Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jim <njbetts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Wikipedia article on Forth jim <njbetts@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800
The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:14 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 23:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-25 04:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-26 14:29 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 09:30 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 02:44 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 14:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:32 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:29 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 21:57 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 22:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 15:41 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 14:46 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 17:08 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 15:18 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:20 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 17:47 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 15:16 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 19:04 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 21:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 01:12 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:23 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:04 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-27 18:54 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 13:59 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 23:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-28 11:51 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:19 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:34 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:42 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-09 23:44 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 19:55 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:08 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-09 16:34 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 22:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-11 15:23 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 21:17 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 11:17 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 14:59 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-12 15:00 -0400
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-13 10:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 07:57 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 10:26 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-10 03:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-10 08:47 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-11 01:57 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 10:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 18:32 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 11:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:23 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:21 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 19:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 12:37 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 14:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 04:13 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:31 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:53 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 13:15 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 02:22 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-27 15:52 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-28 14:44 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 22:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-04 21:38 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:11 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:21 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 13:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-05 08:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 15:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 18:25 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 02:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:20 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 02:45 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 08:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 04:42 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 04:06 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-03-07 13:02 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 18:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 22:04 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:49 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 19:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:35 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 13:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-08 15:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 15:10 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-07 08:31 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:03 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 22:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:36 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-12 15:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:46 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:09 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth alex@rivadpm.com - 2017-03-05 15:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-05 22:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-04 07:23 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:11 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 04:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-05 18:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-07 11:35 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 17:13 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 16:50 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 09:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-12 14:31 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-15 23:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:00 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:27 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 22:13 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-16 10:20 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:42 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:48 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 01:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 05:33 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 04:33 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-06 17:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:10 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:22 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 02:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:50 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 12:06 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 16:00 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-07 13:18 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 00:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:04 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 09:52 