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 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | foxaudioresearch@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c825b5a-1c24-4410-92ae-f9ecc9b0de55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49935 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:38:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > foxaudioresearch@gmail.com writes: > > As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers." </quote> > > Chuck Moore said something similar: > > I write Forth code every day. It is a joy to write a few simple words > and solve a problem. As brain exercise it far surpasses cards, > crosswords or Sudoku. > > Quote is from James Hague article "Understanding What It's Like to > Program in Forth", http://prog21.dadgum.com/33.html . Touche! That being said, it makes me wonder if a some programs should be added to the standard test suite to show more than functionality for Standard Forth but demonstrate some utility as well. A suite a demonstration programs might catch some the gotchas that don't show up in a word by word test approach as well. Are there any favourite candidate APPs that could be bundled with compilers to demonstrate that they will compile and run on "standard" systems? BF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Aug11.133906@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #49936 |
foxaudioresearch@gmail.com writes:
>That being said, it makes me wonder if a some programs should be added to the standard test suite to show more than functionality for Standard Forth but demonstrate some utility as well.
>
>A suite a demonstration programs might catch some the gotchas that don't show
>up in a word by word test approach as well.
Yes, it might, but if the test suite is any good, it's unlikely.
Application programmers often avoid the murky corners where
implementation bugs hide; that's why the bugs hide there, and are not
caught earlier. Of course, once in a while an application programmer
strays in one of those corners, and is then bitten by such a bug, but
all the other murky corners may still be infested by bugs.
By contrast, when a test programmer writes test cases, he purposely go
into those corners, and he does it with short test cases so that one
does not have to understand a huge application to understand the bug.
I think one Forth implementor complained about the test cases that I
produce, because my test cases uncover bugs in his Forth system that
don't show up at his client with a huge application. Of course, the
question is: If you are an application programmer, do you want a
system that just stands the test of being able to run some
applications, even if one of them is huge, without knowing what
programming practices the programmers of these applications use, or do
you prefer a system that has also removed the bugs uncovered by
contrived tests?
>Are there any favourite candidate APPs that could be bundled with compilers to demonstrate that they will compile and run on "standard" systems?
<https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/appbench.zip> is an
application benchmark that is intended to run on many systems; it's
not a test suite, though.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <314df932-9173-4d3c-979b-2029cedf8013@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49950 |
Well, it is kind of funny how huge apps can fail to trip on bugs. The programming style used to write the huge app is the same style used to write all of its small components. So, it's the style that fails to break the compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-21 01:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <npb1p7$ufs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49935 |
Paul Rubin wrote:
> > As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers." </quote>
>
> Chuck Moore said something similar:
>
> I write Forth code every day. It is a joy to write a few simple words
> and solve a problem. As brain exercise it far surpasses cards,
> crosswords or Sudoku.
He should have said "cards, crosswords AND Sudoku."
He doesn't realize that he is asserting that it surpasses at least
one of the three, but not necessarily all.
Of course, we can't expect him to understand simple logic.
He is a Forth programmer.
Since it was so difficult for him to write a program to process data,
it was his practice to pre-process the data for the program.
Ruby:
text =
"Chuck Moore said something similar:
I write Forth code every day. It is a joy to write a few simple words
and solve a problem. As brain exercise it far surpasses cards,
crosswords or Sudoku.".
gsub(/\s+/, " ")
patterns = /\A(\w+).*?(y)/, /t( .. )/, /I (.).(..)/, /p(..) /, /pa(..)/
patterns.map{|p| text.scan(p).flatten.join}.join
==>"Chucky is witless"
--
The report card by the American Society of Civil Engineers showed the national
infrastructure a single grade above failure, a step from declining to the point
where everyday things simply stop working the way people expect them to. ---
washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/us-infrastructure-gets-d-in-annual-report/2013/03/19/c48cb010-900b-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6cf1182a-e865-4a48-b31e-4726463c0357@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49933 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 3:06:23 PM UTC-5, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth.
Not write code. Port code.
> The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth.
> (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp)
From gforth to pfth: https://github.com/parallaxinc/spinsim/tree/master/pfth103_p2
Which "implements all 133 of the ANS Forth core words, and 38 of the
45 core ext words."
> The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays
> and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better?
Simpler is better if you plan to port the code to a very simple Forth.
I can imagine this guy's frustration.
Step 1. reimplement { ... } locals syntax.
