Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #47094 > unrolled thread
| Started by | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-13 20:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-17 21:08 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 214 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
C to Forth (was Ting) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-05-13 20:05 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-13 14:06 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-14 00:27 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-13 21:55 -0700
RTX20xx ...Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2016-05-19 08:58 +0100
Re: RTX20xx ...Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-21 04:08 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-21 04:09 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-13 14:33 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-14 00:28 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-13 21:02 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-14 15:15 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-14 17:39 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-14 16:56 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-14 20:25 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:16 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-15 00:19 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 08:58 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-15 08:24 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:18 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-15 18:52 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-16 06:23 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-16 15:12 -0700
Programmable "people" "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-20 23:34 +0000
Re: Programmable "people" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 00:48 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 14:21 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-15 10:42 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-05-17 20:33 +1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-17 08:39 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-17 14:06 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-17 11:40 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 19:20 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 08:32 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-15 12:18 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-05-25 13:41 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:22 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-15 17:24 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-15 19:30 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-16 13:37 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-16 07:25 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-05-16 21:50 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-16 16:06 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 01:04 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 01:43 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-17 10:05 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 11:08 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-18 10:49 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-19 13:27 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 06:01 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-19 10:32 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 10:11 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 16:29 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 14:16 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-19 14:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 14:42 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-20 03:46 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-20 04:53 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-20 22:16 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-20 21:43 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-21 15:56 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-21 02:52 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-20 22:11 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-21 03:13 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-21 15:43 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-22 22:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-05-23 08:30 +0200
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 23:39 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 23:36 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-23 04:24 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 09:14 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 10:35 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-23 18:53 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-23 19:43 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 00:28 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-23 21:53 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 01:56 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 09:03 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 22:09 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 22:59 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-24 04:32 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 12:46 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 15:26 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 15:57 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-05-25 07:44 +0200
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 23:29 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-24 22:09 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-25 03:57 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 11:04 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-24 14:01 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 15:05 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 21:25 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-20 03:57 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:48 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-20 09:40 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-20 09:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 13:53 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 14:16 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-21 03:01 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-21 10:23 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:37 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-23 04:38 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 23:11 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-24 13:15 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 13:51 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 19:36 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-20 22:50 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-21 16:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:04 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 15:33 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 19:14 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 17:11 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 20:58 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:50 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:09 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:38 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 07:58 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 18:55 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 16:00 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 06:54 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:04 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 07:19 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:40 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:04 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:41 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 01:51 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 10:00 +0800
