Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41632 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-01 00:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-06 01:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 132 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 00:49 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-09-01 04:18 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-01 09:51 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Andreas Wagner <andreas.wagner@lowfatcomputing.org> - 2015-09-01 10:23 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 13:53 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 17:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 18:27 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 21:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 00:27 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 21:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 01:10 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 22:19 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 23:31 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 07:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 08:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:05 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:07 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 13:08 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-05 16:32 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-05 22:19 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 13:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-06 12:09 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0500
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-07 15:36 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 09:46 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 14:20 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:52 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 12:11 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 19:56 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-09-06 13:01 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 18:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 19:43 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 19:46 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 13:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-08 17:27 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 19:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-08 20:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 21:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 21:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-09-10 15:20 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-10 14:57 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2015-09-10 20:47 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2015-09-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-11 10:16 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 07:42 +0300
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:41 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 19:24 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 20:59 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 15:47 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-11 08:15 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-04 19:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 17:48 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 21:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-05 00:53 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 03:51 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 18:58 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 23:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 23:44 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-05 08:54 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 01:35 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 02:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:05 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:22 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 15:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 07:49 +0300
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 15:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:16 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:34 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 09:08 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 20:49 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 00:56 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 21:11 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 21:07 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:38 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-10 20:46 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 01:16 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-10 22:50 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 21:21 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 08:26 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:13 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-10 00:12 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 11:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 20:55 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 02:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? november.nihal@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 03:36 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Marek Brunda <marekb@phoenics.org> - 2015-09-09 03:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-09 07:34 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-09 12:32 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-10 17:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-09 18:59 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 12:28 -0700
structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-09 07:10 +0000
Re: structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 02:18 -0700