Step 2. reimplement structures.fs, not the most bare-bones of
structures libraries.
Step 3?. reimplement ALLOCATE
Step 4. reimplement NUMBER ,and any other unnoticed non-ANS words
.... well that's it. And there isn't much that's non-ANS there. And
the structures and {} stuff is so simply used that you could just
drop-in replace them with something bare-bones.
Hm. No, looking at lisp.fs, this guy's problem is that he was only
pretending to be a Forth programmer.
> > I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit
> > pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a
> > good language for writing large programs.
lisp.fs is 500 lines long. It stops being interesting (from a Forth
perspective) at less than 150 lines in. The rest is all just putting
the lisp together
> > It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around.
This guy has never written anything in Forth. He's used it like RPL
on a HP calculator, just to peek and poke and dink around.
> > However, serious programming should really have library
> > support and standards and compilers that assist the developer.
"pfth should be a richer implementation."
That's a fair desire I guess, but it shouldn't be cast as a
complaint about Forth.
-- Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4fcf358-47e6-434d-9711-26f867ed0a42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49939 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:28:06 PM UTC-5, Julian Fondren wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 3:06:23 PM UTC-5, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: > > The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays > > and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better? > > Simpler is better if you plan to port the code to a very simple Forth. > > I can imagine this guy's frustration. > pfth also doesn't have DOES> or THROW A bigger language can't be a defense against slimmer implementations when the already slim language isn't fully implemented. Even so, it's appreciated: > So when we are discussing Forth vs other "languages" in this forum > surely it is always in respect to the Propeller, not the PC (where > rarely I would use Forth anyway), and Forth on the Propeller is > actually a dynamic interactive language and O/S whereas the PC > compiled binary blobs are not "languages" anymore, just a hard-coded > black box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Aug11.132647@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #49939 |
Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 3:06:23 PM UTC-5, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth.
>
>Not write code. Port code.
>
>> The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth.
>> (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp)
>
>From gforth to pfth: https://github.com/parallaxinc/spinsim/tree/master/pfth103_p2
>
>Which "implements all 133 of the ANS Forth core words, and 38 of the
>45 core ext words."
>
>> The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays
>> and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better?
>
>Simpler is better if you plan to port the code to a very simple Forth.
>
>I can imagine this guy's frustration.
>
>Step 1. reimplement { ... } locals syntax.
If it's just the syntax, you can find an implementation of this syntax
based on Forth-94 (LOCAL) in
<https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/compat.zip>. However,
(LOCAL) is not in CORE or CORE EXT.
>Step 2. reimplement structures.fs, not the most bare-bones of
>structures libraries.
That's also in the compat library. It uses some words outside CORE
and CORE EXT, but, e.g., FLOAT words only for defining FP fields,
which you won't need if you don't have the FLOAT wordset, so just
comment these words out.
>Step 3?. reimplement ALLOCATE
That's a harder one, if you want the full functionality.
>Step 4. reimplement NUMBER ,and any other unnoticed non-ANS words
You can check for non-ANS words with Gforth's ansreport.fs.
>Hm. No, looking at lisp.fs, this guy's problem is that he was only
>pretending to be a Forth programmer.
Who? Schani? As he writes in
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp>:
|When I learn a new programming language, the first program I write in
|that language is usually an interpreter for a small subset of Lisp or
|Scheme. I have found that to be a good way to quickly familiarize
|myself with most aspects of a new language. These are some of the
|results of my efforts.
So yes, this was his first Forth program.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c626a159-4d91-4866-bbf8-1cda22d4e047@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49949 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 2:37:29 PM UTC+3, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Julian Fondren writes:
> >On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 3:06:23 PM UTC-5, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth.
> >
> >Not write code. Port code.
> >
> >> The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth.
> >> (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp)
> >
> >From gforth to pfth: https://github.com/parallaxinc/spinsim/tree/master/pfth103_p2
> >
> >Which "implements all 133 of the ANS Forth core words, and 38 of the
> >45 core ext words."
> >
> >> The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays
> >> and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better?
> >
> >Simpler is better if you plan to port the code to a very simple Forth.
> >
> >I can imagine this guy's frustration.
> >
> >Step 1. reimplement { ... } locals syntax.
>
> If it's just the syntax, you can find an implementation of this syntax
> based on Forth-94 (LOCAL) in
> <https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/compat.zip>. However,
> (LOCAL) is not in CORE or CORE EXT.