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 05:09 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 14:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 12:05 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:00 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:53 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 23:19 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 17:01 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 10:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 07:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 12:43 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 12:28 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-12 16:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 16:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 21:42 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:13 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 01:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:37 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-04 18:35 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-27 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-28 07:49 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-25 11:55 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-24 22:14 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-02-26 15:15 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 20:02 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 23:08 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-26 23:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 15:18 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <pPadnV7pWZnh4y7FnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55139 |
On 2/26/17 3:08 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> The essential reason for keeping Forth in source was to maintain the >> intimate relationship between the programmer and the source, to >> minimize the steps involved in the cycle of typing code and testing >> it: we hated the conventional long compile-link-load cycle of other >> languages. > > Right, but that was only possible because Forth compilers were so fast! > If loading and compiling a source block took 1 second, then changing a > 60 block program would mean waiting 1 minute before you could run a > test. That would have been about the situation with other compilers on > hardware of that era. At that point you probably would have wanted > object code blocks and a linker etc. > > There have been some tokenized Forths like Aha and I guess Colorforth to > make the compilation cycle even faster. But these days only the largest > Forth programs take significant time to compile. Correct. Really, programmer efficiency and convenience has been paramount in Forth development. I have never used Aha, and only had brief and uncomfortable experience with Colorforth, but I did work on some very large Forth programs that compiled in a few seconds at most. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 14:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f8bc7cee-30b6-449a-89e9-7cd2a7d703f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55137 |
> > This definitely must be reviewed. Low memory is not an issue today, > > but many non-compatible Forth system is an issue. > > I don't think low memory was a big factor in historically storing Forth > as source. It's just that most Forth compilers are so fast that > load-compile-and-run is usually not much slower than just load-and-run, > so there hasn't been a performance-driven requirement to store object > code. Some implementations can do it anyway, usually for other reasons > like turnkey packaging or keeping the source code confidential. I see no reason to prevent compiler delivering. 'This is my program and this is my version of Forth capable to run it' - it is simple enough. > Not sure what you mean: that a standardized version of the language is > bad? Obviously Forth implementers are not required to follow the > standard: it's just there if they want to use it, and doing so brings > some benefits (and some drawbacks). If a particular environment or > application can't fit well with ANS, then it's fine to not use ANS. If > it can go either way and using ANS isn't too much hassle, then might as > well gain some commonality with other systems. I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other features or implement existing features by other way. What is the reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, familiar with different approaches? > > I think keeping this will lead to leaving programmers, and this is > > critical. One may occupy Wikipedia and force a certain standard, but > > this is a kind of suicide in the long terms. > > Not sure what you're getting at about Wikipedia. As for programmers > leaving Forth, dunno, maybe it's around steady state right now, but > Forth's heyday is definitely in the past. It happens, stuff comes and > goes, ideas keep being reinvented, etc. The same thing is observed with > Lisp. The new stuff isn't exactly better but it was developed around > modern-day resources and challenges, so it addresses them more directly. > Meanwhile people comfortable with Lisp or Forth keep using it, some > eventually drift off. New users also get involved, but not at the same > rate as before, given that there are so many more alternatives available > now. It's sort of like being into vintage sports cars. It's all fine. Lisp and Forth both represents an uncommon approach to language design. Both languages should be studied in any case, even with no immediate task for them. Since Forth is a well-known example of postfix stack-based language, it has a theoretical meaning and not likely to be forgotten completely, just re-invented. So why we must leave Forth alone?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 17:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o92a6i$k01$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55211 |
On 2/27/2017 5:20 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> This definitely must be reviewed. Low memory is not an issue today, >>> but many non-compatible Forth system is an issue. >> >> I don't think low memory was a big factor in historically storing Forth >> as source. It's just that most Forth compilers are so fast that >> load-compile-and-run is usually not much slower than just load-and-run, >> so there hasn't been a performance-driven requirement to store object >> code. Some implementations can do it anyway, usually for other reasons >> like turnkey packaging or keeping the source code confidential. > > I see no reason to prevent compiler delivering. 'This is my program and this is my version of Forth capable to run it' - it is simple enough. Ok, please provide a copy of your program that will run on my custom CPU in an FPGA. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 15:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b28b2ad0-48c5-43c0-97ad-ebcb669b7ac1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55216 |
> > I see no reason to prevent compiler delivering. 'This is my program and this is my version of Forth capable to run it' - it is simple enough. > > Ok, please provide a copy of your program that will run on my custom CPU > in an FPGA. I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 19:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o92emn$70q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55219 |
