Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #49933 > unrolled thread
| Started by | foxaudioresearch@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-28 22:34 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 202 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
"Forth is Sudoku for programmers" foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 21:00 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 23:26 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 00:25 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 01:29 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 16:09 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-11 19:31 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-12 12:22 +1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 19:59 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-11 18:23 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 21:57 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" mhx@iae.nl - 2016-08-11 23:20 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 23:49 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-15 08:52 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 02:31 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-15 22:43 +1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-08-15 14:49 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-21 21:24 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:04 +0300
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-08-26 07:12 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 09:18 +0300
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 21:12 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 00:04 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 01:34 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:17 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 08:53 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 11:54 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 17:38 -0400
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:02 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-15 07:10 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-08-15 08:34 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 01:11 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 21:23 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 14:26 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-29 01:44 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 00:45 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 14:56 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 15:02 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 22:05 -0400
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 21:05 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 22:15 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:39 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 00:03 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-13 00:07 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 07:35 -0400
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 17:17 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 20:04 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 20:38 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 20:46 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 06:02 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-08-14 23:04 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 16:01 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-13 21:53 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 07:45 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 06:44 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-14 19:57 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 11:17 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 13:59 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 14:09 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 15:48 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-14 18:34 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 02:24 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-20 19:26 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 14:58 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-21 15:51 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-21 15:52 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-24 16:35 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-08-14 10:32 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 13:55 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 21:37 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-28 15:25 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2016-08-28 16:16 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-28 16:44 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 20:00 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 20:39 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-12 22:11 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" dhoffman888@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 03:39 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:18 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 22:35 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 22:52 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 22:55 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2016-08-13 11:31 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-15 11:47 +1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-15 12:05 +1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-15 08:21 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 22:54 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-12 14:51 +1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 21:59 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-13 18:04 +1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 23:16 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-13 18:47 +1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 22:59 -0400
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 20:54 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:36 -0400