>
> >Step 2. reimplement structures.fs, not the most bare-bones of
> >structures libraries.
>
> That's also in the compat library. It uses some words outside CORE
> and CORE EXT, but, e.g., FLOAT words only for defining FP fields,
> which you won't need if you don't have the FLOAT wordset, so just
> comment these words out.
>
> >Step 3?. reimplement ALLOCATE
>
> That's a harder one, if you want the full functionality.
>
> >Step 4. reimplement NUMBER ,and any other unnoticed non-ANS words
>
> You can check for non-ANS words with Gforth's ansreport.fs.
>
> >Hm. No, looking at lisp.fs, this guy's problem is that he was only
> >pretending to be a Forth programmer.
>
> Who? Schani? As he writes in
> <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp>:
>
> |When I learn a new programming language, the first program I write in
> |that language is usually an interpreter for a small subset of Lisp or
> |Scheme. I have found that to be a good way to quickly familiarize
> |myself with most aspects of a new language. These are some of the
> |results of my efforts.
>
> So yes, this was his first Forth program.
>
> - 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
>
> |When I learn a new programming language, the first program I write in
> |that language is usually an interpreter for a small subset of Lisp or
> |Scheme. I have found that to be a good way to quickly familiarize
> |myself with most aspects of a new language. These are some of the
> |results of my efforts.
>
> So yes, this was his first Forth program.
>
As a first Forth program is impressive. But maybe more
feedback at right time could helped that 'lisp.fs' be
well done as a forth program.
--
Have a nice day,
humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16ae2ed0-9392-47fd-be6d-ff4e04a6f725@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49949 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:37:29 AM UTC-5, Anton Ertl wrote: > Who? Schani? No, I mean the porter. The guy who took his failure to port Schani's program as an affirmation that Forth is a toy language. > As he writes in > <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp>: > > |When I learn a new programming language, the first program I write in > |that language is usually an interpreter for a small subset of Lisp or > |Scheme. I have found that to be a good way to quickly familiarize > |myself with most aspects of a new language. These are some of the > |results of my efforts. > > So yes, this was his first Forth program. > OK, that explains the odd stuff that humptydumpty noted. I'd wondered if maybe "0 variable ..." were a rewrite from code that had used an initializing variant of VARIABLE like "0 var ..." -- Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 01:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1b0c8c3-3a8d-4223-ad42-a9c32648ad23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49933 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:06:23 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> *Don't shoot the messenger please**
>
> I was doing some research on Lisp internals having found some old code
> by Martin Tracy on my drive. I went looking around and found this discussion:
>
> http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/160027/lisp-technically-scheme-written-in-forth
>
>
> <quote>"Dave Hein Posts: 4,831
> February 2015 edited February 2015 0
> I found a lisp interpreter written in C at http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin
> /lisp.c . I was able to get it to run on the Prop in a matter of minutes by
> changing the #define for SIZE from 1000000 to 400, and using the CMM model. The
> program is 950 lines of C code. I don't know lisp, but the program seems to do
> the right thing when I type in (+ 1 2).
>
> I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth. I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a good language for writing large programs. It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around. However, serious programming should really have library support and standards and compilers that assist the developer. Forth is fine if you want a challenge, but if you want to get something done use something else.
>
> As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers."
> </quote>
>
> The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth.
> (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp)
>
> And of course moving it to the little Parallax board was not possible.
> The Forth on the board is not quite standard.
>
> It seems a shame that we don't have code examples like the 'C' Scheme
> example that are as easily configured for different hardware.
>
> The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays
> and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better?
>
> Now where have I heard that before?
>
> It looks like a good project for my spare time.
>
>
> BF
>
> So much code so little time.
Hi!
Tested and not working. One definition is wrong.
Originally:
: symtab-lookup { namea nameu -- }
symtab-first @
begin
dup 0<>
while
>r
r@ symtab-namea @ r@ symtab-nameu @ namea nameu compare
0= if
r> symtab-lisp @ unloop exit
endif
r> symtab-next @
repeat
drop 0 ;
'unloop' shouldn't be there. Also 'drop 0'. Also stack comments are wrong.