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:08 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-24 04:36 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 02:48 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-23 19:28 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-23 11:46 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:30 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-24 13:37 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 14:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-05-26 00:29 +0200
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 23:29 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:06 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-25 19:30 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-25 20:52 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 23:27 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:40 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-26 10:03 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-27 07:22 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 06:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:00 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 15:51 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-27 16:27 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:25 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-28 13:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 15:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-28 19:15 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:41 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 14:50 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-29 04:36 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-29 04:34 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-29 12:19 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 15:37 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-30 15:31 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 14:54 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-30 14:44 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 19:21 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 13:49 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-31 04:01 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 15:02 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-31 17:27 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-06-01 07:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:09 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-06-01 18:03 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 06:36 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-06-01 02:54 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:50 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-06-01 07:38 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 10:58 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:32 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:10 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:04 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-06-01 17:57 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-06-01 22:54 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-06-02 04:59 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 11:44 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 14:58 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:43 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 15:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 22:44 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 07:14 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 10:33 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 10:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 16:57 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 23:57 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:01 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:17 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 13:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 14:09 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 10:07 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:13 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 02:14 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 11:50 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 15:28 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 18:52 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 09:41 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 01:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-17 04:34 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 10:46 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-18 09:10 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 09:36 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-16 17:58 +0000
Cross compilers [Was: C to Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-18 04:58 -0500
Re: Cross compilers [Was: C to Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-18 11:25 +0000
Re: Cross compilers [Was: C to Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-18 10:28 -0500
Recognizers (was: Cross compilers) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-18 16:48 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-16 15:11 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-05-17 21:08 +1000
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 00:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ni0lo7$kaq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47458 |