Re: structs/unions/records rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 23:18 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 09:55 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 18:45 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-08 01:51 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 18:27 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 12:23 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 16:14 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 17:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 01:39 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 03:12 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:02 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:13 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? josv@planet.nl - 2015-09-01 12:37 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-01 22:02 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 03:45 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 07:54 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 19:08 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 15:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 23:18 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? p.lad.work@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 05:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 06:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 18:44 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-05 17:47 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-06 10:55 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 09:13 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 01:37 -0400
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvc7db$vg0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42539 |
On 10/10/2015 12:07 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> Part of my concern with a commercial forth ... Mostly it is nice to >> not be restrained by the licensing of commercial Forths. If I were to >> work on a larger project demanding the best tools, then I might go for >> one of the commercial packages. > > Don't forget, Mecrisp is GPL3, which constrains how you can ship it in > products. Life might be easier with a commercial Forth where you can > probably get whatever you need by writing enough checks. I don't wish to be pedantic, but GPL3 does not restrict shipping in products. The only requirement I am familiar with is to provide the Mecrisp source and possibly your source that is compiled with it. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 20:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87y4fa2hjz.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #42555 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > I don't wish to be pedantic, but GPL3 does not restrict shipping in > products. The only requirement I am familiar with is to provide the > Mecrisp source and possibly your source that is compiled with it. Yes, that is a constraint on how you can ship it. If you're cool with it, that's great.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 01:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvcr7a$94n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42559 |
On 10/10/2015 11:46 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> I don't wish to be pedantic, but GPL3 does not restrict shipping in >> products. The only requirement I am familiar with is to provide the >> Mecrisp source and possibly your source that is compiled with it. > > Yes, that is a constraint on how you can ship it. If you're cool with > it, that's great. Even providing sources is on request. It's not like you have to ship sources with the product. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 22:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9edf929-45ce-4b6e-883f-cbf50956df7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42559 |
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:46:43 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > > I don't wish to be pedantic, but GPL3 does not restrict shipping in > > products. The only requirement I am familiar with is to provide the > > Mecrisp source and possibly your source that is compiled with it. > > Yes, that is a constraint on how you can ship it. If you're cool with > it, that's great. I don't think the GPL is very strong. For example, MicroChip's C compiler for the PIC24 is based on GCC, but they told me that they don't provide the source-code. It might be possible to sue people for their source-code, but I doubt that would work --- I don't think the GPL carries any weight in civil court --- besides that, it would be more expensive in attorney fees than it is worth (also, suing people is a good way to get yourself murdered).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 21:21 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <561224E5.2020603@forth.com> |
| In reply to | #42368 |
On 10/4/15 8:35 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> Here: http://www.forth.com/embedded/index.html > > Nice! Somehow I missed that there was an evaluation version, and I > thought that I had checked. > >>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0966215613 >>> Might be time for a new edition or printing ;-) >> That's actually the 2006 spiral-bound edition (historical >> artifact?). The current updated version is $18.99 :-) > > I see a 2008 paperback edition for $248.26: > > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JYHV1XA > > I also see a paperback course notebook for $18.99: > > http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419685767 > > Is that the actual book? I saw it earlier but thought "course notebook" > meant it was some kind of supplemental material that accompanied the > main book. You might want to clarify that on the Amazon page. Yes, it's the same book, latest edition. "Course notebook" is an accurate description, as it is descended from the course notebook from which courses were taught at FORTH, Inc. as well as IBM, Apple, NASA, and countless other sites. 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 | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04a0d14f-dc67-4bd7-9ed7-466f8b67b847@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42370 |
