Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50049 > unrolled thread
| Started by | endlessboomcapitalism@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-13 10:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-24 00:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 71 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: how can forth compete with lisp endlessboomcapitalism@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 10:01 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:24 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-08-13 11:25 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-08-13 11:47 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-08-13 12:17 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-13 12:40 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-08-13 13:08 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-13 13:58 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-08-14 00:32 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-18 16:11 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-08-19 06:45 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-20 00:41 +0000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 12:26 -0400
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:17 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Bill Zimmerly <billzimmerly@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 21:19 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Bill Zimmerly <billzimmerly@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:40 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 09:03 +0000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:00 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-09-24 21:27 +0000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 17:23 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 15:55 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 18:39 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 20:20 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-23 18:46 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 22:16 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 22:40 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 00:07 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 00:11 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 00:13 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-23 21:15 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 00:47 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-23 22:18 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 19:26 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-24 21:30 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-25 13:53 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-25 13:59 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-25 17:38 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-25 17:54 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-25 14:43 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-09-26 14:53 +0100
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-26 14:02 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-09-27 11:16 +0100
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-27 10:28 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-09-28 11:41 +0100
Re: how can forth compete with lisp albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-28 13:27 +0200
Re: how can forth compete with lisp foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 08:05 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-28 11:40 -0500
Re: how can forth compete with lisp foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:13 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-28 08:39 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:14 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-09-28 11:33 +0000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:12 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-28 08:35 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 06:59 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-29 09:43 -1000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-09-30 09:39 +0000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 16:54 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-30 17:14 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-01 11:06 +0200
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-01 12:20 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-02 02:04 +0200
Re: how can forth compete with lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-01 17:00 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 17:28 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 17:27 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-01 13:12 +0000
Re: how can forth compete with lisp albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-01 16:07 +0200
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:33 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:23 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 18:45 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 17:24 -0700
Re: how can forth compete with lisp polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 00:08 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e86a2663-aa78-4e0d-ad14-58cf27bc16b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50051 |
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:24:26 PM UTC-4, Pablo Hugo Reda wrote: > El sábado, 13 de agosto de 2016, 14:01:56 (UTC-3), endlessboo...@gmail.com escribió: > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:43:45 PM UTC-4, endlessboo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > lisp seems to have better abstraction! > > > > silence here > > > > uh oh > > > > is lisp better? > > > > I wonder sometimes. > > > > Which is best? > > > > let over lambda book says lisp is ultimate programming lang > > a languague not make a program, a programer do > > not have sense talk about diferent programing languagues, the only important thing is know how resolve a problem, not the tool. > > you not like forth, ok, move to other group. > > You have a question about forth?, then ask here,if you have luck some respond. I do like forth. I wish Jeff Fox had written more books. 4os looked impressive. I want to use a forth powered pc to surf the net with firefox or something better in 1% the code!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae5faa4b-7828-4c41-a408-bc47035dce3e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51192 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:10 AM UTC+12, polymorph self wrote: > I want to use a forth powered pc to surf the net with firefox or something > better in 1% the code! If it could be done in 1% of the code, it could be done by a single person. Or maybe a small team. Since this has never been done in the decades since the birth of the WWW, it seems reasonable to conclude it cannot be done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86a7f516-212e-44f3-a093-40a66c9aafd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51206 |