On 5/24/2016 12:19 AM, Ron Aaron wrote: > > > On 24/05/2016 07:04, rickman wrote: >> On 5/23/2016 11:54 PM, Ron Aaron wrote: > >>> My previous Forth (Reva) was also not ANS compatible, and there are >>> still people using it even though I haven't maintained it for a while. >> >> And that would be the reason for using standards. I expect they have >> little choice since they would need to rework their code to run under >> other tools, no? If they had coded to a standard, they could then >> switch to another tool without problem. > > No, they continue to use Reva because it suits them. As if they had much of a choice... > As far as standards are concerned, the "ANS Forth" standard is weak > enough that "standard compliant" code may not run on a different > "standard" vendor's implementation. We see examples of that all the > time on c.l.f. I think that is the exception. Porting code between Forths is difficult almost always because the code was *not* standard compliant. > Because at the end of the day, to get work done you invariably use > vendor-specific code (e.g. GCC intrinsics or some Forth's extensions) > and as soon as you've done that, your code becomes non-portable even if > it is still within the standard. Of course you can "work around" that > with #ifdefs or the equivalent, that's not the point. So now you are saying the unportable programs were *not* standard? > Every standard which has "wiggle room" has this same issue: SQL, C etc > .... all allow vendor-specific enhancements or differences, which make > porting between vendors a sometimes hair-raising experience. And yes, I > speak from experience. > > Since Reva never advertised itself as "standard" anything, its users > knew what they were getting into, and they were interested in whatever > perceived benefits it provided. Since Reva is "public domain", they can > modify it however they want (and there are apparently some offshoots). Yep, they knew and ignored the issue of going with a tool with a very small community and in the end no real support. I guess they are ok with that. Heck, I use a 20 year old orphan program for e-mail. But then I don't develop applications with that. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 08:04 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <ni0n67$nsp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47459 |
On 05/24/2016 07:40, rickman wrote: > Yep, they knew and ignored the issue of going with a tool with a very > small community and in the end no real support. You are mistaken. I have always provided prompt and excellent support to my users and customers. Reva is not being developed further by me, but when support requests come in, I respond. And 8th customers can attest to the responsiveness of our support. You really do just like to argue, don't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 03:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ni10cb$hb0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47460 |
On 5/24/2016 1:04 AM, Ron Aaron wrote: > > > On 05/24/2016 07:40, rickman wrote: > >> Yep, they knew and ignored the issue of going with a tool with a very >> small community and in the end no real support. > > You are mistaken. I have always provided prompt and excellent support > to my users and customers. Reva is not being developed further by me, > but when support requests come in, I respond. And 8th customers can > attest to the responsiveness of our support. I think you misunderstand. You snipped my post where I talk about the orphan software I use. By "support" I mean updates and bug fixes. Are you still doing any of that? For how long? At what point will that product be an "orphan"? You can run your business as you wish. Your customers can buy and use what they want. But by not using a product that adheres to a standard, they are locked to that product. You seem to want to rationalize around that, but it is a fact. Your company can fold up and blow away tomorrow and your customers would have no recourse. By using a standard product and writing standard programs that problem can be avoided. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 01:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87iny3hm8k.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #47466 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > by not using a product that adheres to a standard, they are locked to > that product.... Your company can fold up and blow away tomorrow and > your customers would have no recourse. Reva is FOSS, so anyone who wants to hack on it can do so. What's the issue here? Weren't you using eForth for a while? It's non-standard and there's not even a company behind it to fold up. But it's pretty easy to understand and modify. Mecrisp also doesn't have a company supporting it, though I guess it's more standard than eForth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 10:00 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nidi93$42j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47460 |
On 24/05/2016 1:04 PM, Ron Aaron wrote: > And 8th customers can > attest to the responsiveness of our support. And it's *good* support too. I haven't been able to spend as much time with 8th as I'd like due to work pressures. I've been using the trial version off an on but I get prompt attention even with that. Bruce/bugmagnet
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 07:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nidpps$o0i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47597 |
On 29/05/2016 05:00, Bruce Axtens wrote: > On 24/05/2016 1:04 PM, Ron Aaron wrote: >> And 8th customers can >> attest to the responsiveness of our support. > > And it's *good* support too. I haven't been able to spend as much time > with 8th as I'd like due to work pressures. I've been using the trial > version off an on but I get prompt attention even with that. Thanks! Long time, no see... hope the work pressures let up a bit!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 04:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <AJ-dnS4VJoMPvdnKnZ2dnUU78KednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47458 |
Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote: > > As far as standards are concerned, the "ANS Forth" standard is weak > enough that "standard compliant" code may not run on a different > "standard" vendor's implementation. We see examples of that all the > time on c.l.f. I don't think I've ever seen it, and I've been here for a long time. maybe you're thing of resource limitations, or perhaps parts of the standard which need clarification? > Because at the end of the day, to get work done you invariably use > vendor-specific code (e.g. GCC intrinsics or some Forth's > extensions) and as soon as you've done that, your code becomes > non-portable even if it is still within the standard. This makes no sense. If you're using some extensions then your code isn't a standard Forth program. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 02:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa8d3295-4c00-49cf-8e60-cf76c76e3ee8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47471 |
> This makes no sense. If you're using some extensions then your code > isn't a standard Forth program. > ???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 19:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni070t$hgo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47448 |