I would write:
: symtab-lookup ( namea nameu -- lisp|0 )
2>R symtab-first @
BEGIN
dup
WHILE
dup symtab-namea @ over symtab-nameu @ 2R@ compare
IF
symtab-next @
ELSE
symtab-lisp @ 2RDROP EXIT
THEN
REPEAT
2RDROP
;
Testing:
~/src/lisp> gforth lisp.fs -e 'S" test.scm" lisp-load-from-file cr .s cr bye'
lisp.fs:173: warning: redefined number4 120
<1> 0
Other things looks strange, like:
0 variable symtab-first
drop
Wow! Better write comment that "Gforth initializes variables with 0",
or write it as should be:
0 variable symtab-first 0 symtab-first !
Partially I understand complaints of porter.
Have a nice day,
humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 01:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3a2e4c0-235d-4349-afa6-97ab6863d3da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49945 |
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:48:05 AM UTC+3, humptydumpty wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:06:23 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> > *Don't shoot the messenger please**
> >
> > I was doing some research on Lisp internals having found some old code
> > by Martin Tracy on my drive. I went looking around and found this discussion:
> >
> > http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/160027/lisp-technically-scheme-written-in-forth
> >
> >
> > <quote>"Dave Hein Posts: 4,831
> > February 2015 edited February 2015 0
> > I found a lisp interpreter written in C at http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin
> > /lisp.c . I was able to get it to run on the Prop in a matter of minutes by
> > changing the #define for SIZE from 1000000 to 400, and using the CMM model. The
> > program is 950 lines of C code. I don't know lisp, but the program seems to do
> > the right thing when I type in (+ 1 2).
> >
> > I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth. I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a good language for writing large programs. It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around. However, serious programming should really have library support and standards and compilers that assist the developer. Forth is fine if you want a challenge, but if you want to get something done use something else.
> >
> > As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers."
> > </quote>
> >
> > The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth.
> > (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp)
> >
> > And of course moving it to the little Parallax board was not possible.
> > The Forth on the board is not quite standard.
> >
> > It seems a shame that we don't have code examples like the 'C' Scheme
> > example that are as easily configured for different hardware.
> >
> > The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays
> > and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better?
> >
> > Now where have I heard that before?
> >
> > It looks like a good project for my spare time.
> >
> >
> > BF
> >
> > So much code so little time.
>
> Hi!
>
> Tested and not working. One definition is wrong.
>
> Originally:
>
> : symtab-lookup { namea nameu -- }
> symtab-first @
> begin
> dup 0<>
> while
> >r
> r@ symtab-namea @ r@ symtab-nameu @ namea nameu compare
> 0= if
> r> symtab-lisp @ unloop exit
> endif
> r> symtab-next @
> repeat
> drop 0 ;
>
> 'unloop' shouldn't be there. Also 'drop 0'. Also stack comments are wrong.
> I would write:
>
> : symtab-lookup ( namea nameu -- lisp|0 )
> 2>R symtab-first @
> BEGIN
> dup
> WHILE
> dup symtab-namea @ over symtab-nameu @ 2R@ compare
> IF
> symtab-next @
> ELSE
> symtab-lisp @ 2RDROP EXIT
> THEN
> REPEAT
> 2RDROP
> ;
>
> Testing:
> ~/src/lisp> gforth lisp.fs -e 'S" test.scm" lisp-load-from-file cr .s cr bye'
>
> lisp.fs:173: warning: redefined number4 120
> <1> 0
>
>
> Other things looks strange, like:
>
> 0 variable symtab-first
> drop
>
> Wow! Better write comment that "Gforth initializes variables with 0",
> or write it as should be:
>
> 0 variable symtab-first 0 symtab-first !
>
> Partially I understand complaints of porter.
>
> Have a nice day,
> humptydumpty
excuse me for typo:
> 0 variable symtab-first 0 symtab-first !
variable symtab-first 0 symtab-first !
--
humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <036c5d25-882d-4c2d-8075-85242a3247a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49933 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:06:23 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> *Don't shoot the messenger please**
>
> I was doing some research on Lisp internals having found some old code
> by Martin Tracy on my drive. I went looking around and found this discussion:
>
> http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/160027/lisp-technically-scheme-written-in-forth
>
>
> <quote>"Dave Hein Posts: 4,831
> February 2015 edited February 2015 0
> I found a lisp interpreter written in C at http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin
> /lisp.c . I was able to get it to run on the Prop in a matter of minutes by
> changing the #define for SIZE from 1000000 to 400, and using the CMM model. The
> program is 950 lines of C code. I don't know lisp, but the program seems to do
> the right thing when I type in (+ 1 2).
>
> I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth. I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a good language for writing large programs. It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around. However, serious programming should really have library support and standards and compilers that assist the developer. Forth is fine if you want a challenge, but if you want to get something done use something else.
