34 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:51 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:03 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:18 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 09:54 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 17:35 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:19 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:07 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:06 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-15 00:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:17 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-15 17:35 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:38 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-16 20:47 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 14:37 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 17:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 03:03 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-13 10:40 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 18:09 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 09:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 11:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 22:38 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-16 13:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 02:39 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 18:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-18 12:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-18 22:48 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-19 03:10 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 18:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 11:45 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-17 17:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 14:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-01-19 00:49 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-19 15:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-20 03:26 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-20 04:23 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 21:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 07:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-20 12:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 16:11 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-01-20 23:29 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-21 01:55 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 00:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 07:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-06 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 21:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-09 23:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "hughaguilar96@yahoo.com" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 11:10 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 00:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 22:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 17:33 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 19:17 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 21:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 04:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-13 15:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 20:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-21 20:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-21 23:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-26 20:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-01-05 10:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 07:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 10:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 21:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-29 05:20 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-04 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-04 05:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-04 08:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-12-26 15:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 10:55 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:34 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 19:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 12:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 16:03 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 17:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2014-12-26 21:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-08 22:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 20:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:36 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 15:51 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-21 16:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-22 10:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-22 05:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 09:10 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 15:23 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000
Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 Next page →
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m9p2tm$2s2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35862 |
On 17/01/2015 04:41, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:12:34 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:45:24 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >>>> Why didn't you use EACH[ ... ]EACH in >>>> TOP? It works perfectly >>> >>> Because when I make <TOP> a function, <TOP> can be tested independently of TOP. If the <TOP> code is buried inside of an EACH[ ]EACH inside of TOP and uses the TOP local variables, it is difficult to test the <TOP> code on a single node, but <TOP> has to be tested on the entire data-structure. Yes but when it has been tested <TOP> could have been put between EACH[ and ]EACH. Perhaps you forgot to do so. >> >> There are some other problems with EACH[ ]EACH also. >> >> EACH[ and ]EACH also have the problem that they use >R and so, if the code > inside is expecting to find data on the return-stack, it will instead find > the EACH[ data on top of its data --- chaos will result! --- this is documented > in the novice package, but it is a pitfall that the user isn't likely expecting, > so I recommend in the novice package that EACH generally be used (EACH[ and > ]EACH can be used when speed is important, as they are slightly faster, and > when the user is sure that the code inside doesn't use R@ and expect to find > data from a >R prior to the EACH[ macro). Yes I read all that in the documentation. > All in all, I'm not impressed by your idea of writing a gigantic function and > putting the loop inside of it so that everything in the loop has access to the > same local variables --- > Failed again! oh well perhaps I should take up knitting. I've just noticed that when a macro such as EACH[ is defined with this first line macro: each[ \ toucher: i*x node -- j*x that the rest of the line following EACH[ is compiled as a string literal into the definition of EACH[ and then evaluated. While desktops have lots of memory and, since your macros are immediate, evaluation of the comment takes place at compile time, this seems a needless inefficiency. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 23:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02358da9-b979-4d52-8c03-1b97decd90b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35953 |