On 5/23/2016 10:55 AM, Ron Aaron wrote: > > > On 23/05/2016 17:58, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >> What conclusion you can make? Ok, I will do: qualified programmer can write his own Forth implementation and don't ask permission from peoples who don't want to grant it. Why do you ever think I need blessing from gurus? See p.1 from my list. > > ;) > That is apparent in 8th, Forth like, but not limited to the standard with lots of improvements and extensions. I have been playing with it, but I have been sidelined by some health issues. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1-6dnQf6odmfqd7KnZ2dnUU7-InNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47446 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You talk of "goals" and "criterias[sic] of accepting or declining >> changes" is not what standards are about. They may well have those > > Really? Do you think the standard allow it's authors to do > everything they want, just because they was first who claims the > name of standard? Not exactly. ANSI, IEC, and ISO have their rules, and these are complex, but essentially everybody who turns up for enough meetings (and pays dues) is allowed to contribute and vote, and the technical committee (the TC) must consider submissions and reply. The rest is at http://www.ansi.org/essentialrequirements; the ANSI rules are fairly representative. > Every complex document must state goals, tasks to solve and ways to > achieve that goals. 'To have portable code' means absolutely > nothing, because there are many ways to achieve this. But there aren't many ways which are common practice: the technical committee doesn't just make stuff up. >> Do you have "demands"? Why don't you share those with us? What about >> your "demands" do you not find in the available Forths? If you can't >> find your "demands" in any Forth, then obviously Forth is not for you >> unless you want to roll your own. > > 1. Forth is very simple to write. > 2. Computer hardware, algorithms and other stuffs around programming > languages are moving forward. > 3. Real projects demands particular features to implement. > 4. Forth fans do not want to hear anything about improving language > and align it to user requirements. But, as a counter example, I must refer you to lots of discussions about proposed changes right here in this group. Sure, a lot of people don't like many of the proposals. > What conslusion you can make? Ok, I will do: qualified programmer > can write his own Forth implementation and don't ask permission from > peoples who don't want to grant it. Why do you ever think I need > blessing from gurus? See p.1 from my list. So what, exactly, are you complaining about? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nhveg8$nb8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47446 |
On 5/23/2016 10:58 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> This is very simple. The standard is what the standard is. The >> purpose is to lay out a language with defined features so that >> compliant compilers can be written that people know how to use and >> that compliant programs may be written that will run on these >> compliant compilers. > > Many languages may be designed to conform these statements. On this > way, programmers may be very very far from the original Forth idea, > so no more people will come to support them. > >> You talk of "goals" and "criterias[sic] of accepting or declining >> changes" is not what standards are about. They may well have those >> > > Really? Do you think the standard allow it's authors to do everything > they want, just because they was first who claims the name of > standard? Every complex document must state goals, tasks to solve and > ways to achieve that goals. 'To have portable code' means absolutely > nothing, because there are many ways to achieve this. Forth may be > easily lost here. > >> Do you have "demands"? Why don't you share those with us? What >> about your "demands" do you not find in the available Forths? If >> you can't find your "demands" in any Forth, then obviously Forth is >> not for you unless you want to roll your own. > > 1. Forth is very simple to write. 2. Computer hardware, algorithms > and other stuffs around programming languages are moving forward. 3. > Real projects demands particular features to implement. 4. Forth fans > do not want to hear anything about improving language and align it to > user requirements. > > What conslusion you can make? Ok, I will do: qualified programmer can > write his own Forth implementation and don't ask permission from > peoples who don't want to grant it. Why do you ever think I need > blessing from gurus? See p.1 from my list. > >> Who are you exactly? Who are the "pocket boys"? If you find the >> behavior of the Forth community unacceptable, why are you here? > > I'm here, because I'm a part of Forth community too. As long as I use > Forth and want to improve it. I don't feel you really need a complete > list who I am, while my questions and arguments looks intresting :) I'm not sure what your opinions are. Your posts are a bit hard to comprehend and seem to be about mostly tangential issues of Forth. Enjoy. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 13:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016May24.153732@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #47446 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes:
>Do you think the standard allow it's authors to do everything they =
>want, just because they was first who claims the name of standard?
The proof of the standard is in the acceptance. E.g., ASCII is a very
successful standard, Extended Pascal less so. Forth-94 and -2012 are
somewhat in-between, when looking at acceptance from implementors.
Given the nature of the Forth community, I don't think that there
could have been a standard in 1994 that is better accepted than
Forth-94, and similarly for Forth-2012. Forth-83 could have been
handled better, however.
When looking at acceptance by programmers, Forth-94 or -2012 are
similarly successful.
When looking at the number of programs written in pure standard Forth,
Forth-94 and, by extension, -2012 are abysmal failures; it is in bad
company in that respect, though: the same holds true for the ANSI C
standards. I think the Forth standards are still a useful common
basis for writing programs, and that's what I mean with acceptance by
programmers. The same used to be true for ANSI C, but the
implementors no longer treat it as such.
>What conslusion you can make? Ok, I will do: qualified programmer can write=
> his own Forth implementation and don't ask permission from peoples who don=
>'t want to grant it. Why do you ever think I need blessing from gurus?
You don't. The standard just offers a common platform that is useful
for not just porting programs and implementing systems, but also for
discussions. Of course, nobody prevents you from, say, writing a
system or a program where * performs a bitwise and, and other great
ideas, but then many people will have trouble understanding your code
and writing code for your system, and you will find fewer systems that
you can run your programs on. But if you accept that cost, why are
you discussing the standard at all? Why not just do your own thing,
like Ron Aaron?