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 12:22:02 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/4/15 8:35 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > >> Here: http://www.forth.com/embedded/index.html > > > > Nice! Somehow I missed that there was an evaluation version, and I > > thought that I had checked. > > > >>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0966215613 > >>> Might be time for a new edition or printing ;-) > >> That's actually the 2006 spiral-bound edition (historical > >> artifact?). The current updated version is $18.99 :-) > > > > I see a 2008 paperback edition for $248.26: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JYHV1XA > > > > I also see a paperback course notebook for $18.99: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419685767 > > > > Is that the actual book? I saw it earlier but thought "course notebook" > > meant it was some kind of supplemental material that accompanied the > > main book. You might want to clarify that on the Amazon page. > Yes, it's the same book, latest edition. "Course notebook" is an > accurate description, as it is descended from the course notebook from > which courses were taught at FORTH, Inc. as well as IBM, Apple, NASA, > and countless other sites. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth All of those customers that you list quickly figured out that Forth Inc. products were worthless --- that you are just a scam artist --- and they dropped Forth Inc.. Recently you bragged on comp.lang.forth about how you are suing Apple Computer for using the word Swift (despite the fact that you stole this name from Jeff Raskin's Swyft Forth). Then, after the assassination attempt made against you, you stopped bragging about your lawsuit against Apple, and you had to leave Hawaii. Here however you list Apple Computer as a customer --- you have built your entire life on name-dropping, bragging about knowing important people --- but nobody ever brags about knowing you. The worse thing about this, is that most of these ex-customers assume that you are representative of all Forth programmers, and so they won't touch Forth again. This is what you said recently: On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is > far more useful than the FSL version: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; You are obviously not a Forth programmer. This is horrible Forth code! If I saw a first-week Forth novice post such awful code on comp.lang.forth and ask for help in learning Forth, then I would be willing to help --- but you don't want to learn, you want to teach! Your contribution to Forth has been completely negative!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9eb51bde-9eb7-42bb-8870-a74b2ae312a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42375 |
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:26:46 AM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; > > You are obviously not a Forth programmer. This is horrible Forth code! I hope you have a keyboard shortcut for this, Hugh, lest you give yourself a repetitive stress injury. I am concerned for your health.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 00:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f83c838-cc0e-45f5-b142-bb772b33041a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41859 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 1:28:19 PM UTC-7, Greg wrote: > At this stage I am learning Forth just to expand my horizon. So to be real > honest, who cares? For mind "expansion", learning to program without > structures would be an interesting mind exercise indeed. Elizabeth Rather is all about telling Forth programmers what they can't do. She was telling me that I can't use D/ for my continued-fraction program. Why isn't D/ in ANS-Forth? Obviously, because nobody at Forth Inc. could figure out how to write it, so it wasn't put in the standard --- now I have to write it in high-level Forth rather than assembly-language so my code will be ANS-Forth compliant. I don't think this is mind-expanding --- you believe that learning to program without structures is an interesting mind-exercise --- maybe you also believe that learning to get by without shoes is an interesting mind-exercise. > I learn Forth > completely as a hobby, I don't really need to, my day work is in a much > different fold, a fold where almost everything is done opposite of how > things are advocated here. My goal with the novice-package was that people could write non-trivial programs --- I see no reason for Forth to be relegated to the hobby realm --- I know from experience that Forth can be used commercially, as it was my "day work" on two occasions in the past. As a rule, if a teacher is telling you to do almost everything opposite of how it is done in the real world, then your teacher is just blowing hot air --- find another teacher. > Also note that both Jeff Fox (when he was amongst us) and Chuck Moore are > of exactly the same mindset as Elizabeth as far as this topic is concerned. > So maybe the ala HA epithets don't quite apply? So, HA's ideas about Forth don't apply --- you have only been programming Forth for a few weeks and you are a self-proclaimed hobbyist, but you have already defeated me --- Elizabeth Rather is proud of you...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0805b07c-95aa-4be8-8ffc-9c49d580c03a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41804 |
luni, 7 septembrie 2015, 04:48:05 UTC+3, bor...@gmail.com a scris: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 3:01:46 PM UTC-5, m...@iae.nl wrote: > > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:39:57 PM UTC+2, Greg wrote: > > [..] > > > 3) It would seem that Jeff and Chuck would dismiss a library [..] > > > as just another attempt to 'C'-ify Forth. > > > > I think they dismiss(ed) libraries not because of C-isms, > > but because of their belief one should solve the immediate > > problem, and *only* the immediate problem (i.e. every > > incarnation will be slightly different from the previous > > one). > > > > > But then my question > > > is, what would you use instead of say C structures/unions > > > (or records in Pascal) which to me seem essential? > > > > Which immediate computing problem do *you personally* > > have that needs generalized structures/unions/records > > (*not* somebody else's problem or the one from the > > C/Pascal cookbooks)? > > > > I have written thousands of Forth programs that didn't > > need structures, and those where I attempted s/u/r the > > constructs probably wouldn't survive a rewrite if I > > revised them. There are cases where *something like* > > s/u/r naturally follows from the problem, but where > > Forth allows one to implement it in a way that is not > > normally recognized as a structure. > > > > A C-program I help maintain has an enormous amount of > > structures. It also has structures that contain pointers > > to other structures (but also other things :-), and > > where macros are used to abbreviate the syntax of > > these nested constructs. The end result is that one > > is completely dependent on very advanced tools > > (Intellisense) to understand what is going on. It > > leads to having to recompile the complete programma > > so you can use the debugger to see what the source > > code means. > > > > -marcel > > Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. > But it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the first things I do is identifying and designing the structures (classes). Hi! Maybe next few questions would be of use to ask and respond yourself: From where comes data that populate that structure? Where is used? How long most live informations that populates that structure? Are there functional dependencies between fields of that structure? Are there information for that structure available at compile-time? That could be some questions to break a structure. Of course, this questions should be responded generally for program states no matter if that states belongs to a structure or not. I hope it could help, humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 20:55 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <fuednTJ-6IJPSnLInZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #41804 |