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 1:41:59 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 17/01/2015 04:41, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:12:34 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:45:24 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > >>>> Why didn't you use EACH[ ... ]EACH in > >>>> TOP? It works perfectly > >>> > >>> Because when I make <TOP> a function, <TOP> can be tested independently of TOP. If the <TOP> code is buried inside of an EACH[ ]EACH inside of TOP and uses the TOP local variables, it is difficult to test the <TOP> code on a single node, but <TOP> has to be tested on the entire data-structure. > > Yes but when it has been tested <TOP> could have been put between EACH[ > and ]EACH. Perhaps you forgot to do so. > > All in all, I'm not impressed by your idea of writing a gigantic function and > > putting the loop inside of it so that everything in the loop has access to the > > same local variables --- > > > > Failed again! oh well perhaps I should take up knitting. <TOP> needs to have access to common data that is in TOP --- my understanding of your suggestion regarding using EACH[ ]EACH is that this data would be put in local variables and the <TOP> code inside of EACH[ ]EACH would have access to it. This isn't going to work if <TOP> is a function however. What you were suggesting requires that no factoring be done at all, as all of the <TOP> code has to be inline inside of the EACH[ ]EACH loop to have access to the TOP local variables, and so you get a gigantic function --- this is similar to what has always been done in C, and is the primary reason for why C functions tend to gigantic. Now you seem to be saying that <TOP> can be factored out as a function, but that the call to this function can be put inside of the EACH[ ]EACH loop in TOP --- this is not true, as the <TOP> code won't have access to the TOP local variables --- this is really no different than using EACH. It is not that I "forgot" to use EACH[ ]EACH --- it is just that it doesn't make any difference whether I use EACH or EACH[ ]EACH as they do almost exactly the same thing. You're not really making any sense at all --- I have no idea what point you're trying to get to here. If you don't want to write a version of the TopRank.4th code using your lambda.fth code, then don't --- your lambda.fth is guaranteed to be accepted into Forth-200x --- comparing it to my novice-package is not needed, as you can just say that my novice-package "sucks" and leave it at that. > I've just noticed that when a macro such as EACH[ is defined with this > first line > > macro: each[ \ toucher: i*x node -- j*x > > that the rest of the line following EACH[ is compiled as a string > literal into the definition of EACH[ and then evaluated. While desktops > have lots of memory and, since your macros are immediate, evaluation of > the comment takes place at compile time, this seems a needless inefficiency. Its compile-time, so who cares about speed? Besides that, how much time does \ really take? Maybe you mean that the full source-code is being saved and this wastes memory if it contains comments. Who cares? There are only a couple dozen macros in the the novice package. This seems like tedious nit-picking --- you should just say that MACRO: "sucks" and leave it at that --- quick and easy! The big problem with my MACRO: is that saving the source-code results in late-binding. If a word is referenced in the source-code at the time that the macro is defined, that word may be redefined later on, so the macro will compile different code prior to and after the redefinition --- this can be very confusing --- this is the huge problem that you should have pointed out if you wanted to say that MACRO: sucks, rather than that non-problem about how MACRO: saves comments. I originally wrote MACRO: to save the xt values, so there would be no late-binding issues. This is how it worked in MFX that was written in UR/Forth 20 years ago. When I tried this in ANS-Forth however, I was criticized for not knowing that in ANS-Forth there are Forth words that don't have any "execution semantics" and hence don't have an xt: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/lc53/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-26 20:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ma67h3$6dn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35955 |
On 22/01/2015 07:19, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 1:41:59 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
>> On 17/01/2015 04:41, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:12:34 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:45:24 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:00:16 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
>>>>>> Why didn't you use EACH[ ... ]EACH in
>>>>>> TOP? It works perfectly
>>>>>
>>>>> Because when I make <TOP> a function, <TOP> can be tested independently of TOP. If the <TOP> code is buried inside of an EACH[ ]EACH inside of TOP and uses the TOP local variables, it is difficult to test the <TOP> code on a single node, but <TOP> has to be tested on the entire data-structure.
>>
>> Yes but when it has been tested <TOP> could have been put between EACH[
>> and ]EACH. Perhaps you forgot to do so.
>
>>> All in all, I'm not impressed by your idea of writing a gigantic function and
>>> putting the loop inside of it so that everything in the loop has access to the
>>> same local variables ---
>>>
>>
>> Failed again! oh well perhaps I should take up knitting.
>
> <TOP> needs to have access to common data that is in TOP --- my understanding of your suggestion regarding using EACH[ ]EACH is that this data would be put in local variables and the <TOP> code inside of EACH[ ]EACH would have access to it. This isn't going to work if <TOP> is a function however. What you were suggesting requires that no factoring be done at all, as all of the <TOP> code has to be inline inside of the EACH[ ]EACH loop to have access to the TOP local variables, and so you get a gigantic function --- this is similar to what has always been done in C, and is the primary reason for why C functions tend to gigantic.