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 15:10 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 17:45 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 18:40 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 20:18 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 22:18 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-10 15:38 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-08-10 16:18 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-11 11:39 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 00:23 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 01:56 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:28 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 00:23 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-11 11:26 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:06 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:51 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 01:48 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 01:52 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:42 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 13:36 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:06 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:10 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 00:46 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-16 00:57 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 04:45 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 02:16 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 03:04 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-18 09:30 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 07:44 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 11:36 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:41 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 14:01 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 14:33 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 16:23 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 17:28 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 18:59 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 19:07 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 01:09 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-18 17:21 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 23:36 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 00:11 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 01:44 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 01:46 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 22:29 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-31 03:43 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-19 03:49 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 02:18 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-20 05:05 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 15:13 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-21 16:33 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 19:37 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-21 20:02 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:36 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-22 03:36 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-19 08:40 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 15:59 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 16:28 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 16:31 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 17:24 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 19:48 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-19 20:17 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 02:16 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 02:19 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 03:13 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 07:03 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-20 12:21 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 20:39 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-20 15:41 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-20 14:40 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-20 17:25 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-20 20:14 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-20 20:30 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 13:46 -0500
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-08-21 20:13 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 12:37 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-08-21 21:11 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 13:19 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 19:03 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-08-22 06:45 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:38 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 22:43 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-21 08:57 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 22:40 +0200
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-21 09:57 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 11:29 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 11:56 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 12:11 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 12:26 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-21 12:52 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-08-22 07:12 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:43 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:40 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-22 17:20 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 13:01 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:16 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-08-21 20:19 +0100
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-08-21 17:41 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 02:09 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 20:04 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-19 09:40 -1000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 13:48 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 01:13 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 04:26 -0400
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 03:06 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 11:54 -0400
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-08-26 20:43 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 04:20 -0700
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-08-28 00:04 +0000
Re: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers" albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-28 22:34 +0200
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <np4gpg$vli$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50207 |