On 2/27/2017 6:16 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> I see no reason to prevent compiler delivering. 'This is my program and this is my version of Forth capable to run it' - it is simple enough. >> >> Ok, please provide a copy of your program that will run on my custom CPU >> in an FPGA. > > I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler. That is the exact opposite of what you said above. If I write my compiler and want to run your program on it, there would need to be a standard for that interface, no? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 21:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6729163-624e-4987-95a1-6615c30808fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55221 |
> > I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler. > > That is the exact opposite of what you said above. If I write my > compiler and want to run your program on it, there would need to be a > standard for that interface, no? If I want to use your compiler it is my deal to learn how to use it. If I like a compiler, I should not demand to rebuild it as I need. Standard may help to retarget, but if non-standard product looks better, I will switch to it. Compatibility itself is not a goal, just a feature. Current situation shows it is not too important, since many programmers builds their own Forths. It seems they unhappy with standard and needs something else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 01:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9348g$kk0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55226 |
On 2/28/2017 12:52 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler. >> >> That is the exact opposite of what you said above. If I write my >> compiler and want to run your program on it, there would need to be a >> standard for that interface, no? > > If I want to use your compiler it is my deal to learn how to use it. If I like a compiler, I should not demand to rebuild it as I need. Standard may help to retarget, but if non-standard product looks better, I will switch to it. Compatibility itself is not a goal, just a feature. Current situation shows it is not too important, since many programmers builds their own Forths. It seems they unhappy with standard and needs something else. Your logic does not follow. There are cars, with standards for how the brakes, the shifter, the steering wheel operate. Yet some people drive motorcycles. Does that mean the car standards are "not too important"? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 03:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4842c91a-c1f0-4857-9124-609b4265e01f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55227 |
вторник, 28 февраля 2017 г., 9:12:21 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: > On 2/28/2017 12:52 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >>> I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler. > >> > >> That is the exact opposite of what you said above. If I write my > >> compiler and want to run your program on it, there would need to be a > >> standard for that interface, no? > > > > If I want to use your compiler it is my deal to learn how to use it. If I like a compiler, I should not demand to rebuild it as I need. Standard may help to retarget, but if non-standard product looks better, I will switch to it. Compatibility itself is not a goal, just a feature. Current situation shows it is not too important, since many programmers builds their own Forths. It seems they unhappy with standard and needs something else. > > Your logic does not follow. There are cars, with standards for how the > brakes, the shifter, the steering wheel operate. Yet some people drive > motorcycles. Does that mean the car standards are "not too important"? If one company claims they are only true car builders and tries to dictate color, seats design, engine construction, maximum speed etc, this is just annoying. Cars may provide more speed, safety, comfort and many other features and there is no single 'standard' car, even if car standard authors live in China, (there first steam car was built in 1672). I think this has a little meaning for Formula One car designers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 19:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9545s$hd8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55259 |
On 2/28/2017 6:33 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > вторник, 28 февраля 2017 г., 9:12:21 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: >> On 2/28/2017 12:52 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>>>> I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler. >>>> >>>> That is the exact opposite of what you said above. If I write my >>>> compiler and want to run your program on it, there would need to be a >>>> standard for that interface, no? >>> >>> If I want to use your compiler it is my deal to learn how to use it. If I like a compiler, I should not demand to rebuild it as I need. Standard may help to retarget, but if non-standard product looks better, I will switch to it. Compatibility itself is not a goal, just a feature. Current situation shows it is not too important, since many programmers builds their own Forths. It seems they unhappy with standard and needs something else. >> >> Your logic does not follow. There are cars, with standards for how the >> brakes, the shifter, the steering wheel operate. Yet some people drive >> motorcycles. Does that mean the car standards are "not too important"? > > If one company claims they are only true car builders and tries to dictate color, seats design, engine construction, maximum speed etc, this is just annoying. Cars may provide more speed, safety, comfort and many other features and there is no single 'standard' car, even if car standard authors live in China, (there first steam car was built in 1672). I think this has a little meaning for Formula One car designers. Ah, so you agree that your previous logic was flawed! -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 08:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67a331a8-91f1-473a-9eb3-12f742a2cf03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55283 |
> Ah, so you agree that your previous logic was flawed! Im still can't see a reason for this conclusion, but can give your a prize, if you are a collectioner of other people's mistakes :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 18:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o92hkr$g57$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55219 |
On 2/27/2017 5:16 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> I see no reason to prevent compiler delivering. 'This is my program and this is my version of Forth capable to run it' - it is simple enough. >> >> Ok, please provide a copy of your program that will run on my custom CPU >> in an FPGA. > > I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler. > This is somewhat related, you gave a link to where your FPGA CPUs were but it was the site of a Russian Forth Club and I could not find your CPUs. Email me in private if you need a place to setup your own site for free, I have several domains where I could set you up with a sub-domain, related domains are; www.forthlang.org www.smallcpu.org a sub-domain would take the place of www and example would it could be ilyatarasov.smallcpu.org You could maintain your own site with FTP access. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 03:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe246ea5-9a18-4e88-bf6c-4daed8e0320a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55222 |