>
> Now you seem to be saying that <TOP> can be factored out as a function, but that the call to this function can be put inside of the EACH[ ]EACH loop in TOP --- this is not true, as the <TOP> code won't have access to the TOP local variables --- this is really no different than using EACH. It is not that I "forgot" to use EACH[ ]EACH --- it is just that it doesn't make any difference whether I use EACH or EACH[ ]EACH as they do almost exactly the same thing.
You seem to regard speed as all important so I naturally assumed you
would want the faster option (as you did for the other functions in your
program).
>
> You're not really making any sense at all --- I have no idea what point you're trying to get to here.
All I meant was that instead of your version which is (without comments):
: top ( n head -- new-head )
>r 0 c" xxx" nil r>
['] <top> each
3nip ;
You can simply write:
: top ( n head -- new-head )
>r 0 c" xxx" nil r>
each[ <top> ]each
3nip ;
and it works - try it.
> If you don't want to write a version of the TopRank.4th code using your lambda.fth code, then don't
I've already stated I won't, I've far more urgent things to do
> your lambda.fth is guaranteed to be accepted into Forth-200x --- comparing it to my novice-package is not needed, as you can just say that my novice-package "sucks" and leave it at that.
> Its compile-time, so who cares about speed? Besides that, how much time does \ really take? Maybe you mean that the full source-code is being saved and this wastes memory if it contains comments. Who cares? There are only a couple dozen macros in the the novice package. This seems like tedious nit-picking --- you should just say that MACRO: "sucks" and leave it at that --- quick and easy!
You do live in a binary world don't you. You think either something
sucks or is brilliant (or whatever word you use for anti-sucks) -
nothing in between. I don't think MACRO: or your novice package suck
(yuck now you've got me using American slang - I shall hold that against
you:-), it is just not optimal for the reason I stated - which I agree
is trivial on a desktop and who cares.
>
> The big problem with my MACRO: is that saving the source-code results in late-binding.
Not a problem if you're aware of it. It's a consequence of using
EVALUATE, as I see it you don't have much alternative if you don't want
restrictions on what goes into a macro.
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 10:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cgv7fdFtn2gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #35416 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: [%X] >> Dealing >> with those errors are just part of the process. From everything I've >> heard about Ada shops, they tend to be very rigorous and process-driven >> about design, testing, documentation, etc. As a consequence, they burn >> a lot of money, but their stuff tends to work solidly. > > Apparently, it seems to be much easier to get a Forth program through the > necessary audit processes involved in that typical environment, which is > Paul Bennett's job. For Safety Critical Systems it is imperative that you can show that your design and development process is rigorous enough to eliminate errors in a number of the development stages. I always state that the testing should start with the initial Requirements Specification and continue throughout the rest of the project. Often you may find a simpler specification emerges from the initial specification testing before you even design any element of the code. I know, from experience, that Forth and most of the IEC61131 language sets are more easily certified for correctness once you have resolved issues within the initial specifications. [%X] >> And, any user-code bugs found by static analysis don't >> have to be found by testing, so that reduces the number of test-debug >> iterations. So static analysis is still helpful. > > Well, there is the tradeoff of making it harder to program, when the type > system is annoying and gets into your way. You sound like there is a zero > cost attached to the static analysis, which certainly isn't the case. > > Static analysis is helpful, if its costs are less than those of testing > the > thing. Haskell goes into the direction of reducing the cost of the static > typesystem to make it actually fun to use (which it usually isn't), and > Forth goes the direction to reduce the cost of testing to make it actually > fun. On the other hand, Forth tries to do very little to do static > analysis (apart from scoping in OOP extensions). Static analysis is always a part of my certification efforts and can highlight a surprising number of failings, even code limitations. There is no question about cost saving here. Done properly, it can highlight 50% of the coding errors (if any) on each pass. When you fail a static analysis step you go back and correct it. Hence, you will probably visit static analysis on a piece of code several times before an actual test is run. For some languages there are static analysis tools available. These do cost a considerable sum of money but for where they are used it is seen as worthwhile to deploy them. Forth is not so complex that a manually applied static analysis is out of the question. However, I would advocate a Component Oriented Approach to your design is worth employing as this makes it very easy for static analysis and testing. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 07:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b39f0978-4d49-452a-b88e-51e64d9fc9f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35285 |
On Friday, December 26, 2014 11:19:56 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote: > krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org writes: > >> the 787 is being done in Ada > > Really? Why would it be more terrifying to write a large portion of it > > in assembler? > > Much more code written by humans, so much more places for those humans > to make errors. Lack of machine-checked assurance for just about > anything. > > > And, on what basis do you think it might be significantly more > > expensive? > > Increased development and analysis time, mostly. > > > From a reliability point of view, I might suggest that well-debugged > > assembler code is more reliable than code written in a high-level > > language, where there is a more mysterious black box between the code > > one writes, and the machine instructions themselves. > > The Ada critical systems crowd seems to want formal verification of the > absence of many types of errors (not all errors). No amount of > debugging can assure that. Verification is harder to do in assembler > than Ada afaik. > I assume you mean things like bounds checking for arrays, type checking and so on. Forth programmers typically already dispense with much of this hand-holding and manage to write robust programs anyway. I know very little about formal, mathematical-level verification to comment much about its benefits. > > I coded the virtual machine and many primitives for kForth in > > assembler. ... The VM is dirt simple and robust > > There's perfectly reasonable, the Ada runtime (or any other language at > its lowest level) also has to be in assembler. Then you have a higher > level (Forth in this case) running on top of that. > > > Now, this is certainly no large scale application, but I wouldn't bet > > that the approach can't scale to large pieces of software. > > If it were that practical then why did you bother implementing Forth, > instead of coding in assembler directly? Because I was writing a Forth system ;-). Don't extrapolate from my words that I'm claiming one should always develop applications in assembly language. I use high level systems frequently, for the convenience that they offer. I'm only suggesting that the bias against using assembly language in application development may be borne of inexperience, rather than untested claims of improved development time, maintainability, reliability, etc. for high level languages. In fact, I see a benefit to assembler when one needs to understand clearly the machine instructions associated with a particular code fragment. Sometimes that may not be so easy for the assembler output from a high level language. But, I would most likely use assembler in conjunction with high-level languages in nearly all situations. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 13:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <874msg4x7g.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #35293 |
krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org writes: > I assume you mean things like bounds checking for arrays, type > checking and so on. Forth programmers typically already dispense with > much of this hand-holding and manage to write robust programs > anyway. Forth programs tend to be small enough to be comprehensible all at once, which helps a lot. Yes I know there are exceptions but they seem to require a lot of human attention to check things that in other systems are done by the compiler. > I'm only suggesting that the bias against using assembly language in > application development may be borne of inexperience, rather than > untested claims of improved development time, maintainability, > reliability, etc. for high level languages. I thought that ship sailed in the 1980's. > In fact, I see a benefit to assembler when one needs to understand > clearly the machine instructions associated with a particular code > fragment. That need surely arises sometimes, but not often. > But, I would most likely use assembler in conjunction with high-level > languages in nearly all situations. I can't think of the most recent time I've wanted to write anything in assembler for any processor that had good compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 10:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0688e6c4-da2c-4ff6-985c-e3acba76f481@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35280 |