On 9/6/15 3:48 PM, borota@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 3:01:46 PM UTC-5, m...@iae.nl wrote: >> On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:39:57 PM UTC+2, Greg wrote: >> [..] >>> 3) It would seem that Jeff and Chuck would dismiss a library [..] >>> as just another attempt to 'C'-ify Forth. >> >> I think they dismiss(ed) libraries not because of C-isms, >> but because of their belief one should solve the immediate >> problem, and *only* the immediate problem (i.e. every >> incarnation will be slightly different from the previous >> one). >> >>> But then my question >>> is, what would you use instead of say C structures/unions >>> (or records in Pascal) which to me seem essential? >> >> Which immediate computing problem do *you personally* >> have that needs generalized structures/unions/records >> (*not* somebody else's problem or the one from the >> C/Pascal cookbooks)? >> >> I have written thousands of Forth programs that didn't >> need structures, and those where I attempted s/u/r the >> constructs probably wouldn't survive a rewrite if I >> revised them. There are cases where *something like* >> s/u/r naturally follows from the problem, but where >> Forth allows one to implement it in a way that is not >> normally recognized as a structure. >> >> A C-program I help maintain has an enormous amount of >> structures. It also has structures that contain pointers >> to other structures (but also other things :-), and >> where macros are used to abbreviate the syntax of >> these nested constructs. The end result is that one >> is completely dependent on very advanced tools >> (Intellisense) to understand what is going on. It >> leads to having to recompile the complete programma >> so you can use the debugger to see what the source >> code means. >> >> -marcel > > Thanks Marcel, I am starting work on my first real Forth application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. > But it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the first things I do is identifying and designing the structures (classes). Rather than feeling deprived, I recommend that you investigate the opportunities for designing your own data structures, a facility that is far more flexible and useful that C structures in that you can not only specify the nature of the structure but also its behavior when a member of a class of structures that you define is invoked. Look into any detailed book on Forth (or system documentation) for information on "Defining words". 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 | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 02:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02af49ae-46f0-4573-8c7f-66c2b773d1e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41882 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/6/15 3:48 PM, borota@gmail.com wrote: > > ...I am starting work on my first real Forth application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. > > But it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the first things I do is identifying and designing the structures (classes). > > Rather than feeling deprived, I recommend that you investigate the > opportunities for designing your own data structures, a facility that is > far more flexible and useful that C structures in that you can not only > specify the nature of the structure but also its behavior when a member > of a class of structures that you define is invoked. Look into any > detailed book on Forth (or system documentation) for information on > "Defining words". > > Cheers, > Elizabeth CREATE DOES> (what people will find if the look up "defining words" in most books) is not useful for building data structures because it just creates a single struct with a name --- data structures, by definition, contain multiple structs connected with link pointers --- structs are typically on the heap. CREATE DOES> is mostly only used for arrays (that was the only example given in "Starting Forth"), and it grossly inefficient compared to my 3ARRAY etc., and ARY in the novice package. See this thread for a discussion of arrays: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/yTvD4nqPGA4%5B101-125%5D BTW: I still don't know what s/u/r means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | november.nihal@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 03:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29ab4761-97d4-4656-9071-dfa4ddc02ec5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41887 |
Earlier in this thread someone shortened structures/unions/records to s/u/r NN
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Brunda <marekb@phoenics.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 03:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64bea256-18fb-4828-b7a6-973ae3476e88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41887 |
> Another thing that I'm sick and tired of, is people talking about the > "Forth spirit" as if it were some mystical state of mind that > distinguishes Forth programmers from regular people. You elaborate about human mind and abstraction but You can't understand the right sense of "Forth spirit" :-) I think you can but you don't want to. You want Forth to be rich general purpose language with all that cool structs, trees, locals, maybe OOP etc. You don't want to recognize that there are people, who like Forth primarily for example for its simpicity, flexibility, interactivity,.... When I look at some "modern" Forth source, I often recognize it's Forth only by colon and semicolon. The rest is C with Forth like "syntax" without parentheses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 07:34 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <tYCdnej5_ZEJ8G3InZ2dnUU7-cudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #41892 |