вторник, 28 февраля 2017 г., 3:54:41 UTC+3 пользователь Cecil - k5nwa написал: > On 2/27/2017 5:16 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >>> I see no reason to prevent compiler delivering. 'This is my program and this is my version of Forth capable to run it' - it is simple enough. > >> > >> Ok, please provide a copy of your program that will run on my custom CPU > >> in an FPGA. > > > > I have programs that can run on my Forth CPU. This is exactly what I suggest. If you have your own CPU, you are responsible on providing compiler. > > > This is somewhat related, you gave a link to where your FPGA CPUs were > but it was the site of a Russian Forth Club and I could not find your CPUs. > > Email me in private if you need a place to setup your own site for free, > I have several domains where I could set you up with a sub-domain, > related domains are; > www.forthlang.org > www.smallcpu.org > > a sub-domain would take the place of www and example would it could be > ilyatarasov.smallcpu.org > > You could maintain your own site with FTP access. > Thank you, this may be useful to share links. Indeed, I have little plans to promote my CPUs. This is an approach mostly, not a certain circuit. Now I have a new product line requiring lowest cost chips, so my latest CPU is multi-threaded and has small foorprint in FPGA. Since it is already ordered, I feel no need to think it is Forth-compatible or not. What I want to do is replacing certain CPUs to a methodology which allows medium-experienced programmer to write his own CPU. Maybe at least to understand in details how it works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 03:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <877f4aileu.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #55257 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > Now I have a new product line requiring lowest cost chips, so my > latest CPU is multi-threaded and has small foorprint in FPGA. I'm still confused at what you gain by implementing your own cpu, instead of using a software Forth implementation on a hard silicon proessor. The hard cpu is almost surely cheaper/more efficient than a softcore, unless you're using a lot of block multipliers or some other special stuff. > What I want to do is replacing certain CPUs to a methodology which > allows medium-experienced programmer to write his own CPU. Maybe at > least to understand in details how it works. Understanding doesn't seem hard. I've looked at some simple Verilog processors and I think I understand what the code does. I've always heard that writing them is harder than it sounds, especially if you care about performance. So I don't claim to be able to do it. But I'd like to try someday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 05:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9aea6860-f59f-48b6-9db4-0840a0645b0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55263 |
вторник, 28 февраля 2017 г., 14:50:51 UTC+3 пользователь Paul Rubin написал: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > > Now I have a new product line requiring lowest cost chips, so my > > latest CPU is multi-threaded and has small foorprint in FPGA. > > I'm still confused at what you gain by implementing your own cpu, > instead of using a software Forth implementation on a hard silicon > proessor. The hard cpu is almost surely cheaper/more efficient than a > softcore, unless you're using a lot of block multipliers or some other > special stuff. When I start to work with that customer, the first design was MCU+FPGA. I suggest to go there from the single MCU, because many peripheral components were connected and programmer was unhappy with a lot of concurrent tasks. In that case, FPGA can relax project significantly, adding independent hardware accelerators with processor control only. So this is exactly a kind of 'special stuff'. Instead of using external MCU I can add a small soft-processor, which must fir into on-chip memory with his code and data. Forth is very effective for this task, so I don't want to highlight a Forth-CPU when search for application. In opposite way, I see an application and going to adaptation of well-known approach. > > What I want to do is replacing certain CPUs to a methodology which > > allows medium-experienced programmer to write his own CPU. Maybe at > > least to understand in details how it works. > > Understanding doesn't seem hard. I've looked at some simple Verilog > processors and I think I understand what the code does. I've always > heard that writing them is harder than it sounds, especially if you care > about performance. So I don't claim to be able to do it. But I'd like > to try someday. Building a CPU should looks like writing a bubble sorting or calculating a sum of array. This is a skill with code templates, common tricks etc. For the first time there is no need to care about performance, because of many factors. First, it is no need at all to learn with too high goals stated. Second, for FPGA there is a lot of limiting things, that can freeze clock speed at the certain level. At last, there are many other modules (such as multipliers you stated above) that can significantly raise up overall system performance. Soft-processor should help to minimize rebuild cycles for hardware by adding software control to hardware blocks. In this case 50-100 MHz is enough to connect to PC and switch hardware modules on/off. Our latest Kintex-7 based system has over 50 GMAC/s of total DSP performance and 150 MHz Forth-CPU, dealing with Ethernet, USB, HDMI and all of DSP blocks. We simple cannot have 50 GHz CPU clock speed, but we don't need this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 13:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36b98ad4-3a3c-4400-9471-e94ead0fa1f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55263 |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 4:50:51 AM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > > Now I have a new product line requiring lowest cost chips, so my > > latest CPU is multi-threaded and has small foorprint in FPGA. > > I'm still confused at what you gain by implementing your own cpu, > instead of using a software Forth implementation on a hard silicon > proessor. The hard cpu is almost surely cheaper/more efficient than a > softcore, unless you're using a lot of block multipliers or some other > special stuff. In 1994 when the MiniForth was developed, there were two purposes: 1.) It is possible to gain a huge speed advantage by doing short repetitive code in hardware rather than software. This doesn't work for every program, but when it does work it works well (like three orders of magnitude faster). 2.) The Lattice isp1048 PLD was a lot less expensive than a processor, and a PLD (not necessarily that big of one) was usually needed anyway with a processor. The laser-etcher board provided better performance and lower cost than the competitor's MC68000 board. Whether these factors are still true now, is debatable. There are a lot of ARM chips available, so you can generally get any kind of I/O that you need (things like USB are mostly in hardware, so you are not likely to get a speed boost by doing this yourself in an HDL). The ARM chips are also inexpensive compared to FPGA chips. The use of FPGA chips may still be a good idea, although not as cutting-edge as it was in 1994 --- Ilya seems to do well in this field --- he is uninterested in the MiniForth/RACE, but I'm not a salesman for Testra so I don't care. Considering how small the Forth community is, I don't think it is a good idea to attack Ilya because he is not an ANS-Forth supporter. ANS-Forth is just a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. --- forget about it --- focus on promoting Forth without concern about any standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-01 08:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2508dc6c-d168-42e7-a4cb-fc6d8ef6b265@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55277 |