but colorforth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 18:46 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <0YKdnZ3cc7KEmHvKnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #51206 |
On 9/23/16 3:39 PM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:10 AM UTC+12, polymorph self wrote: >> I want to use a forth powered pc to surf the net with firefox or something >> better in 1% the code! > > If it could be done in 1% of the code, it could be done by a single person. Or maybe a small team. > > Since this has never been done in the decades since the birth of the WWW, it seems reasonable to conclude it cannot be done. It's do-able, certainly, but the problem is that it is still a big job, and there's not been a sufficient economic incentive for a person or team to make the effort. 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 | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 22:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <948af228-1585-45da-b2dc-d7bc0508cd76@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51222 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:46:23 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/23/16 3:39 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:10 AM UTC+12, polymorph self wrote: >>> I want to use a forth powered pc to surf the net with firefox or something >>> better in 1% the code! > > >> If it could be done in 1% of the code, it could be done by a single person. >> Or maybe a small team. >> >> Since this has never been done in the decades since the birth of the WWW, >> it seems reasonable to conclude it cannot be done. > > It's do-able, certainly, but the problem is that it is still a big job, > and there's not been a sufficient economic incentive for a person or > team to make the effort. What was the “economic incentive” behind the creation of KDE (including Konqueror, which was based on KHTML, which became the foundation of WebKit)? Behind the founding of Mozilla, the creation of Firefox? The GNOME project, including Epiphany? Galeon? If a Forth-based browser could be done with 1% of the effort of any of these projects, it would have been done already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 22:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8256138c-bae4-4ee4-8f44-76b61e6c044c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51224 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 12:16:40 AM UTC-5, lawren...@gmail.com wrote: > [...] In all my life, I've never skateboarded. Therefore: it is probably impossible for me to skateboard. I've never been to Australia. Would I be %200 happier in Australia? That's impossible: if I could find such happiness there, I would've already gone there. We don't your spam in addition to gavino's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51d341e7-dbac-402c-a6b3-af1c62d65733@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51225 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:40:26 AM UTC-4, Julian Fondren wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 12:16:40 AM UTC-5, lawren...@gmail.com wrote: > > [...] > > In all my life, I've never skateboarded. Therefore: it is probably > impossible for me to skateboard. I've never been to Australia. > Would I be %200 happier in Australia? That's impossible: if I could > find such happiness there, I would've already gone there. > > We don't your spam in addition to gavino's. shut the fuck up you moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 00:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e420b774-3d05-425b-baa6-6499a76422dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51224 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:16:40 AM UTC-4, lawren...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:46:23 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > On 9/23/16 3:39 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:10 AM UTC+12, polymorph self wrote: > >>> I want to use a forth powered pc to surf the net with firefox or something > >>> better in 1% the code! > > > > >> If it could be done in 1% of the code, it could be done by a single person. > >> Or maybe a small team. > >> > >> Since this has never been done in the decades since the birth of the WWW, > >> it seems reasonable to conclude it cannot be done. > > > > It's do-able, certainly, but the problem is that it is still a big job, > > and there's not been a sufficient economic incentive for a person or > > team to make the effort. > > What was the “economic incentive” behind the creation of KDE (including Konqueror, which was based on KHTML, which became the foundation of WebKit)? Behind the founding of Mozilla, the creation of Firefox? The GNOME project, including Epiphany? Galeon? > > If a Forth-based browser could be done with 1% of the effort of any of these projects, it would have been done already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=089xOB9bbhU