On 9/9/15 12:59 AM, Marek Brunda wrote: > >> Another thing that I'm sick and tired of, is people talking about the >> "Forth spirit" as if it were some mystical state of mind that >> distinguishes Forth programmers from regular people. > > You elaborate about human mind and abstraction but You can't understand the right sense of "Forth spirit" :-) I think you can but you don't want to. You want Forth to be rich general purpose language with all that cool structs, trees, locals, maybe OOP etc. You don't want to recognize that there are people, who like Forth primarily for example for its simpicity, flexibility, interactivity,.... When I look at some "modern" Forth source, I often recognize it's Forth only by colon and semicolon. The rest is C with Forth like "syntax" without parentheses. > A better way to think of it is "Forth programming style." Every language has an inherent intended programming style that is best suited to its particular toolset. Good Forth style is, like other aspects of Forth, quite different from good C style or good style in any other language, just as good architectural design using bricks is different from good architectural design using aluminum & glass. To write successful Forth programs you need to master the Forth tools as well as effective Forth style. 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 | jim.brakefield@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebaece7c-77f9-4a83-9c5e-53eb46a9f689@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41899 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:34:14 PM UTC-5, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/9/15 12:59 AM, Marek Brunda wrote: > > > >> Another thing that I'm sick and tired of, is people talking about the > >> "Forth spirit" as if it were some mystical state of mind that > >> distinguishes Forth programmers from regular people. > > > > You elaborate about human mind and abstraction but You can't understand the right sense of "Forth spirit" :-) I think you can but you don't want to. You want Forth to be rich general purpose language with all that cool structs, trees, locals, maybe OOP etc. You don't want to recognize that there are people, who like Forth primarily for example for its simpicity, flexibility, interactivity,.... When I look at some "modern" Forth source, I often recognize it's Forth only by colon and semicolon. The rest is C with Forth like "syntax" without parentheses. > > > > A better way to think of it is "Forth programming style." Every language > has an inherent intended programming style that is best suited to its > particular toolset. Good Forth style is, like other aspects of Forth, > quite different from good C style or good style in any other language, > just as good architectural design using bricks is different from good > architectural design using aluminum & glass. > > To write successful Forth programs you need to master the Forth tools as > well as effective Forth style. > > 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." > ================================================== Having spent most of a career using locals, don't have much facility with stack manipulations (e.g., can't keep track of where things are). However, the ability to efficiently factor code deeply and at a fine granularity is unique to Forth, and that to me is the essence of Forth style. Which brings up another issue: should an optimizing compiler have the liberty to choose between locals and stack manipulations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 17:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a051e1bc-bfd7-4a21-bfcc-912a2ebd77c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41899 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 10:34:14 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/9/15 12:59 AM, Marek Brunda wrote: > > > >> Another thing that I'm sick and tired of, is people talking about the > >> "Forth spirit" as if it were some mystical state of mind that > >> distinguishes Forth programmers from regular people. > > > > You elaborate about human mind and abstraction but You can't understand the right sense of "Forth spirit" :-) I think you can but you don't want to. You want Forth to be rich general purpose language with all that cool structs, trees, locals, maybe OOP etc. You don't want to recognize that there are people, who like Forth primarily for example for its simpicity, flexibility, interactivity,.... When I look at some "modern" Forth source, I often recognize it's Forth only by colon and semicolon. The rest is C with Forth like "syntax" without parentheses. I don't expect the Forth language to provide trees --- I can do that myself --- I also don't consider OOP to be a good fit for Forth (it is not in C either, so it doesn't really belong in your list). You are saying that I'm opposed to simplicity, flexibility and interactivity (you forgot to mention motherhood and apple-pie), but none of this is true. What I'm opposed to is people demanding that Forth be a toy language incapable of writing non-trivial programs, and claiming that this is the "Forth spirit." You are also saying that my code is like C. That isn't true. In my novice-package I have general-purpose data-structures in which a higher-order function takes the xt of a function (called a "toucher" in my documentation, which was an awkward term) that is given to EXECUTE for every node in the data-structure. I've never seen this done in C --- pointers to functions in C are complicated and almost never used --- also, you would have to use void pointers to the data that the toucher works on because you don't know what data-type it is at compile-time. The only higher-order function that I've ever seen in C was QSORT, and it is written in assembly-language not C because it is part of the standard library. Also, in my novice-package I have CLONE-NODE that can clone any node of any data-type or size. Nothing like this exists in C. All in all, I am moving away from C rather than toward C. > A better way to think of it is "Forth programming style." Every language > has an inherent intended programming style that is best suited to its > particular toolset. Good Forth style is, like other aspects of Forth, > quite different from good C style or good style in any other language, > just as good architectural design using bricks is different from good > architectural design using aluminum & glass. > > To write successful Forth programs you need to master the Forth tools as > well as effective Forth style. You don't know how to program in C either, so you don't know anything about "good C style" --- this is all just hot air, claiming to be an expert on programming style in a variety of languages without having ever done any programming in anything other than COBOL in the 1970s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mspvho$8lu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41887 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > BTW: I still don't know what s/u/r means. structures / unions / records