>
> As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers."
> </quote>
>
> The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth.
> (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp)
>
> And of course moving it to the little Parallax board was not possible.
> The Forth on the board is not quite standard.
>
> It seems a shame that we don't have code examples like the 'C' Scheme
> example that are as easily configured for different hardware.
>
> The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays
> and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better?
>
> Now where have I heard that before?
>
> It looks like a good project for my spare time.
>
>
> BF
>
> So much code so little time.
Hi!
I polished a little source file, words preserved their stack-effect
and added user input(exit through Ctrl+D). Now I can have fun, something like:
bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> gforth lisp.fs
Gforth 0.7.3, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
Type `bye' to exit
ok
repl
(define fac
(lambda (n)
(cond ((eq? n 1)
1)
(t
(* n (fac (- n 1)))))))
;
(display (fac 5)) ; 120
bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp>
--
Have a nice day,
humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxaudioresearch@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-13 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3efdc98-c27e-45b2-bc85-daa2acf62f64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50035 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:42:15 PM UTC-4, humptydumpty wrote: > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:06:23 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: > > *Don't shoot the messenger please** > > > > I was doing some research on Lisp internals having found some old code > > by Martin Tracy on my drive. I went looking around and found this discussion: > > > > http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/160027/lisp-technically-scheme-written-in-forth > > > > > > <quote>"Dave Hein Posts: 4,831 > > February 2015 edited February 2015 0 > > I found a lisp interpreter written in C at http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin > > /lisp.c . I was able to get it to run on the Prop in a matter of minutes by > > changing the #define for SIZE from 1000000 to 400, and using the CMM model. The > > program is 950 lines of C code. I don't know lisp, but the program seems to do > > the right thing when I type in (+ 1 2). > > > > I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth. I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a good language for writing large programs. It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around. However, serious programming should really have library support and standards and compilers that assist the developer. Forth is fine if you want a challenge, but if you want to get something done use something else. > > > > As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers." > > </quote> > > > > The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth. > > (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp) > > > > And of course moving it to the little Parallax board was not possible. > > The Forth on the board is not quite standard. > > > > It seems a shame that we don't have code examples like the 'C' Scheme > > example that are as easily configured for different hardware. > > > > The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays > > and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better? > > > > Now where have I heard that before? > > > > It looks like a good project for my spare time. > > > > > > BF > > > > So much code so little time. > > Hi! > > I polished a little source file, words preserved their stack-effect > and added user input(exit through Ctrl+D). Now I can have fun, something like: > > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> gforth lisp.fs > Gforth 0.7.3, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license' > Type `bye' to exit > ok > repl > > (define fac > (lambda (n) > (cond ((eq? n 1) > 1) > (t > (* n (fac (- n 1))))))) > ; > (display (fac 5)) ; 120 > > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> > > -- > Have a nice day, > humptydumpty Is there a place that we can see your source code. That's very cool. BF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d36899cc-7750-43a9-83de-b9280e038f8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50068 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:36:51 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:42:15 PM UTC-4, humptydumpty wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:06:23 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: > > > *Don't shoot the messenger please** > > > > > > I was doing some research on Lisp internals having found some old code > > > by Martin Tracy on my drive. I went looking around and found this discussion: > > > > > > http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/160027/lisp-technically-scheme-written-in-forth > > > > > > > > > <quote>"Dave Hein Posts: 4,831 > > > February 2015 edited February 2015 0 > > > I found a lisp interpreter written in C at http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin > > > /lisp.c . I was able to get it to run on the Prop in a matter of minutes by > > > changing the #define for SIZE from 1000000 to 400, and using the CMM model. The > > > program is 950 lines of C code. I don't know lisp, but the program seems to do > > > the right thing when I type in (+ 1 2). > > > > > > I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth. I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a good language for writing large programs. It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around. However, serious programming should really have library support and standards and compilers that assist the developer. Forth is fine if you want a challenge, but if you want to get something done use something else. > > > > > > As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers." > > > </quote> > > > > > > The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth. > > > (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp) > > > > > > And of course moving it to the little Parallax board was not possible. > > > The Forth on the board is not quite standard. > > > > > > It