- 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 | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <777d247c-942d-4f89-b33c-9ec508f6573b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47478 |
> The proof of the standard is in the acceptance. E.g., ASCII is a very > successful standard, Extended Pascal less so. Forth-94 and -2012 are > somewhat in-between, when looking at acceptance from implementors. > Given the nature of the Forth community, I don't think that there > could have been a standard in 1994 that is better accepted than > Forth-94, and similarly for Forth-2012. Forth-83 could have been > handled better, however. > > When looking at acceptance by programmers, Forth-94 or -2012 are > similarly successful. http://zqpythonic.qiniucdn.com/data/20070316155919/index.html - TIOBE index show Forth at 36th position, right after Tcl/tk. Today Forth not listed in top-50 TIOBE, only in 'other 50 popular languages'. Is this an acceptance? > You don't. The standard just offers a common platform that is useful > for not just porting programs and implementing systems, but also for > discussions. Even a minor questions here causes a lot of empty words. Having ASCIIZ strings or 1.23 as an acceptable format of floating point number appears as illegal when I told it was my customer's request. Ask mw how Ive got benefits from Forth in that projects and I'll try to tell about my positive experience. If you want to listen only about successfull usage of ANS-Forth, I can't help you. > Of course, nobody prevents you from, say, writing a > system or a program where * performs a bitwise and, and other great > ideas, but then many people will have trouble understanding your code > and writing code for your system, and you will find fewer systems that > you can run your programs on. If it is your great idea, I have a bad news for you. If you think this is a best great idea available for me, I have another bad news. > But if you accept that cost, why are > you discussing the standard at all? Why not just do your own thing, > like Ron Aaron? But THIS is a great idea :) Certainly, why don't you just do your own thing and not pretend to be a ruler of all forthers in the world? I see no reason to accept American National Standard by default. That about Belgium National Standard, Croatia Natinal Standard, Denmark National Standard and so on up to Zimbabwe National Standard? You are free to create your own internet resource to discuss only ANS-compatible implementations. I will add a link to your website on www.fforum.winglion.ru - a most popular place for RuFIG users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 00:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s973piorhccz.1ue9xltlawiag.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #47520 |
Op Wed, 25 May 2016 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT) schreef Ilya Tarasov: <snip> > I see no reason to accept American National Standard by default. Did you realize that this is in fact an ISO standard for 19 years now? "" ISO/IEC 15145:1997 Information technology -- Programming languages -- FORTH "" groet Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 16:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34d608e3-02b1-499b-a064-d679181d58a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47522 |
четверг, 26 мая 2016 г., 1:30:00 UTC+3 пользователь Coos Haak написал: > Op Wed, 25 May 2016 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT) schreef Ilya Tarasov: > > <snip> > > I see no reason to accept American National Standard by default. > > Did you realize that this is in fact an ISO standard for 19 years now? > "" > ISO/IEC 15145:1997 > > Information technology -- Programming languages -- FORTH I know. Do you know standards should be renewed from time to time? Do you also know there is a system of standards with rules of applicability? I must not refer to ANS in Russia and _may_ refer to ISO. Also I can issue a Standard of Company, based on Unified System of Program Documentation and this will be an official reason to use my Forth implementation. Standards should help programmers to do their work. If standard states don't fit market requests, this standard may be ignored, unless you have a contract with special requirement of ANS/ISO compatibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 23:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ni5qc3$dho$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47523 |
On 5/25/2016 7:12 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > четверг, 26 мая 2016 г., 1:30:00 UTC+3 пользователь Coos Haak > написал: >> Op Wed, 25 May 2016 14:22:34 -0700 (PDT) schreef Ilya Tarasov: >> >> <snip> >>> I see no reason to accept American National Standard by default. >> >> Did you realize that this is in fact an ISO standard for 19 years >> now? "" ISO/IEC 15145:1997 Information technology -- Programming >> languages -- FORTH > > I know. Do you know standards should be renewed from time to time? Do > you also know there is a system of standards with rules of > applicability? I must not refer to ANS in Russia and _may_ refer to > ISO. Also I can issue a Standard of Company, based on Unified System > of Program Documentation and this will be an official reason to use > my Forth implementation. Standards should help programmers to do > their work. If standard states don't fit market requests, this > standard may be ignored, unless you have a contract with special > requirement of ANS/ISO compatibility. Are you offering to serve on the committee to update the standard? I believe the Forth standard was updated in 2012. Is that not often enough for you? Why not light a single candle rather than complain about the darkness? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93a3ff85-39ca-4a89-86c1-f8911c089fab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47526 |