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46eb52e7-c172-491b-851e-0e922859aa6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41887 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 2:28:57 AM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 11:55:16 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > On 9/6/15 3:48 PM, borota@gmail.com wrote: > > > ...I am starting work on my first real Forth application, I will see if I can get by without s/u/r. > > > But it's a little bit of a stretching of the mind for me, because these days anytime I approach a problem, one of the first things I do is identifying and designing the structures (classes). > > > > Rather than feeling deprived, I recommend that you investigate the > > opportunities for designing your own data structures, a facility that is > > far more flexible and useful that C structures in that you can not only > > specify the nature of the structure but also its behavior when a member > > of a class of structures that you define is invoked. Look into any > > detailed book on Forth (or system documentation) for information on > > "Defining words". > > > > Cheers, > > Elizabeth > > CREATE DOES> (what people will find if the look up "defining words" in most books) is not useful for building data structures because it just creates a single struct with a name --- data structures, by definition, contain multiple structs connected with link pointers --- structs are typically on the heap. > > CREATE DOES> is mostly only used for arrays (that was the only example given in "Starting Forth"), and it grossly inefficient compared to my 3ARRAY etc., and ARY in the novice package. See this thread for a discussion of arrays: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/yTvD4nqPGA4%5B101-125%5D > > BTW: I still don't know what s/u/r means. The thing is, every case is a special case. General purpose libraries are not forth in the same sense that being a dick to people isn't cricket. There is a huge difference between abstraction and 'I am the great and powerful Oz, never mind that man behind the curtain'. One cannot factor library code. Library code can only be 'good enough', which is arbitrary and so disempowers the programmer. Every time one codes something a greater understanding of the problem can be achieved. This is transcendental in every sense of the word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 07:10 +0000 |
| Subject | structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) |
| Message-ID | <2015Sep9.091055@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #41799 |
mhx@iae.nl writes:
>On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:39:57 PM UTC+2, Greg wrote:
>> But then my question
>> is, what would you use instead of say C structures/unions
>> (or records in Pascal) which to me seem essential?
>
>Which immediate computing problem do *you personally*
>have that needs generalized structures/unions/records
>(*not* somebody else's problem or the one from the
>C/Pascal cookbooks)?
Needs? I have found that fields along the lines of
: tree-left ( tree -- addr )
<offset> + ;
useful many times, and we have finally standardized them in
Forth-2012. Differences in wordsets for defining such fields (e.g.,
the standard wordset and
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/struct.fs> are less due to
different needs, rather than preferences in programming.
>There are cases where *something like*
>s/u/r naturally follows from the problem, but where
>Forth allows one to implement it in a way that is not
>normally recognized as a structure.
A classical way is to write, say CELL+ instead of TREE-RIGHT, or
somesuch. I find code that uses that approach hard to read, because I
have to know what is on the stack to interpret the intention of CELL+,
whereas the intention of TREE-RIGHT is much clearer.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 02:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) |
| Message-ID | <0bc7be9f-b382-49cd-984c-d2aed618c65d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41885 |
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 12:50:04 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > mhx@iae.nl writes: > >On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:39:57 PM UTC+2, Greg wrote: > >> But then my question > >> is, what would you use instead of say C structures/unions > >> (or records in Pascal) which to me seem essential? > > > >Which immediate computing problem do *you personally* > >have that needs generalized structures/unions/records > >(*not* somebody else's problem or the one from the > >C/Pascal cookbooks)? > > Needs? I have found that fields along the lines of > > : tree-left ( tree -- addr ) > <offset> + ; > > useful many times, and we have finally standardized them in > Forth-2012. Differences in wordsets for defining such fields (e.g., > the standard wordset and > <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/struct.fs> are less due to > different needs, rather than preferences in programming. > > >There are cases where *something like* > >s/u/r naturally follows from the problem, but where > >Forth allows one to implement it in a way that is not > >normally recognized as a structure. > > A classical way is to write, say CELL+ instead of TREE-RIGHT, or > somesuch. I find code that uses that approach hard to read, because I > have to know what is on the stack to interpret the intention of CELL+, > whereas the intention of TREE-RIGHT is much clearer. > > - anton Novices interested in trees can look at ASSOCIATION.4TH or SYMTAB.4TH in the novice package: http://www.forth.org/novice.html Anton says: > A classical way is to write, say CELL+ instead of TREE-RIGHT, or some such. Classical where? Who does this? Note that because I have ALLOCATION I can also have CLONE-NODE and so I can clone an entire tree even if the nodes are of different data types of different sizes (they would all have to be in the same inheritance chain, of course) --- Leon Wagner killed ALLOCATION for Forth-200x though...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web