seems a shame that we don't have code examples like the 'C' Scheme > > > example that are as easily configured for different hardware. > > > > > > The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays > > > and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better? > > > > > > Now where have I heard that before? > > > > > > It looks like a good project for my spare time. > > > > > > > > > BF > > > > > > So much code so little time. > > > > Hi! > > > > I polished a little source file, words preserved their stack-effect > > and added user input(exit through Ctrl+D). Now I can have fun, something like: > > > > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> gforth lisp.fs > > Gforth 0.7.3, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license' > > Type `bye' to exit > > ok > > repl > > > > (define fac > > (lambda (n) > > (cond ((eq? n 1) > > 1) > > (t > > (* n (fac (- n 1))))))) > > ; > > (display (fac 5)) ; 120 > > > > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> > > > > -- > > Have a nice day, > > humptydumpty > > Is there a place that we can see your source code. > That's very cool. > > BF Hi! Here is the link: https://we.tl/fANcCUBrge Have a nice day, humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94457e5d-2eeb-48e5-9d95-d05741d0e237@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50083 |
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:06:45 PM UTC+3, humptydumpty wrote: > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:36:51 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:42:15 PM UTC-4, humptydumpty wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:06:23 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > *Don't shoot the messenger please** > > > > > > > > I was doing some research on Lisp internals having found some old code > > > > by Martin Tracy on my drive. I went looking around and found this discussion: > > > > > > > > http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/160027/lisp-technically-scheme-written-in-forth > > > > > > > > > > > > <quote>"Dave Hein Posts: 4,831 > > > > February 2015 edited February 2015 0 > > > > I found a lisp interpreter written in C at http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin > > > > /lisp.c . I was able to get it to run on the Prop in a matter of minutes by > > > > changing the #define for SIZE from 1000000 to 400, and using the CMM model. The > > > > program is 950 lines of C code. I don't know lisp, but the program seems to do > > > > the right thing when I type in (+ 1 2). > > > > > > > > I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth. I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a good language for writing large programs. It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around. However, serious programming should really have library support and standards and compilers that assist the developer. Forth is fine if you want a challenge, but if you want to get something done use something else. > > > > > > > > As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers." > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth. > > > > (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp) > > > > > > > > And of course moving it to the little Parallax board was not possible. > > > > The Forth on the board is not quite standard. > > > > > > > > It seems a shame that we don't have code examples like the 'C' Scheme > > > > example that are as easily configured for different hardware. > > > > > > > > The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays > > > > and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better? > > > > > > > > Now where have I heard that before? > > > > > > > > It looks like a good project for my spare time. > > > > > > > > > > > > BF > > > > > > > > So much code so little time. > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > I polished a little source file, words preserved their stack-effect > > > and added user input(exit through Ctrl+D). Now I can have fun, something like: > > > > > > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> gforth lisp.fs > > > Gforth 0.7.3, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > > Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license' > > > Type `bye' to exit > > > ok > > > repl > > > > > > (define fac > > > (lambda (n) > > > (cond ((eq? n 1) > > > 1) > > > (t > > > (* n (fac (- n 1))))))) > > > ; > > > (display (fac 5)) ; 120 > > > > > > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> > > > > > > -- > > > Have a nice day, > > > humptydumpty > > > > Is there a place that we can see your source code. > > That's very cool. > > > > BF > > Hi! > > Here is the link: https://we.tl/fANcCUBrge > > Have a nice day, > humptydumpty Have traveled trough source expression '(display 3)' as 'REPL' does step by step. Quite a journey! :) A little improved version is here, most important is 'repl' modification. : REPL BEGIN parsetext lisp-load-from-string drop AGAIN ; as originally forgotten 'drop' :| Link is here: https://we.tl/wVEZgZqk2e -- humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 00:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40ecf898-a247-4dfd-9d28-6d5fb1a559c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50068 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:36:51 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 12:42:15 PM UTC-4, humptydumpty wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 11:06:23 PM UTC+3, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > *Don't shoot the messenger please**
> > >
> > > I was doing some research on Lisp internals having found some old code
> > > by Martin Tracy on my drive. I went looking around and found this discussion:
> > >
> > > http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/160027/lisp-technically-scheme-written-in-forth
> > >
> > >
> > > <quote>"Dave Hein Posts: 4,831
> > > February 2015 edited February 2015 0
> > > I found a lisp interpreter written in C at http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin
> > > /lisp.c . I was able to get it to run on the Prop in a matter of minutes by
> > > changing the #define for SIZE from 1000000 to 400, and using the CMM model. The
> > > program is 950 lines of C code. I don't know lisp, but the program seems to do
> > > the right thing when I type in (+ 1 2).