> Are you offering to serve on the committee to update the standard? I > believe the Forth standard was updated in 2012. Is that not often > enough for you? Why not light a single candle rather than complain > about the darkness? Working in committee is a work and not a honor. Also, this is definitely not a major achievement for me. Discussion is a normal process, and should be organized properly. Im already ask several key questions, but reaction is far from normal. I have no ambitions to see my name in any lists and, as you can see, don't sitting here all time and complaining about the darkness. I have a full set of Forth technoligies, including my own compilers, PC and embedded applications and Forth CPUs. From my side, it is more than a candle. I'm open for discussion and ready to tell some success stories, regardless of it will be accepted or not. The only important question is: do you need it or you want to listen only tales about wise committee and poor newbies?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 19:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ea572ff-a5ee-4090-9929-c7727295f552@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47520 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 2:22:36 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > Of course, nobody prevents you from, say, writing a > > system or a program where * performs a bitwise and, and other great > > ideas, but then many people will have trouble understanding your code > > and writing code for your system, and you will find fewer systems that > > you can run your programs on. > > If it is your great idea, I have a bad news for you. If you think this is a best great idea available for me, I have another bad news. > > > But if you accept that cost, why are > > you discussing the standard at all? Why not just do your own thing, > > like Ron Aaron? > > But THIS is a great idea :) Certainly, why don't you just do your own thing and not pretend to be a ruler of all forthers in the world? The purpose of a Standard is portability of programs. If everybody agrees that * means multiplication, etc., then programs can be ported from one Standard program to another. There are two causes for ANS-Forth's failure as a Standard: 1.) ANS-Forth is ambiguous. There are multiple aspects of ANS-Forth that have multiple valid interpretations. so every ANS-Forth compiler is incompatible with the others in a variety of ways, and yet all of them claim to be ANS-Forth compliant on the basis that their interpretation of the ANS-Forth document is one of the many valid interpretations. 2.) ANS-Forth is incomplete. It is true that we do have * that means single-precision multiplication, so nobody can claim that it means bitwise-and and be compliant. We don't have D/ however that means double-precision division, so anybody can claim that this means "reformat hard-disk" and be compliant. Even if we informally agree to what D/ means, we can't write it in assembly-language without being vendor-specific, and if we write it in ANS-Forth then it is unacceptably slow. Also, some missing parts (SMUDGE and UNSMUDGE, etc.) can't be written in ANS-Forth because they require carnal knowledge, so they have to be vendor-specific. For a Standard to succeed, the committee have to be ego-less. Their goal should be portability of programs. If their goal is to prove to everybody that they are the rulers of the world, and to acquire the authority to denounce everybody who refuses to brown-nose them as being non-standard, then they will certainly fail. This was Elizabeth Rather's goal --- she pushed ANS-Forth through ANSI without testing it (no reference compiler) because she was in a hurry to become the ruler of the Forth world --- she never cared about portability because her plan for the future was to denounce everybody who competes with Forth Inc. as being non-standard, and there was never any intention of supporting portability of programs between compilers written by different compiler-vendors. Look at this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/D0PmblPgthM Here I provided a brief description of a suggested standard for a desktop-computer Forth. I gave five points of description. I'm not trying to be the ruler of the Forth world. I'm just describing a simple language that is based on five points that I expect nobody to be opposed to. This is not about ego --- this is about supporting cross-compilation --- this is about doing so in a standard way so the Forthers' programs can be ported between multiple compiler-vendors' systems with ease. My language is considerably simpler than ANS-Forth, getting rid of a lot of cruft that dates back to the 1970s, most of which only makes sense on the register-starved PDP11. Because of the simplicity, this language standard could be discussed by all of Forth programmers in the world and all of the details hammered out within 6 months (the key is for everybody to agree that they want the language to be simple, and to not add features just to boost their own ego in that they get to claim that such-and-such feature was the product of their wonderful creativity). Greater praise will be given to those who point out that a feature is not needed and can be eliminated, than to those who introduce new features. Because the five points are all non-contentious, the standardization process should not get bogged down in a lot of argument between different groups with fundamental disagreements. This could be accomplished! Forth could have a standard that actually works for everybody, this year! By comparison, Forth-200x just drags on year after year. It is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth, and ANS-Forth