On 8/18/2016 5:04 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 10:16:27 UTC+1, lehs wrote: >> I guess that Forth is more of an idea than a computer language and that the idea of Forth will develop as other good ideas develop in a long-term perspective. Charles Moore have said that Forth is an approach to programming and he never seems to use any standards. I guess he use no libraries neither, but copy and paste from his own code. >> >> I think a lot of forthers is a bit like Charles Moore. It's all about the idea and our own code. I rather use a less effective code (in progress) of my own, than some alien code by someone else, especially when it comes to packages. What I do use is others definitions and Forth implementations. And I also like to test other peoples code from time to time, last the fancy Lisp implementation that humptydumpty manage to get running. And I want the possibility of other people to run my code if they want. >> >> The CORE and DOUBLE words in ANS Forth are the most important definitions to be standardized. And they shouldn't change from standard to standard. FLOATING and FILE are nice but could maybe be developed further. Personally I'm not interested at all in future implementations of various computer scientific ideas that maybe not belong in Forth at all. >> >> Recognizers seems to be a good idea if implemented in a smart and simple way. From there really nice implementations of new data types would be possible. >> >> Also, why are there no discussion of a standard for rudimentary graphic words? Or are there? > > As I'm doing (paid) embedded development at the moment, I'm currently > rather sad at the Forth world. The term "Sudoko for programmers" might > be true. I'd like to do embedded Forth, but there's little out there > to drive real hardware that one will typically use these days in the > embedded world: LCDs, touch panels, that sort of stuff. > > One possible option is noForth. Those guys seem to have developed the > software libraries to drive a whole host of hardware on the MSP430 > platform. That's very encouraging. > I been using a whole lot of different platforms to do personal embedded projects but I came to the conclusion that that needs to stop, and I need to concentrate all my efforts on one platform so I can develop my own set of libraries to access the built in hardware devices and not have to re-invent the wheel with every device out there. I've settled on the ST family of ARM devices and from now on I will only buy Nucleo and Discovery boards to keep the variation of hardware down to a minimum. They are powerful, they are inexpensive and even if they are overkill for a task, I will stick to these two families to keep the variation down to a minimum and stabilize my software environment. Right now my software of choice is MPE's VFX ARM compiler, and eForth for FPGA soft CPUs, for the desktop, the jury is still out. I also own a copy of Rowley's Crossworks C development system for ARM but I have not used it in a while. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxaudioresearch@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 07:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc3ff471-6929-4ff2-8efe-0d27147aeffa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50207 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 6:04:37 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote: > On Thursday, 18 August 2016 10:16:27 UTC+1, lehs wrote: > > I guess that Forth is more of an idea than a computer language and that the idea of Forth will develop as other good ideas develop in a long-term perspective. Charles Moore have said that Forth is an approach to programming and he never seems to use any standards. I guess he use no libraries neither, but copy and paste from his own code. > > > > I think a lot of forthers is a bit like Charles Moore. It's all about the idea and our own code. I rather use a less effective code (in progress) of my own, than some alien code by someone else, especially when it comes to packages. What I do use is others definitions and Forth implementations. And I also like to test other peoples code from time to time, last the fancy Lisp implementation that humptydumpty manage to get running. And I want the possibility of other people to run my code if they want. > > > > The CORE and DOUBLE words in ANS Forth are the most important definitions to be standardized. And they shouldn't change from standard to standard. FLOATING and FILE are nice but could maybe be developed further. Personally I'm not interested at all in future implementations of various computer scientific ideas that maybe not belong in Forth at all. > > > > Recognizers seems to be a good idea if implemented in a smart and simple way. From there really nice implementations of new data types would be possible. > > > > Also, why are there no discussion of a standard for rudimentary graphic words? Or are there? > > As I'm doing (paid) embedded development at the moment, I'm currently > rather sad at the Forth world. The term "Sudoko for programmers" might > be true. I'd like to do embedded Forth, but there's little out there > to drive real hardware that one will typically use these days in the > embedded world: LCDs, touch panels, that sort of stuff. > > One possible option is noForth. Those guys seem to have developed the > software libraries to drive a whole host of hardware on the MSP430 > platform. That's very encouraging. For some reason, maybe simply because it's just so damned easy to to, Forth cultivates lots of thought about messing with the language. So much so that we forget the reason for having the language. Or perhaps it is the nature of the people who congregate here. Solutions to people on clf may be so simple in Forth that they don't really have to worry about them. However the computer world is moving very fast now and the level of everyday programming has moved to a very high level indeed. As a person who spent some time generating hundreds of millions in revenue by consumer marketing I can say that Forth needs a facelift to present to the world. What marketers call the "value proposition". Why should I choose Forth? And regardless of whether we like it or not providing "bolt-on" things that "just work" are what real people need to keep up in a commercial space. Maybe elite programmers have no need, but programmers with bosses and deadlines seem to need/want them. Academic arguments have no teeth in such matters. There have been some cool things in that regard created like Stephen's Sockpuppet example but we all know that they don't give people the same kind of options that they get with other less fun but more conventional languages. My own opinion is that until there is a reference implementation of Forth that can be replicated across platforms and can "include" a significant set of useful additions to the system, like Mark's LCD drivers and all the rest, it will be very difficult to achieve the "facelift" and so the rest of the programming world will continue to perceive Forth as a interesting curiosity but not a tool they could use professionally. The first steps at standardization gives us a place to start with such a project. Then the 2 remaining companies in the world must agree on the reference system... The alternative is change the name of the product and start over like 8th and OForth has done, so legacy is not an issue. But then you loose the equity in the name Forth, if it has value. My 2 Canadian cents (only 1 pence in the UK) BF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87d1l5vs9o.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #50213 |