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 00:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33591043-9bb8-4b20-8289-c68626563405@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51224 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 1:16:40 AM UTC-4, lawren...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:46:23 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > On 9/23/16 3:39 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:10 AM UTC+12, polymorph self wrote: > >>> I want to use a forth powered pc to surf the net with firefox or something > >>> better in 1% the code! > > > > >> If it could be done in 1% of the code, it could be done by a single person. > >> Or maybe a small team. > >> > >> Since this has never been done in the decades since the birth of the WWW, > >> it seems reasonable to conclude it cannot be done. > > > > It's do-able, certainly, but the problem is that it is still a big job, > > and there's not been a sufficient economic incentive for a person or > > team to make the effort. > > What was the “economic incentive” behind the creation of KDE (including Konqueror, which was based on KHTML, which became the foundation of WebKit)? Behind the founding of Mozilla, the creation of Firefox? The GNOME project, including Epiphany? Galeon? > > If a Forth-based browser could be done with 1% of the effort of any of these projects, it would have been done already. icewm is better than kde or gnome firefox is nice with ublock and custom tab width plugs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 21:15 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <VeudneJWpa2ztXvKnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #51224 |
On 9/23/16 7:16 PM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 4:46:23 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 9/23/16 3:39 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:55:10 AM UTC+12, polymorph self wrote: >>>> I want to use a forth powered pc to surf the net with firefox or something >>>> better in 1% the code! >>> >>> If it could be done in 1% of the code, it could be done by a single person. >>> Or maybe a small team. >>> >>> Since this has never been done in the decades since the birth of the WWW, >>> it seems reasonable to conclude it cannot be done. >> >> It's do-able, certainly, but the problem is that it is still a big job, >> and there's not been a sufficient economic incentive for a person or >> team to make the effort. > > What was the “economic incentive” behind the creation of KDE (including Konqueror, which was based on KHTML, which became the foundation of WebKit)? Behind the founding of Mozilla, the creation of Firefox? The GNOME project, including Epiphany? Galeon? > > If a Forth-based browser could be done with 1% of the effort of any of these projects, it would have been done already. Sorry, not familiar with any of those, so can't respond to that. If a Forth expert had been interested in web browsers when Mozilla was founded, things might have been different. But nowadays browser technology has become incredibly complex, and although it's now possible to do some application-specific web-based stuff in Forth (and I know some people who do), a fully viable web browser would be a considerable undertaking, and as the field is already pretty crowded, probably not financially viable. 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 | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 00:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88da2b1d-8944-4ba5-aa2c-fc3173af0c19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51233 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 7:16:03 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Sorry, not familiar with any of those ... You don’t have to be. They are all much larger projects than anything I know of that has been published in Forth. > But nowadays browser technology has become incredibly complex ... Doesn’t stop people creating new ones. Both Google Chrome/Chromium and Apple Safari date from this century, you know. And can’t Forth do it with 1% of the effort? Seems not. More than that, does Forth seem to appeal to the loners, those who don’t work well on collaborative projects? Which is why it never gets used for anything large...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 22:18 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <rP2dndqlvMRsq3vKnZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #51235 |
On 9/23/16 9:47 PM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 7:16:03 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> Sorry, not familiar with any of those ... > > You don’t have to be. They are all much larger projects than anything I know of that has been published in Forth. The largest Forth projects I know of were never published and never will be. They are either proprietary or highly secure. The vast majority of computer projects are never published. >> But nowadays browser technology has become incredibly complex ... > > Doesn’t stop people creating new ones. Both Google Chrome/Chromium and Apple Safari date from this century, you know. True. Who paid for them? Someone. They were not volunteer efforts. To date, no one has expressed willingness to fund a Forth effort. > And can’t Forth do it with 1% of the effort? Seems not. It probably could, but that prospect has not been sufficiently appealing to anyone with the capability of funding it. > More than that, does Forth seem to appeal to the loners, those who don’t work well on collaborative projects? Which is why it never gets used for anything large... I spent 35 years working on collaborative Forth projects, many of which were large and successful, but not widely publicized. That is the tragedy. 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 | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28d5325f-34d1-4335-af20-5bc2adbc3d37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51237 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 8:19:03 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > The largest Forth projects I know of were never published and never will > be. They are either proprietary or highly secure. The vast majority of > computer projects are never published. And yet there seems to be a peculiar absence of Forth from the Free Software world. Have you ever worked on anything as large as the Linux kernel? That’s currently up to 20 million lines of source code, with something like 1000 active contributors, and can manage a major new stable release every few months. It is probably the most successful and productive single software project in history. > Who paid for them? Someone. They were not volunteer efforts. Most of the projects I mentioned were indeed volunteer efforts. >> More than that, does Forth seem to appeal to the loners, those who don’t >> work well on collaborative projects? Which is why it never gets used for >> anything large... > I spent 35 years working on collaborative Forth projects, many of which > were large and successful, but not widely publicized. That is the tragedy. Lots of companies have discovered that they can lower development costs by open-sourcing what were originally in-house projects. How come that never seems to apply to anything done in Forth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 21:30 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <h8OdnSHcXIWv4HrKnZ2dnUU7-blQAAAA@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #51259 |