On Friday, December 26, 2014 4:36:10 PM UTC-8, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: > On Friday, December 26, 2014 4:54:42 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote: > ... I coded the virtual machine and many primitives for kForth > in assembler. Originally, I wasn't entirely sure that it was the > right approach because of the problems of portability. Today, > I'm convinced it was the right approach. My VM has control of > the machine registers, not a C compiler. This turns out to be > critical for implementing a robust and simple interface between > Forth code and assembly code. The VM is dirt simple and robust, > and I've had to do little maintenance on the Forth primitives > which were coded in assembly to start with. Now, this is > certainly no large scale application, but I wouldn't bet that > the approach can't scale to large pieces of software. > > Krishna I have been spending a lot of time translating CamelForth to my new self-designed hobby microprocessor, and I am having almost too much fun writing most of the words as primitives, with the excuse that I'm shaking out my instruction set before finalizing it. Of course, I don't have a set schedule, and that could be a contributor to my chosen method. It's still great fun for a nerd like me, especially when they end up shorter as primitives than they do as secondaries. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 11:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a95bf7f8-dcb7-4455-8f12-1bdef1a67b9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35295 |
On Saturday, December 27, 2014 12:54:18 PM UTC-6, Michael Barry wrote: ... > > I have been spending a lot of time translating CamelForth to my > new self-designed hobby microprocessor, and I am having almost > too much fun writing most of the words as primitives, with the > excuse that I'm shaking out my instruction set before finalizing > it. Of course, I don't have a set schedule, and that could be > a contributor to my chosen method. It's still great fun for a > nerd like me, especially when they end up shorter as primitives > than they do as secondaries. > > Mike Sounds like a fun project. Is your microprocessor made from discrete logic, or from a PLD? I built a 2-bit adder out of transistors and diodes for fun, but a microprocessor is a whole level up from there. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-27 21:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e5f3677-4231-4aed-b2a4-e003f7f8cbb9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35296 |
On Saturday, December 27, 2014 11:01:34 AM UTC-8, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote:
>
> Sounds like a fun project. Is your microprocessor made from discrete
> logic, or from a PLD? I built a 2-bit adder out of transistors and
> diodes for fun, but a microprocessor is a whole level up from there.
>
> Krishna
It could end up in a CPLD or FPGA someday, but I'm not holding my
breath, just having as much fun as possible writing a specification,
simulator, and some test software in my limited spare time. I'm
currently juggling some instructions around and hand-assembling some
code. Its assembly language looks like a cross between 6502 and 6809,
and its native width is 32-bits, for registers, addresses, memory
cells, and instructions.
Here's what ITC NEXT looks like ... I chose ITC for retro-goodness
and flavor, not efficiency (I doubt that the column spacing will be
preserved with this copy&paste, but you should get the idea):
; 167 ;----------------------------------------------- lit
0000004d:00000047; 168 NOT_IMM 'lit' ( core )
0000004e:036c6974; 168
; 169 _lit: ; ( -- x ) Push inline literal to stack
; 170 ; This is the primitive compiled by LITERAL
0000004f:00000050; 171 PRIMITIVE
00000050:52040000; 172 ldb ,y+ ; b = (IP++)
; 173 pushb_: ; ( Internal )
00000051:a3020000; 174 sta ,-x ; make room for TOS
; 175 putb_: ; ( Internal )
00000052:40080000; 176 tba ; TOS = b
; 177 next_: ; ( Internal )
00000053:56040000; 178 ldu ,y+ ; W = (IP++)
00000054:5e0a0000; 179 jmp (,u+) ; Execute from (W++)
; 180 ;---------------------------------------------- EXIT
00000055:0000004d; 181 NOT_IMM 'EXIT' ( core )
00000056:04455849; 181
00000057:54000000; 181
; 182 _exit: ; ( -- ) Exit a colon definition
00000058:00000059; 183 PRIMITIVE
00000059:4a0c0000; 184 ply ; Pop IP from rstack
0000005a:5c060053; 185 jmp next_
Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-29 05:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66851e23-5fc3-40ee-b795-fdd59c129091@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35308 |
On Saturday, December 27, 2014 11:25:26 PM UTC-6, Michael Barry wrote: > On Saturday, December 27, 2014 11:01:34 AM UTC-8, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: > > > > Sounds like a fun project. Is your microprocessor made from discrete > > logic, or from a PLD? I built a 2-bit adder out of transistors and > > diodes for fun, but a microprocessor is a whole level up from there. > > > > Krishna > > It could end up in a CPLD or FPGA someday, but I'm not holding my > breath, just having as much fun as possible writing a specification, > simulator, and some test software in my limited spare time. I'm > currently juggling some instructions around and hand-assembling some > code. Its assembly language looks like a cross between 6502 and 6809, > and its native width is 32-bits, for registers, addresses, memory > cells, and instructions. > Ok. I underdstand. You're developing a virtual microprocessor. > Here's what ITC NEXT looks like ... I chose ITC for retro-goodness > and flavor, not efficiency (I doubt that the column spacing will be > preserved with this copy&paste, but you should get the idea): > > ; 167 ;----------------------------------------------- lit > 0000004d:00000047; 168 NOT_IMM 'lit' ( core ) > 0000004e:036c6974; 168 > ; 169 _lit: ; ( -- x ) Push inline literal to stack > ; 170 ; This is the primitive compiled by LITERAL > 0000004f:00000050; 171 PRIMITIVE > 00000050:52040000; 172 ldb ,y+ ; b = (IP++) > ; 173 pushb_: ; ( Internal ) > 00000051:a3020000; 174 sta ,-x ; make room for TOS > ; 175 putb_: ; ( Internal ) > 00000052:40080000; 176 tba ; TOS = b > ; 177 next_: ; ( Internal ) > 00000053:56040000; 178 ldu ,y+ ; W = (IP++) > 00000054:5e0a0000; 179 jmp (,u+) ; Execute from (W++) > ; 180 ;---------------------------------------------- EXIT > 00000055:0000004d; 181 NOT_IMM 'EXIT' ( core ) > 00000056:04455849; 181 > 00000057:54000000; 181 > ; 182 _exit: ; ( -- ) Exit a colon definition > 00000058:00000059; 183 PRIMITIVE > 00000059:4a0c0000; 184 ply ; Pop IP from rstack > 0000005a:5c060053; 185 jmp next_ > It looks very clean. Will be interesting to see your final results. Cheers, Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 11:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54a929bf$0$15841$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35280 |
In article <3d03e403-7181-4ab3-8a2f-a23d0c4843f7@googlegroups.com>,
<krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>On Friday, December 26, 2014 4:54:42 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes:
>> > What you said isn't the reason. Assembler is completely appropriate
>> > and the best choice for systems programming in this environment.
>...
>> I don't know about the 747, but the 787 is being done in Ada:
>>
>> http://www.adacore.com/customers/787-dreamliner-common-core-system/
>>
>> Doing it in assembler would be terrifying, besides being much more
>> expensive.
>
>Really? Why would it be more terrifying to write a large portion of it
>in assembler? And, on what basis do you think it might be significantly
>more expensive? From a reliability point of view, I might suggest that
>well-debugged assembler code is more reliable than code written in a
>high-level language, where there is a more mysterious black box between
>the code one writes, and the machine instructions themselves.
>
>I coded the virtual machine and many primitives for kForth in assembler.
>Originally, I wasn't entirely sure that it was the right approach
>because of the problems of portability. Today, I'm convinced it was the
>right approach. My VM has control of the machine registers, not a C
>compiler. This turns out to be critical for implementing a robust and
>simple interface between Forth code and assembly code. The VM is dirt
>simple and robust, and I've had to do little maintenance on the Forth
>primitives which were coded in assembly to start with. Now, this is
>certainly no large scale application, but I wouldn't bet that the
>approach can't scale to large pieces of software.
This underscores the approach taken with ciforth. While the porting
of iforth to 64 bits apparently was a major feat, replacing a few
macro's like
define({AX},{EAX})
by
define({AX},{RAX})
and running stealconstant.c on a 64 bit system to get the system
calls right, went a long way to porting ciforth to 64 bits.
Of course compiling to true executables was slightly more tricky
but that is a feature most forths don't even have.
(The porting to a totally different assembler, including learning
the machine language of the DEC Alpha took more, 10 days all clock
time to be precise.)
Bottom line. Don't let assembler language scare you, and don't
believe dogmatic non-portability claims.