foxaudioresearch@gmail.com writes: > until there is a reference implementation of Forth that can be > replicated across platforms and can "include" a significant set of > useful additions to the system, like Mark's LCD drivers and all the > rest... Unfortunately things like LCD drivers are platform-specific, so by definition not easy to replicate across platforms. There is typically sample code around for the various devices, that is usually written in C. If you have a bare-metal Forth system that lets you call C functions, that can help use those devices, but you've still got the issue of porting the Forth to any new platform. Another idea might be to have a Forth embeddable in a C outer shell. Then the outer shell could be brought up on a given platform using the platform-specific C tooling, and it can call the Forth. I think a few such Forths have already been written.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19b0cd03-1a37-4f93-8569-4903a4a63e4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50216 |
All one really needs is bit-level i/o. If writing to digital outputs and reading from digital inputs were actually standardised, instead of freaking quotations and recognisers, then drivers such as I2C and Hitachi LCD drivers, mouse drivers etc could absolutely be written in standard forth, on top of the bit I/O words/wordset. For I2C you need a clock and a data line! That's it! For an Hitachi LCD in 4-bit mode you just 4 data bits and a strobe. Could all be written in standard portable Forth totally platform agnostic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <878tvtvlkh.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #50219 |
Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes: > For I2C you need a clock and a data line! That's it! For an Hitachi > LCD in 4-bit mode you just 4 data bits and a strobe. Of course at the lowest level you just have to toggle a few bits, but users generally want higher level functionality like writing text and graphics to the lcd. Also you can do I2C by bit banging, but it's preferable to use the MCU's hardware if present, and that can be different from MCU to MCU. It's the same with other stuff too. It might be best to pick a few popular boards and support them well. We have AmForth for the Arduino, Mecrisp and Flashforth for some of the MSP430 and Cortex-M boards, etc. So that's a start.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb16dd8a-c2e1-4ae1-8344-2dbf8f3b7fad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50220 |
Yes that's a good point. I must check out AmForth since I'm working with the Arduino at the moment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 16:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ae4c47e-1b4a-48d4-a5f4-9653b0ab8dd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50219 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 1:41:36 PM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote: > All one really needs is bit-level i/o. If writing to digital outputs and reading from digital inputs were actually standardised, instead of freaking quotations and recognisers, then drivers such as I2C and Hitachi LCD drivers, mouse drivers etc could absolutely be written in standard forth, on top of the bit I/O words/wordset. For I2C you need a clock and a data line! That's it! For an Hitachi LCD in 4-bit mode you just 4 data bits and a strobe. > > Could all be written in standard portable Forth totally platform agnostic. I like quotations but I don't like recognizers, so I wouldn't denounce them both together. Quotations are only useful if they have access to the parent function's local variables. What Forth-200x has, based on :NONAME, are useless --- they are using the word "quotation" incorrectly and making the entire Forth community look like ignoramuses --- they would be much better off to not mess with the subject at all, rather than to do it wrong and then call that the Standard. What Forth needs for a cross-compiler is LITERAL to be vectored so the built-in outer-interpreter can be used and it will compile numbers into the target memory when compiling TARG words, but compile numbers into the host memory when compiling HOST words. This is super-simple! The Forth-200x committee refuses to do this however --- instead they come up with this over-complicated and useless recognizer idea --- they ignore simple solutions to real problems and they embrace complicated solutions to non-problems. As for all of that I/O stuff that you mentioned, those would be general-purpose code-libraries. The only thing stopping this is the "Forth Way" that doesn't allow general-purpose code-libraries. Elizabeth Rather says: On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > I can't think offhand of a case in which a > full-duplex port literally has concurrent streams of data flowing in and > out. She is arguing against having a code-library support a UART, but instead wants every program to have its own code for the UART --- if the program only uses half-duplex, then only half-duplex would be supported. Andrew Haley (employee of Forth Inc. and Forth-200x committee member) immediately began defending this rather absurd idea and we had this exchange: On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 2:04:29 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Maybe if I know the application only uses half-duplex, I can > > implement some hacky thing that relies on that fact. But if I'm > > supplying a library facility it wouldn't occur to me to limit it > > like that. > > I'm sure it wouldn't, because you don't really think in the Forth way. > Don't speculate! Ultimately, any attempt at writing general-purpose