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 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 07:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <ni5uga$m8q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47520 |
On 26/05/2016 00:22, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> 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 :) I agree! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d36c2f8-e1b7-42ae-b665-2abdb240dc9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47520 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 2:22:36 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > 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 :) I disagree! :-( If everybody does their own thing, then everybody will be incompatible with each other and they won't be able to share code, so they will have to write everything themselves which is a lot of work --- the ANS-Forth cult will continue to dismiss all of them with a wave of the hand as being non-standard nut-cases, and will continue to claim that they alone represent Forth. We do need a standard for Forth. > Certainly, why don't you just do your own thing and not pretend to be a ruler of all forthers in the world? The reason why ANS-Forth failed as a Standard is because Elizabeth Rather's sole goal was to pretend to be the ruler of all Forthers in the world. A standard is a good idea, but any good idea can become a bad idea when there is an idiot in charge. A workable standard should be pretty easy to do. The key is for the people involved to put aside their egos and focus on designing a workable standard, rather than use the standard-building process as a platform for claiming to be a genius that everybody else depends upon. This is what I said previously: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW: Ilya --- you clip the name of the person that you are responding to and only provide the person's quote, so I don't know who you are responding to most of the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3e4b6fc-713a-4f7f-899a-cd710b1e09c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47544 |
четверг, 26 мая 2016 г., 20:03:25 UTC+3 пользователь hughag...@gmail.com написал: > I disagree! :-( > > If everybody does their own thing, then everybody will be incompatible with each other and they won't be able to share code, so they will have to write everything themselves which is a lot of work --- the ANS-Forth cult will continue to dismiss all of them with a wave of the hand as being non-standard nut-cases, and will continue to claim that they alone represent Forth. I don't want to say we don't need any standard at all. Hovewer, standard must be carefully designed in strategy terms and based on actual requirements and tendencies. > We do need a standard for Forth. Yes, but for what part of Forth? How it should cooperate with known standards in IT? Common formats of data representation and POSIX seems to be ignoring (because of 'Forth way'?) and this is always been a reason for flame. Vocabularies are a reason for flame, and so on, so on. If it happens already, no reasons to keep eyes closed. I'm sure all forthers should read string like A @ B @ DUP + AND similarly, but what about something like RESTORE-VOCLIST-HASHTABLE? It is just as example, no idea what it may be used for, but Im afraid we can reveal several words like this in some new standard :) > > Certainly, why don't you just do your own thing and not pretend to be a ruler of all forthers in the world? > > The reason why ANS-Forth failed as a Standard is because Elizabeth Rather's sole goal was to pretend to be the ruler of all Forthers in the world. A standard is a good idea, but any good idea can become a bad idea when there is an idiot in charge. I'm start to think so... > Forth could have a standard that actually works for everybody, this year! 'actually works for everybody' looks nice. To achieve this, forthers should prevent standartizing things with non-clear purpose or with alternatives in behavior. I'm agree to keep words like DUP DROP SWAP + - AND OR XOR etc, but sooner or later I will go to my specific direction, and others forthers will go to their directions as well. At this point standard must be very careful to continue to be vaulable for all. > BTW: Ilya --- you clip the name of the person that you are responding to and only provide the person's quote, so I don't know who you are responding to most of the time. I use G+ interface but it translate system messages on Russian in my reply. I try to keep names and dates and will see what happens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 07:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <OvOdndeGXtaZodXKnZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47555 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We do need a standard for Forth. > > Yes, but for what part of Forth? Whatever parts of it are common enough to convince the TC that they would be valuable as part of the core language. this is either because the behaviour is very common or that something is very useful but can't easily or efficiently be provided as part of a library written in the standard language. > How it should cooperate with known standards in IT? Common formats > of data representation and POSIX seems to be ignoring (because of > 'Forth way'?) and this is always been a reason for flame. It shouldn't be. POSIX is a big lump, and not generally applicable to Forth systems. > 'actually works for everybody' looks nice. To achieve this, forthers > should prevent standartizing things with non-clear purpose or with > alternatives in behavior. The former, sure, but the latter, no. There are always alternatives. The goal of standardization to pick one of them. > I'm agree to keep words like DUP DROP SWAP + - AND OR XOR etc, but > sooner or later I will go to my specific direction, and others > forthers will go to their directions as well. At this point standard > must be very careful to continue to be vaulable for all. Of course. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 06:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c4f8585-3da2-407a-9f60-e37d3d3144b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47563 |
пятница, 27 мая 2016 г., 15:22:29 UTC+3 пользователь Andrew Haley написал:
> >> We do need a standard for Forth.