>
>Krishna
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]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 05:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <202267c0-d386-40bb-a519-bd40691d0fa1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35438 |
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:53:37 PM UTC+1, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <3d03e403-7181-4ab3-8a2f-a23d0c4843f7@googlegroups.com>, [..] > This underscores the approach taken with ciforth. While the porting > of iforth to 64 bits apparently was a major feat, ... [..] iForth is not written in the assembly language fashion that is described in this thread. iForth64 is written in iForth32 (and just recently in itself), including its 64-bit assemblers and disassemblers. Getting these tools right was 99% of the porting job, because the higher-level optimizers (that took indeed 20 years to get correct) don't care what's underneath. I think it is not even possible (how would one debug it) to write iForth in pure assembly language. -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 08:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9de9bfb9-c241-4b63-894a-5aeaf626d626@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35438 |
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 5:53:37 AM UTC-6, Albert van der Horst wrote:
...
> This underscores the approach taken with ciforth. While the porting
> of iforth to 64 bits apparently was a major feat, replacing a few
> macro's like
> define({AX},{EAX})
> by
> define({AX},{RAX})
> and running stealconstant.c on a 64 bit system to get the system
> calls right, went a long way to porting ciforth to 64 bits.
>
> Of course compiling to true executables was slightly more tricky
> but that is a feature most forths don't even have.
>
> (The porting to a totally different assembler, including learning
> the machine language of the DEC Alpha took more, 10 days all clock
> time to be precise.)
>
>
> Bottom line. Don't let assembler language scare you, and don't
> believe dogmatic non-portability claims.
>
A few years ago, someone took the time to port the 32-bit kForth assembly language portion of the VM to 64-bits, and was kind enough to send me their work. It's still on the back burner. My software development is mostly driven by my own computational needs. I'm getting to a point where efficiency, particularly in floating point calculations is becoming a concern. Moving to 64-bits will certainly help with that, but the bigger advantage will come from native code compilation, and reducing data transfers between the fpu and memory. That's an area which I'm likely to look into further, as I become impatient with the calculations.
Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1h8rx4xtkuw8q.1x6pre9osrenc.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #35260 |
Op Thu, 25 Dec 2014 17:49:46 -0800 schreef Paul Rubin: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes: >>> legacy OS compatibility and it sounds like they spend a boatload of >>> money on development. >> That is because that there are not many such programmers. > > The extra cost is mostly because it takes so much longer to implement > functionality in asm than in an HLL. > >>> It looks to me like ciforth is a descendant of FigForth >> Don't forget you can't reuse assembly code from older processors. >> I have x86-64 version and it does not looks like it is pre 2000. > > I haven't looked closely at ciforth but iirc, Figforth was metacompiled, > and it may have used a semi-portable virtual machine mapped to hardware > instructions with asm macros (ie. with a W register and so on). > Figforth ran on a lot of different cpu architectures with relatively > small amount of asm code hacking needed for each one. ciforth is certainly not metacompiled. -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec26.143535@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35236 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>One difference is you can run the C program on multiple cpu
>architectures without much change.
That used to be the case, but not any longer. Nowadays you cannot run
a C program on a single CPU architecture without change.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec25.115545@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35210 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>I'm not sure why they didn't use C with some low level asm support though.