среда, 1 марта 2017 г., 0:59:57 UTC+3 пользователь hughag...@gmail.com написал: > Whether these factors are still true now, is debatable. There are a lot of ARM chips available, so you can generally get any kind of I/O that you need (things like USB are mostly in hardware, so you are not likely to get a speed boost by doing this yourself in an HDL). The ARM chips are also inexpensive compared to FPGA chips. I have a project where ARM was suggested as an option insted of FPGA. FPGA 1000 units cost was about 10$/chip, and ARM prices are started from 1.5$... but _started_. Competing chip with all required peripherals and external pins was 19$! > Considering how small the Forth community is, I don't think it is a good idea to attack Ilya because he is not an ANS-Forth supporter. They may try :) This gives me a lot of experience. At least, many questions are comnmon, so I prefer to collect FAQ here rather than with customers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87shmyiyuk.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #55211 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often > non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other > features or implement existing features by other way. What is the > reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still > can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, > familiar with different approaches? If a Forth implementer wants to do something, there are 3 possible approaches: 1) do it the ANS way 2) do it some other way because that has significant advantages 3) do it some other way even without gaining any advantages. Example of #3 is Colorforth's OR word, which means exclusive OR. What the heck did anyone gain from not calling it XOR? My attitude towards standardization is #1 is good if it's not too much hassle, #2 is fine if it gains advantages or avoids hassle, #3 is just silly. Lots of non-standard approaches are basically #3. What's the gain?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 11:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o93kml$qjg$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #55231 |
In article <87shmyiyuk.fsf@nightsong.com>, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: >> I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often >> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other >> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the >> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still >> can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, >> familiar with different approaches? > >If a Forth implementer wants to do something, there are 3 possible >approaches: > >1) do it the ANS way >2) do it some other way because that has significant advantages >3) do it some other way even without gaining any advantages. > >Example of #3 is Colorforth's OR word, which means exclusive OR. >What the heck did anyone gain from not calling it XOR? In using the colorforth keyboard layout typing even a single character is a big deal. <SNIP> 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 | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 05:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d1ef717b-fc3d-40be-a0a7-6653d2c6b061@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55255 |
On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 10:50:41 UTC, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <87shmyiyuk.fsf@nightsong.com>, > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > >> I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often > >> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other > >> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the > >> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still > >> can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, > >> familiar with different approaches? > > > >If a Forth implementer wants to do something, there are 3 possible > >approaches: > > > >1) do it the ANS way > >2) do it some other way because that has significant advantages > >3) do it some other way even without gaining any advantages. > > > >Example of #3 is Colorforth's OR word, which means exclusive OR. > >What the heck did anyone gain from not calling it XOR? > > In using the colorforth keyboard layout typing even a single > character is a big deal. > Absolutely. It's the most cryptic IDE I've ever used. I don't expect to have to puzzle-solve to use an IDE! I didn't last long before giving up in frustration. > <SNIP> > > 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 19:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o954r5$k9k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55271 |
On 2/28/2017 8:19 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 10:50:41 UTC, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> In article <87shmyiyuk.fsf@nightsong.com>, >> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often >>>> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other >>>> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the >>>> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still >>>> can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, >>>> familiar with different approaches? >>> >>> If a Forth implementer wants to do something, there are 3 possible >>> approaches: >>> >>> 1) do it the ANS way >>> 2) do it some other way because that has significant advantages >>> 3) do it some other way even without gaining any advantages. >>> >>> Example of #3 is Colorforth's OR word, which means exclusive OR. >>> What the heck did anyone gain from not calling it XOR? >> >> In using the colorforth keyboard layout typing even a single >> character is a big deal. >> > > Absolutely. It's the most cryptic IDE I've ever used. I don't expect > to have to puzzle-solve to use an IDE! I didn't last long before > giving up in frustration. I remember learning the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard layout in about two days. Once I got over the hump I didn't need a keymap to guide me anymore. The ColorForth keyboard is the same way. If you actually use it for about two days you will get used to it. I did the same thing with the mouse switching from my right hand to my left because of tendonitis. This sort of thing is really not so hard. You just have to give it a bit of a chance and have some persistence. Unfortunately I ran out of patience with the tools for using the GA144. It wasn't the user interface of the tools that was a problem so much, it was the hugely scattered and confusing nature of the documentation. The tools are not a coherent set of usable programs, rather a scattered hodgepodge of disconnected programs requiring a elephantine memory to keep track of the numbers of the various blocks and which did what. *THAT* was truly byzantine. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web