> >
> > Yes, but for what part of Forth?
>
> Whatever parts of it are common enough to convince the TC that they
> would be valuable as part of the core language. this is either
> because the behaviour is very common or that something is very useful
> but can't easily or efficiently be provided as part of a library
> written in the standard language.
So we need to determine there is a border, after which core is replaced by extensions and applications.
> > How it should cooperate with known standards in IT? Common formats
> > of data representation and POSIX seems to be ignoring (because of
> > 'Forth way'?) and this is always been a reason for flame.
>
> It shouldn't be. POSIX is a big lump, and not generally applicable to
> Forth systems.
This is your opinion. Other peoples want to see POSIX. I don't care, but ready implement POSIX if they need it. Is it a Forth-specific feature? Definitely not, but Forth analog of handle = fopen("myfile.txt", "r"); is not ANS-compatible.
> > 'actually works for everybody' looks nice. To achieve this, forthers
> > should prevent standartizing things with non-clear purpose or with
> > alternatives in behavior.
>
> The former, sure, but the latter, no. There are always alternatives.
> The goal of standardization to pick one of them.
This leads to many incompatible dialects. Rather than dictate how to name auxiliary words from libraries, a minimum core and specific internal engines should be defined. You can dictate to newbies, but professionals will dismiss all home-made standards with easy and will use most effective Forth approaches without following garbage.
> > I'm agree to keep words like DUP DROP SWAP + - AND OR XOR etc, but
> > sooner or later I will go to my specific direction, and others
> > forthers will go to their directions as well. At this point standard
> > must be very careful to continue to be vaulable for all.
>
> Of course.
My point here the current standard is too complex and overloaded by non-mandatory definitions. There are no reasons to use 'ANS compatibility' as an argument is discussions. This position prevent ideas exchange and comparing different approaches. At least because people remember there is always a irrevocably true solution in standard, so why do they need any discussion? This is why I recommend Anton Ertl do his own thing, discuss ANS in some specific resource and don't mix 'Forth' and 'ANS-Forth'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 10:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <a6adnQm2WKSe_NXKnZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47564 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > ???????, 27 ??? 2016 ?., 15:22:29 UTC+3 ???????????? Andrew Haley ???????: >> >> We do need a standard for Forth. >> > >> > Yes, but for what part of Forth? >> >> Whatever parts of it are common enough to convince the TC that they >> would be valuable as part of the core language. this is either >> because the behaviour is very common or that something is very useful >> but can't easily or efficiently be provided as part of a library >> written in the standard language. > > So we need to determine there is a border, after which core is > replaced by extensions and applications. Quite so. That's what the TC does. >> > How it should cooperate with known standards in IT? Common formats >> > of data representation and POSIX seems to be ignoring (because of >> > 'Forth way'?) and this is always been a reason for flame. >> >> It shouldn't be. POSIX is a big lump, and not generally applicable to >> Forth systems. > > This is your opinion. It's a fact. Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, therefore it is not generally applicable. >> > 'actually works for everybody' looks nice. To achieve this, forthers >> > should prevent standartizing things with non-clear purpose or with >> > alternatives in behavior. >> >> The former, sure, but the latter, no. There are always alternatives. >> The goal of standardization to pick one of them. > > This leads to many incompatible dialects. No it doesn't: quite the reverse, in fact. Pick one of the alternatives, and you don't have the incompatibilities. That's the whole idea. > Rather than dictate how to name auxiliary words from libraries, a > minimum core and specific internal engines should be defined. You > can dictate to newbies, but professionals will dismiss all home-made > standards What's a "home-made standard"? The standard I'm talking about has the support of serious professionals, so what you say is instantly proved to be false. I'm sure some professionals don't like it, but not all. > with easy and will use most effective Forth approaches without > following garbage. >> > I'm agree to keep words like DUP DROP SWAP + - AND OR XOR etc, but >> > sooner or later I will go to my specific direction, and others >> > forthers will go to their directions as well. At this point standard >> > must be very careful to continue to be vaulable for all. >> >> Of course. > > My point here the current standard is too complex and overloaded by > non-mandatory definitions. OK, that's an actual technical point. We might even have some agreement in this area. > There are no reasons to use 'ANS compatibility' as an argument is > discussions. Why not? Just because you don't care about standard compatibility, you believe that no-one else should care either? > This position prevent ideas exchange and comparing different > approaches. It does not: everyone has their own ideas about which things they do differently or would like to do differently. We discuss them all the time. > At least because people remember there is always a irrevocably true > solution in standard, so why do they need any discussion? This is complete rubbish. Everything is up for discussion. > This is why I recommend Anton Ertl do his own thing, discuss ANS in > some specific resource and don't mix 'Forth' and 'ANS-Forth'. Let me see if I understand you correctly. This is where we discuss both standard and nonstandard Forth, and it's been that way for a long time. But you don't like to see talk of standards, so you are demanding that we stop talking about them. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3623d7c4-78a3-481e-ac21-ee75662c1941@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47567 |
пятница, 27 мая 2016 г., 18:00:20 UTC+3 пользователь Andrew Haley написал: > >> It shouldn't be. POSIX is a big lump, and not generally applicable to > >> Forth systems. > > > > This is your opinion. > > It's a fact. Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, > therefore it is not generally applicable. Why do you speak about Forth systems only? A lot of PL around use POSIX for file I/O, and having something different requires at least explanation. I know programmers who add Forth to their toolset, but they asks for some adaptation first. The reason is very simple: 'if you claim you can add anything in your Forth, you can modify it to drive it closer to our favourite languages'. Why not, indeed? > > This leads to many incompatible dialects. > > No it doesn't: quite the reverse, in fact. Pick one of the > alternatives, and you don't have the incompatibilities. That's the > whole idea. But in fact, many forthers didn't it. There is another fact: Forth is simple enough to write. I cannot write C# compiler, so must use C# from some vendor and accept his standard for C#. If I disagree with alternative chosen for Forth, I can write another Forth. Other peoples can do the same. Why do we need compatibility in the 'second level of language', if no serious proven set of libraries are available on the market and nobody require to be compatible with ANS Forth? > What's a "home-made standard"? The standard I'm talking about has the > support of serious professionals, so what you say is instantly proved > to be false. I'm sure some professionals don't like it, but not all. So what? When you told about professionals, it means a level of quality, not a right to write everything they want. I see ANS-Forth quality is bad. That I should tell to my customers? 'Buy my program, it is not good, but the compiler I use based on the proven standard made by professionals'? This tales are good inside a club, but even industrial leaders don't try to sell their bad products by telling how many professionals they invite to develop it. Also, don't try to suppress me by someone's authority and professional level. This don't work with me :) > > My point here the current standard is too complex and overloaded by > > non-mandatory definitions. > > OK, that's an actual technical point. We might even have some > agreement in this area. I think programmers are free to write their own implementations. If we collect some Forth versions for last year, we can list a words that actually present in all dialects, and this will be a base. In USSR, when first industrial complex for spaceships was built, it's chief Sergey Korolev delays paths planning. He commands to wait until peoples will travel between buildings and make actual paths, when mark it. This is a good example of following actual facts to achieve best results. > > There are no reasons to use 'ANS compatibility' as an argument is > > discussions. > > Why not? Just because you don't care about standard compatibility, > you believe that no-one else should care either? I don't need to believe. If I can write high-performance, compact or easy-to-use code, I don't want to see arguments like 'other peoples care about compatibility, so go away'. I'm away from this place, as you can see :) I can be away for a long time (with my pretty looking set of Forths, Forth-CPUs and project portfolio). If only thing you want to discuss is when I will come to see the light, I can return after several years to see no changes here :) > > This position prevent ideas exchange and comparing different > > approaches. > > It does not: everyone has their own ideas about which things they do > differently or would like to do differently. We discuss them all the > time. The main problem this is based on innatural things. There are simple questions: where it was used? What about main features? What about customer's feedback (not about Forth inside, but about features implemented). What about independent professional's reaction (from non-forthers)? > > At least because people remember there is always a irrevocably true > > solution in standard, so why do they need any discussion? > > This is complete rubbish. Everything is up for discussion. Some peoples only up to name me a troll after asking questions listed above ;) > > This is why I recommend Anton Ertl do his own thing, discuss ANS in > > some specific resource and don't mix 'Forth' and 'ANS-Forth'. > > Let me see if I understand you correctly. This is where we discuss > both standard and nonstandard Forth, and it's been that way for a long > time. But you don't like to see talk of standards, so you are > demanding that we stop talking about them. The fact I suggest peoples to be free does not mean I want to convert them to my slaves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10f54400-fce0-4364-b940-6efef543f815@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47578 |