code-libraries is stopped by Elizabeth Rather who has devoted her career to preventing this --- any attempt at general-purpose code-libraries is denounced as being opposed to the "Forth Way" --- no Forth programmers wants to argue against the Forth Way, so general-purpose code-libraries never get used in Forth. This is why we now have people saying: "Forth is Sudoku for programmers." A student may find it educational to write custom code for supporting a UART, and he may only support half-duplex if that is all that his homework assignment calls for. Figuring out a UART is fun, just like figuring out a Sudoku puzzle, but it is not what the boss pays programmers to do. Professional programmers don't really have time to write custom code for every application program --- low-level code such as this should be provided in a code-library that is available for every program, freeing up the programmer to get on with writing his program --- UARTs have been well-understood since the 1970s, so this isn't really an opportunity for creativity in the year 2016. Ultimately, the ANS-Forth cult is founded upon a great steaming pile of fantasy: On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 3:44:01 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > I agree with Andrew, an interrupt routine should do only the absolute > minimum, time-critical actions (if any), and wake up the handler task to > do the rest. For example, in a data acquisition situation, the interrupt > code can read a sample and stick it in a circular queue that task-level > code is managing (say, to do scaling, unit conversion, and storage in a > database). Many, many interrupt routines I've written and seen are no > more than 2 or 3 instructions. You don't even need to save registers > that you aren't actually going to use, which may be one or even none, > depending on the processor and what you have to do. Everybody knows that ISRs are supposed to be short. When Andrew Haley argues in favor of short ISRs he reminds me of politicians who argue in favor of motherhood. Nobody is arguing that ISRs should be lengthy, or that motherhood should be outlawed. Elizabeth Rather then says that her ISRs are 2 or 3 instructions long --- her fantasy is more fantastic than anybody else's! --- somebody would have to claim to have 1-instruction ISRs to out-do her, and who would make such a preposterous claim as that? Of course, none of this fantastic talk is of any practical use to the programmer who needs support for a UART --- he has to start from scratch writing code for the UART --- only after he has finished this tedious task can he begin writing his application program. If he tries to make his UART code public, the ANS-Forth cult will howl: "That isn't the Forth Way! You support full-duplex! --- what if some application program only needs half-duplex? --- every application program is unique and must have its own custom UART code!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5cc347e3-c659-4dd6-920c-80d56589d8e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50226 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:23:13 AM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > Ultimately, any attempt at writing general-purpose code-libraries is > stopped ... Has this ever happened? It seems to me the main obstacle to reusable Forth code is its non-portability. For example, a search on GitHub for “language:Forth” <https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3AForth&type=Repositories&ref=advsearch&l=Forth&l=> returns just 367 hits (as of this writing). One interesting-looking one, just picked at random, is this <https://github.com/philburk/hmsl>. But that only works with a particular Forth implementation, called “pForth”. Another one, the “Forth Foundation Library” <https://github.com/irdvo/ffl>, at least works with the better-known gforth. This one <https://github.com/jamesbowman/forth-ft800> says it assumes ANS-Forth. Most of the rest seem to be implementations of Forth, rather than uses of Forth for anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d2dd8b8-83cd-4bd1-8c5a-3de6fd8eeea1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50228 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:28:56 PM UTC-7, lawren...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:23:13 AM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > Ultimately, any attempt at writing general-purpose code-libraries is > > stopped ... > > Has this ever happened? It seems to me the main obstacle to reusable Forth code is its non-portability. > ... > Another one, the “Forth Foundation Library” <https://github.com/irdvo/ffl>, at least works with the better-known gforth. Well, low-quality is another thing preventing general-purpose code-libraries from being used. In the early days of the novice-package John Passaniti would routinely say that everything I wrote had already been done better in FFL. But FFL isn't very good. I remember that EACH for singly-linked lists in FFL was written so that it kept all of its internal data on the data-stack (prevents the user from accessing his own data) and it did not hold the next node pointer during the execution of the user's code (will result in chaos if the user's code clobbers the node, such as by deleting it or moving it to another list). I pointed out these problems, and so FFL was upgraded to have an EACH that looks remarkably like mine. I wasn't given credit, of course. Also, I doubt that any of the other data-structures were upgraded (I haven't checked). I put some thought into the design of the code in the novice-package. I have also written programs using the novice-package, so I know that my design works. Nobody else seems to be putting much thought into the design of general-purpose code-libraries --- they don't care, because they know that nobody will ever use their libraries anyway due to the culture of ANS-Forth. Elizabeth Rather said this about the general-purpose data-structures in my novice-package: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or modify your "general-purpose" structure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your typical ANS-Forth programmer won't implement a general-purpose data-structure because he knows that the same insult will be hurled at his work --- then he will look stupid when all of the other ANS-Forth enthusiasts cheerfully agree with their "leading expert."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 19:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2aa148ff-01d7-4988-8733-ed4550d02670@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50230 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 1:59:27 PM UTC+12, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, low-quality is another thing preventing general-purpose > code-libraries from being used. With Open Source, anybody can submit a patch to fix this. And if the original developer(s) become obstinate or just plain apathetic about accepting improvements, then the community can create a fork. That’s why we have so many rich libraries for C, C++, Perl, Java, Python ... and so on and so on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 01:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f9ff01c-60a0-46ca-8081-b50cf208077a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50226 |