was overly complicated. Forth-200x is significantly more complicated than ANS-Forth, and the bloat of useless features grows every year. Realistically, Forth-200x will never be completed! It was supposed to be completed last decade (hence the name Forth-200x), but now the name should be Forth-201x because we missed our target decade, and in another four years the name will need to be Forth-202x because we missed this decade too --- eventually Forth-203x will be a bloated monster that inspires awe and disgust throughout the world ---it will be like Frankenstein's monster, except that instead of body parts stitched together, it will be a mish-mash of useless features stitched together. > I see no reason to accept American National Standard by default. That about Belgium National Standard, Croatia Natinal Standard, Denmark National Standard and so on up to Zimbabwe National Standard? You are free to create your own internet resource to discuss only ANS-compatible implementations. I will add a link to your website on www.fforum.winglion.ru - a most popular place for RuFIG users. My language proposal is super-simple --- I see no reason why Russians, Belgians, Zimbabweans and even the notoriously argumentative English, can't all agree on it within a few months of discussion --- if people just put aside their egos and work together, we can have this done quickly and without fuss. I'm not trying to boost my own ego. The best that I could hope for is that people will say that I was the driving force behind the world's simplest programming language, remarkable primarily for its lack of snazzy features --- that is not much of an ego boost --- roughly comparable to being the inventor of polyester. So far, most creative Forth thinkers have added features to Forth. For example, we have this: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/kUcztqJAsuU Franck's Oforth is cool in its own way --- but we already have a lot of big feature-full languages (Common Lisp is the biggest) --- I'm going in the opposite direction, by trying to standardize a super-simple language that is mostly useful as a platform for cross-compilers, and which has only a few features unrelated to that purpose (the Fixed-version numbers provide speed on numerical programs, and the quotations allow for general-purpose data-structures).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 20:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d12039d-41fd-4fd0-8e67-c4477822b8a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47524 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 7:30:02 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm not trying to be the ruler of the Forth world. I'm just describing a simple language that is based on five points that I expect nobody to be opposed to. This is not about ego --- this is about supporting cross-compilation --- this is about doing so in a standard way so the Forthers' programs can be ported between multiple compiler-vendors' systems with ease. This thread started with a reference to C.H.Ting. His eForth was always promoted as a simple minimalist version of Forth. My experience with eForth was two years ago when I had to write a Forth cross-compiler. I looked into eForth as the platform, but I was stymied due to a lack of documentation. There was pretty much nothing, so I couldn't figure out how to do even simple things --- I had to write my cross-compiler in VFX because it is well-documented --- it did have a bug though, that caused me to waste several days in working around the bug, and it lacked a lot of basic features that I had to write myself from scratch. Stephen Pelc released a bug-fix on 10/8/2014, and he also put a note in the user-agreement saying that he doesn't allow the evaluation version to be used as a platform for commercial software, which was obviously put there to prevent me from making money on my cross-compiler that I had just told him about which used the evaluation version as its host system. My language proposal is in the minimalist spirit of eForth --- but with documentation --- a standards document allows multiple implementations that are compatible so programs can be ported between them without any legal issues regarding using proprietary software (as we have in VFX) --- and it allows everybody to learn the language quickly just by reading the document over a weekend (no learning curve, as with eForth where you have to study the source-code, or VFX where you have a lot of documentation mostly of unnecessary features but a lack of pertinent features).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 23:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ni5q8p$dho$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47520 |
On 5/25/2016 5:22 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > But THIS is a great idea :) Certainly, why don't you just do your own thing and not pretend to be a ruler of all forthers in the world? I see no reason to accept American National Standard by default. That about Belgium National Standard, Croatia Natinal Standard, Denmark National Standard and so on up to Zimbabwe National Standard? You are free to create your own internet resource to discuss only ANS-compatible implementations. I will add a link to your website on www.fforum.winglion.ru - a most popular place for RuFIG users. I don't get the attitude. No one is forcing you to do anything. No one is even telling you to do anything. We are pointing out the benefits of using standards and the problems of not. You point out advantages of not sticking to a standard, but you seem to be fairly upset with the discussion. No one is trying to tell you what to do. If you think that you are not hearing what people are saying. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web