I wouldn't start a new project in C today. The quality of the C
compiler maintainers has degraded too much. Assembly language does
not have that problem.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 07:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gd4r$li9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35203 |
On 2014-12-25, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >> I assume you never have to do any actual programming using Assembler, >> right? > > Never any large apps. Some small stuff. > > >>> Compilers also make things easier. But they're not always suitable for certain types of programming. >> Even easier would be to pay someone so he would write the code for you. > > But (some) compilers are free, so if they make things easier than > assembler... > >> If you remember the beginning of the conversation, I proposed to teach >> students how to write HLL (Forth) on Assembler. Incidentally not sure what the above sentence means but my point in replying was to answer the question below anyway. >> There are many people out there who had to use Assembler for big >> projects, but have no knowledge of Haskell, and they will probably >> choose Assembler for the same task. It is a good thing to know languages for the domains you're working in. That may be one language or many, depending on what you do. For a hobby coder the demands are different than someone who has a job doing it. But just because you can apply a certain language or technique in your problem domain doesn't mean you would automatically choose that language or technique when doing something that isn't in the normal frame of reference. > Has anyone done a big project in assembler in the current century for > reasons other than amusement? Oh yes. Are you really unaware there are platforms where the primary language is assembler? Products range from foundation code running about 100 KLOC and a complete saleable product usually ranges from 500KLOC to 15MLOC total, including comments but not including macro expansion. > And what's "big"? These days I'd say a big project starts around 100 > KLOC. 20 years ago "big" might have meant 10 KLOC. I would say big starts around a couple million lines but I've worked on software considerably larger than that. > There have hardly even been any big C projects done since the 1900's. Really? I don't know much about C but I would have thought in the last hundred years or so there *must* have been some large projects ;-) Tom O'Donnell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 23:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr3voyys9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35212 |
Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >> Has anyone done a big project in assembler in the current century for >> reasons other than amusement? > Oh yes. Are you really unaware there are platforms where the primary > language is assembler? Can you name one from this century? > Products range from foundation code running about 100 KLOC and a > complete saleable product usually ranges from 500KLOC to 15MLOC total, Hmm, I guess you're talking about IBM mainframes with their need for legacy support. OK, good observation. But in this case maybe asm is being used by necessity rather than choice. Anyway, can you name one of those 100 KLOC - 15 MLOC products that was written in this century? Products handed down from the last century don't establish that asm is a sane choice for new products today. >> There have hardly even been any big C projects done since the 1900's. > Really? I don't know much about C but I would have thought in the last > hundred years or so there *must* have been some large projects ;-) 1900's referred to the century (like the 1400's), not the decade. I.e. the 1900's ended in 1999. By "this century" I mean 2000 and up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 10:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gp84$eqt$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35214 |
On 2014-12-25, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >>> Has anyone done a big project in assembler in the current century for >>> reasons other than amusement? >> Oh yes. Are you really unaware there are platforms where the primary >> language is assembler? > > Can you name one from this century? IBM's z/OS. It is the descendant of OS/360 from 1964 and it is still making us all money 50 some odd years later. >> Products range from foundation code running about 100 KLOC and a >> complete saleable product usually ranges from 500KLOC to 15MLOC total, > > Hmm, I guess you're talking about IBM mainframes with their need for > legacy support. OK, good observation. But in this case maybe asm is > being used by necessity rather than choice. Yes for systems software in that environment assembler is certainly a necessity. But we're perfectly satisfied with that. The OS is designed to support assembler and the tools are designed to support large software. And it is not only "legacy" support but all new systems software. Most of the legacy support for IBM is in COBOL. "Trillions served". > Anyway, can you name one of those 100 KLOC - 15 MLOC products that was > written in this century? Products handed down from the last century > don't establish that asm is a sane choice for new products today. Look around for product announcements. That will be a superset of what is totally new because there is some rebadging but it will give you a rough idea. I know of several completely new products that came out in the past ten years. I'm not going to name anything I've written or worked on here. Development is expensive and time to market is fairly long. We don't put out a new product every year. But we do put them out. We also add features to products consisting of completely new code. Those new features keep clients who pay for support and they help generate new sales. It's hard to say what an average would be for that but I would think 50 to 100KLOC for a new feature that sells as an add-on would be a reasonable median value. Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x61czbp0h.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35222 |
Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >> Can you name one from this century? > IBM's z/OS. It is the descendant of OS/360 from 1964 and it is still making > us all money 50 some odd years later. Right, but that's what I'd call continued maintenance and development of a 20th century product. >> Anyway, can you name one of those 100 KLOC - 15 MLOC products > I know of several completely new products that came out in the past > ten years. I'm not going to name anything I've written or worked on > here. No prob. The confirmation that new stuff is being done suffices. > Development is expensive and time to market is fairly long... It's > hard to say what an average would be for that but I would think 50 to > 100KLOC for a new feature that sells as an add-on would be a > reasonable median value. Fair enough. What kind of features? Just system level (add support for some new hardware device), or also at the application level? If application level, how would you compare the development cost and time, to what it would take for a Java shop to implement comparable functionality?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web