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 4:23:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > As for all of that I/O stuff that you mentioned, those would be general-purpose code-libraries. The only thing stopping this is the "Forth Way" that doesn't allow general-purpose code-libraries. Elizabeth Rather says: > > On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > I can't think offhand of a case in which a > > full-duplex port literally has concurrent streams of data flowing in and > > out. > > She is arguing against having a code-library support a UART, but instead wants every program to have its own code for the UART --- if the program only uses half-duplex, then only half-duplex would be supported. > > Andrew Haley (employee of Forth Inc. and Forth-200x committee member) immediately began defending this rather absurd idea and we had this exchange: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 2:04:29 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > Maybe if I know the application only uses half-duplex, I can > > > implement some hacky thing that relies on that fact. But if I'm > > > supplying a library facility it wouldn't occur to me to limit it > > > like that. > > > > I'm sure it wouldn't, because you don't really think in the Forth way. > > Don't speculate! > > Ultimately, any attempt at writing general-purpose code-libraries is stopped by Elizabeth Rather who has devoted her career to preventing this --- any attempt at general-purpose code-libraries is denounced as being opposed to the "Forth Way" --- no Forth programmers wants to argue against the Forth Way, so general-purpose code-libraries never get used in Forth. Andrew --- tell us more about how it is not the "Forth Way" to support full-duplex in a UART --- be careful that you don't sound like an imbecile! LOL There is no depth of stupidity that Elizabeth Rather can descend to and not have her little yes-man employee agree with her. Andrew Haley will agree to anything that Elizabeth Rather says, not matter how stupid --- Andrew Haley was appointed to the Forth-200x committee by Elizabeth Rather because he is unfailingly loyal --- Andrew Haley is Elizabeth Rather's pet dog.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 17:21 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <kvadnfaVLu7V5ivKnZ2dnUU7-RXNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #50203 |
On 8/17/16 11:16 PM, lehs wrote: > I guess that Forth is more of an idea than a computer language and that the idea of Forth will develop as other good ideas develop in a long-term perspective. Charles Moore have said that Forth is an approach to programming and he never seems to use any standards. I guess he use no libraries neither, but copy and paste from his own code. > > I think a lot of forthers is a bit like Charles Moore. It's all about the idea and our own code. I rather use a less effective code (in progress) of my own, than some alien code by someone else, especially when it comes to packages. What I do use is others definitions and Forth implementations. And I also like to test other peoples code from time to time, last the fancy Lisp implementation that humptydumpty manage to get running. And I want the possibility of other people to run my code if they want. > > The CORE and DOUBLE words in ANS Forth are the most important definitions to be standardized. And they shouldn't change from standard to standard. FLOATING and FILE are nice but could maybe be developed further. Personally I'm not interested at all in future implementations of various computer scientific ideas that maybe not belong in Forth at all. > > Recognizers seems to be a good idea if implemented in a smart and simple way. From there really nice implementations of new data types would be possible. > > Also, why are there no discussion of a standard for rudimentary graphic words? Or are there? > There was a fairly graphics library in polyFORTH. If there is interest, I could investigate getting it published. It would have to be modified to ANS Forth or Forth2012. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3734c757-e67b-455f-a3e7-6f02ebbc39c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50232 |
Den fredag 19 augusti 2016 kl. 05:21:50 UTC+2 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather: > On 8/17/16 11:16 PM, lehs wrote: > > I guess that Forth is more of an idea than a computer language and that the idea of Forth will develop as other good ideas develop in a long-term perspective. Charles Moore have said that Forth is an approach to programming and he never seems to use any standards. I guess he use no libraries neither, but copy and paste from his own code. > > > > I think a lot of forthers is a bit like Charles Moore. It's all about the idea and our own code. I rather use a less effective code (in progress) of my own, than some alien code by someone else, especially when it comes to packages. What I do use is others definitions and Forth implementations. And I also like to test other peoples code from time to time, last the fancy Lisp implementation that humptydumpty manage to get running. And I want the possibility of other people to run my code if they want. > > > > The CORE and DOUBLE words in ANS Forth are the most important definitions to be standardized. And they shouldn't change from standard to standard. FLOATING and FILE are nice but could maybe be developed further. Personally I'm not interested at all in future implementations of various computer scientific ideas that maybe not belong in Forth at all. > > > > Recognizers seems to be a good idea if implemented in a smart and simple way. From there really nice implementations of new data types would be possible. > > > > Also, why are there no discussion of a standard for rudimentary graphic words? Or are there? > > > > There was a fairly graphics library in polyFORTH. If there is interest, > I could investigate getting it published. It would have to be modified > to ANS Forth or Forth2012. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth > > -- > ================================================== > Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH > FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 > 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 > Los Angeles, CA 90045 > http://www.forth.com > > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time > applications since 1973." > ================================================== That graphic library could be nice to see. But I think standard Forth has to be more and more like an operating system with standard words for access to a lot of devices, which should be implemented by the Forth vendors. That would at least increase portability and maybe make libraries more attractive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 00:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6774f251-7bec-4614-9b7c-f9bb212d8ef8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50235 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:36:07 PM UTC+12, lehs wrote: > ... I think standard Forth has to be more and more like an operating system > with standard words for access to a lot of devices, which should be > implemented by the Forth vendors. That would at least increase portability > and maybe make libraries more attractive. Why not implement POSIX?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 01:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09f7ac1a-2f46-42a7-8581-265aa9e39857@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50236 |
Den fredag 19 augusti 2016 kl. 09:11:28 UTC+2 skrev lawren...@gmail.com: > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:36:07 PM UTC+12, lehs wrote: > > ... I think standard Forth has to be more and more like an operating system > > with standard words for access to a lot of devices, which should be > > implemented by the Forth vendors. That would at least increase portability > > and maybe make libraries more attractive. > > Why not implement POSIX? What a wonderful idea! Is it possible?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 01:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d799d3ca-95b6-4fe0-a23c-3917cefd9f02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50239 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:44:07 PM UTC+12, lehs wrote: > > Den fredag 19 augusti 2016 kl. 09:11:28 UTC+2 skrev Lawrence D’Oliveiro: >> >> Why not implement POSIX? > > What a wonderful idea! Is it possible? Why should it be impossible? Lots of people have done it. Linux was not the first, and I doubt it was the last.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 22:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npvhjo$ja9$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #50239 |
In article <09f7ac1a-2f46-42a7-8581-265aa9e39857@googlegroups.com>, lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> wrote: >Den fredag 19 augusti 2016 kl. 09:11:28 UTC+2 skrev lawren...@gmail.com: >> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:36:07 PM UTC+12, lehs wrote: >> > ... I think standard Forth has to be more and more like an operating system >> > with standard words for access to a lot of devices, which should be >> > implemented by the Forth vendors. That would at least increase portability >> > and maybe make libraries more attractive. >> >> Why not implement POSIX? > >What a wonderful idea! Is it possible? No. Not with time and resources available. 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 | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 03:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3136a508-6d43-457f-a40f-409c4b3c2b9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50523 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 8:21:35 AM UTC+12, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <09f7ac1a-2f46-42a7-8581-265aa9e39857@googlegroups.com>, > lehs wrote: >>Den fredag 19 augusti 2016 kl. 09:11:28 UTC+2 skrev Lawrence D’Oliveiro: >>> Why not implement POSIX? >> >>What a wonderful idea! Is it possible? > > No. Not with time and resources available. Forth has been around longer than POSIX. How much longer could it take?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 03:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Aaydnchiy4KfVSvKnZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #50236 |
lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 6:36:07 PM UTC+12, lehs wrote: >> ... I think standard Forth has to be more and more like an >> operating system with standard words for access to a lot of >> devices, which should be implemented by the Forth vendors. That >> would at least increase portability and maybe make libraries more >> attractive. > > Why not implement POSIX? It's big and not a great fit to Forth. It's C and UNIX: a very different philosophy of language and operating system. Sure, Forth can be implemented on top of POSIX. What might be worth doing is a Forth threads layer. I've done some recent work with threads support from MPE and Forth Inc and they're compatible enough that differences were essentially trivial. Forth threads don't need all the facilities of POSIX. The memory model might be awkward, but there's been a lot of work in recent years on standardizing memory models for Java and C++, and there seems to be an emerging consensus on how things should work. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 02:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3168ee3f-6a32-440f-a756-748185c47593@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50241 |
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:49:12 PM UTC+12, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >> Why not implement POSIX? > > It's big and not a great fit to Forth. Who says it’s big? It can be quite small if you want <http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html>. > It's C and UNIX: a very different philosophy of language and operating > system. It’s a modular philosophy. For example, the Linux kernel can be built with just the features that you want. And those features can be statically linked in, or they can be dynamically loaded on demand. > Forth threads don't need all the facilities of POSIX. Maybe you should provide them. That would ease portability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web