> > >
> > > I've officially given up trying to port lisp.fs to pfth. I could probably get it to work in another day or so, but it seems a bit pointless. This exercise has reinforced my belief that Forth is just not a good language for writing large programs. It's fine for peeking and poking and dinking around. However, serious programming should really have library support and standards and compilers that assist the developer. Forth is fine if you want a challenge, but if you want to get something done use something else.
> > >
> > > As I've said before, Forth is Sudoku for programmers."
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > The Scheme they were trying to port was for Gforth.
> > > (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/oldstuff/#lisp)
> > >
> > > And of course moving it to the little Parallax board was not possible.
> > > The Forth on the board is not quite standard.
> > >
> > > It seems a shame that we don't have code examples like the 'C' Scheme
> > > example that are as easily configured for different hardware.
> > >
> > > The comments in the posts mentioned the fact the the C code used arrays
> > > and the Forth code used Structs (and locals). Maybe simpler is better?
> > >
> > > Now where have I heard that before?
> > >
> > > It looks like a good project for my spare time.
> > >
> > >
> > > BF
> > >
> > > So much code so little time.
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I polished a little source file, words preserved their stack-effect
> > and added user input(exit through Ctrl+D). Now I can have fun, something like:
> >
> > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp> gforth lisp.fs
> > Gforth 0.7.3, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
> > Type `bye' to exit
> > ok
> > repl
> >
> > (define fac
> > (lambda (n)
> > (cond ((eq? n 1)
> > 1)
> > (t
> > (* n (fac (- n 1)))))))
> > ;
> > (display (fac 5)) ; 120
> >
> > bo@linux-h5s7:~/src/lisp>
> >
> > --
> > Have a nice day,
> > humptydumpty
>
> Is there a place that we can see your source code.
> That's very cool.
>
> BF
Cleaned up a little and added few words.
wetransfer link: https://we.tl/tsml9LM5e9
Examples:
bo@linux-h5s7:~/tmp/lisp> cat scaled-math.scm sqrt.scm
; scaled-math.scm
(define pi (lambda (x) (*/ 355 113))) ;
(define math-scale 1000) ;
(define s+ (lambda (x y) (+ x y))) ;
(define s* (lambda (x y) (*/ x y math-scale))) ;
(define s/ (lambda (x y) (*/ math-scale x y))) ;
(define s1/ (lambda (x) (*/ math-scale math-scale x))) ;
; sqrt.scm - Square root by Heron method
(load scaled-math.scm) ;
(define average
(lambda (x y)
(/ (s+ x y) 2))) ;
(define heron-step
(lambda (x y)
(average x (s/ y x)))) ;
(define heron
(lambda (x y0 y1)
(cond ((eq? y1 y0) y1)
(t
(heron x y1
(heron-step y1 x)))))) ;
(define sqrt
(lambda (x)
(heron x x (/ x 2)))) ;
Starting scheme:
bo@linux-h5s7:~/tmp/lisp> gforth scheme.fs
Gforth 0.7.3, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
Type `bye' to exit
repl
(load sqrt.scm) ;
(display (sqrt 5000)) ; square root of 5.000 is : 2236
; Ctrl+D to exit
--
Have a nice day,
humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 00:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87h9aluow6.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #50169 |
humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> writes: > bo@linux-h5s7:~/tmp/lisp> gforth scheme.fs > (load sqrt.scm) ; > (display (sqrt 5000)) ; square root of 5.000 is : 2236 This is really cute. Do you use Anton's GC?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 04:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1830c0b-0ea6-4ec9-b9b3-2017e2f47572@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50170 |
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:57:46 AM UTC+3, Paul Rubin wrote: > humptydumpty writes: > > bo@linux-h5s7:~/tmp/lisp> gforth scheme.fs > > (load sqrt.scm) ; > > (display (sqrt 5000)) ; square root of 5.000 is : 2236 > > This is really cute. Do you use Anton's GC? Hi! I have not (yet) plan to use extensively, just intended to get some insights of Scheme interpreter :) I'm happy that I get such (mental food) in Forth. Following byte by byte REP cycle for an particular input is an adventure itself! :) -- Have a nice day, humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 02:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2258e2b-c7ad-46f6-88cd-3cccfdd255ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49933 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-18 03:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15ac3d08-e0ac-47f1-a6f7-febcd652a871@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50203 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web