On 9/24/16 4:26 PM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 8:19:03 PM UTC+12, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> The largest Forth projects I know of were never published and never will >> be. They are either proprietary or highly secure. The vast majority of >> computer projects are never published. > > And yet there seems to be a peculiar absence of Forth from the Free Software world. Have you ever worked on anything as large as the Linux kernel? That’s currently up to 20 million lines of source code, with something like 1000 active contributors, and can manage a major new stable release every few months. It is probably the most successful and productive single software project in history. > >> Who paid for them? Someone. They were not volunteer efforts. > > Most of the projects I mentioned were indeed volunteer efforts. > >>> More than that, does Forth seem to appeal to the loners, those who don’t >>> work well on collaborative projects? Which is why it never gets used for >>> anything large... > >> I spent 35 years working on collaborative Forth projects, many of which >> were large and successful, but not widely publicized. That is the tragedy. > > Lots of companies have discovered that they can lower development costs by open-sourcing what were originally in-house projects. How come that never seems to apply to anything done in Forth? > Dunno. It was the option of the companies we were working for. But in most cases, these were specific programs that ran only on the companies' proprietary hardware, so "open sourcing" wasn't really practical. 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 | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a6d2020-2892-4a45-891d-e0a67c0406d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51267 |
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:31:03 PM UTC+13, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > ... in most cases, these were specific programs that ran only on the > companies' proprietary hardware ... Ah, that explains a lot of things. Is there any move toward more standardized hardware nowadays? Arduino, ARM? RISC-V <http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fedora-RISC-V-Bootable-IMG>?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 13:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87r3878zm3.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #51294 |
lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes: >> companies' proprietary hardware ... > Is there any move toward more standardized hardware nowadays? Arduino, > ARM? RISC-V I read proprietary hardware as meaning a hardware product containing a normal microprocessor, not a special cpu architecture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9037d61-967e-4106-8204-3e818f83a0aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51295 |
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 9:59:34 AM UTC+13, Paul Rubin wrote: > I read proprietary hardware as meaning a hardware product containing a > normal microprocessor, not a special cpu architecture. In that case, the code should be reusable across other SoCs using the same processor family.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87intj8oqa.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #51298 |
lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes: >> hardware product containing a normal microprocessor > In that case, the code should be reusable across other SoCs using the > same processor family. Sure, that's not the issue though. The product is some kind of lab instrument or satellite radio or whatever, full of unique circuitry and sensors with their own quirks, and the software has to run all that stuff. Most of the code will be specific to that surrounding hardware, and would be useless for most anything else. The CPU architecture doesn't come into it that much. The other thing is, both in the present-day hardware world and in the software world in the "peak Forth" era (1980s?), releasing source code was an unusual thing to do unless you were in academia. The FOSS movement didn't take off in a big way til somewhat later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 14:43 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <qcGdnX7N65C78nXKnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #51295 |
On 9/25/16 10:59 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes: >>> companies' proprietary hardware ... >> Is there any move toward more standardized hardware nowadays? Arduino, >> ARM? RISC-V > > I read proprietary hardware as meaning a hardware product containing a > normal microprocessor, not a special cpu architecture. > Exactly. Here's a good example: Radeus Labs Model 8200 Antenna Control Unit http://www.radeuslabs.com/brochure/RL8200_Brochure.pdf. The software interfaces with hardware controllers and limit switches in order to position the antenna precisely, as it locates and tracks user-specified satellites in earth orbit and adjusts for optimal signal quality. We developed the user interface for the antenna controls. A touchscreen display provides direct access to everything needed to identify and track satellites. Hardware jog buttons can also be used to position an antenna manually. Leon Wagner created an antenna-setup wizard that is, according to Radeus, the first of its kind in satellite communications. It simplifies the process of configuring a new installation or re-tuning it after site maintenance. Of course, the software that locates and tracks a satellite in orbit is the core of the system and its raison d’être. Like the user-face, it was developed using SwiftForth and SwiftX. 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 <anon@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 14:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.325338ae7a0ab33f989690@news.virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #51301 |
In article <qcGdnX7N65C78nXKnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@supernews.com>, erather@forth.com says... > ... > Like the > user-face, it was developed using SwiftForth and SwiftX. ... Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web