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:51:55 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > пятница, 27 мая 2016 г., 18:00:20 UTC+3 пользователь Andrew Haley написал: > > > >> It shouldn't be. POSIX is a big lump, and not generally applicable to > > >> Forth systems. > > > > > > This is your opinion. > > > > It's a fact. Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, > > therefore it is not generally applicable. > > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? A lot of PL around use POSIX for file I/O, and having something different requires at least explanation. I know programmers who add Forth to their toolset, but they asks for some adaptation first. The reason is very simple: 'if you claim you can add anything in your Forth, you can modify it to drive it closer to our favourite languages'. Why not, indeed? I would be okay with POSIX for Straight Forth. It has to run under Windows though, so maybe a subset of POSIX. Ilya is right --- if, "Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX," then they should all be changed to run on top of POSIX --- there are also various other changes that will be needed for them to be Straight Forth compliant. Forth is a robust and flexible language, so change shouldn't be all that difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87lh2ugbpk.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #47578 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: >> Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? A lot of PL around use > POSIX for file I/O, and having something different requires at least > explanation. There aren't that many PL's with a historical tradition of running on small systems with no file system and no OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <744d3532-e343-46e8-a3ad-72ca2192c3e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47581 |
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 7:26:01 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > >> Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, > > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? A lot of PL around use > > POSIX for file I/O, and having something different requires at least > > explanation. > > There aren't that many PL's with a historical tradition of running on > small systems with no file system and no OS. I have stated many times that Straight Forth is for desktop-computers (it has a 64-bit cell) --- it is not for micro-controllers --- Straight Forth can be used as a host for a cross-compiler for a micro-controller, but that is not the same as being a micro-controller. One of the many mistakes of ANS-Forth was to define a single language for both desktop-computers and micro-controllers --- that made some sense in the 1980s when the same processors (6502 and Z80) were used for both --- it made no sense in 1994 when the 32-bit x86 and PowerPC were used in desktop-computers, but 8-bit and 16-bit processors were used in micro-controllers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e801178b-3b24-481f-86d9-643fcfaa4f40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47591 |
суббота, 28 мая 2016 г., 23:12:28 UTC+3 пользователь hughag...@gmail.com написал: > One of the many mistakes of ANS-Forth was to define a single language for both desktop-computers and micro-controllers --- that made some sense in the 1980s when the same processors (6502 and Z80) were used for both --- it made no sense in 1994 when the 32-bit x86 and PowerPC were used in desktop-computers, but 8-bit and 16-bit processors were used in micro-controllers. Another heresy: return stack must not be used for temporary data storing in embedded Forth implementation, because address width and data width may be not equal. This is especially important for FPGA-based Forth CPU, because return stack may be implemented with minimum possible width to save FPGA space and improve timings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc1208c1-9d83-44ef-9557-a0807febc756@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47594 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 3:07:59 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > суббота, 28 мая 2016 г., 23:12:28 UTC+3 пользователь hughag...@gmail.com написал: > > > One of the many mistakes of ANS-Forth was to define a single language for both desktop-computers and micro-controllers --- that made some sense in the 1980s when the same processors (6502 and Z80) were used for both --- it made no sense in 1994 when the 32-bit x86 and PowerPC were used in desktop-computers, but 8-bit and 16-bit processors were used in micro-controllers. > > Another heresy: return stack must not be used for temporary data storing in embedded Forth implementation, because address width and data width may be not equal. This is especially important for FPGA-based Forth CPU, because return stack may be implemented with minimum possible width to save FPGA space and improve timings. Very interesting --- I had not thought of that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 23:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nido69$jon$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47594 |
On 5/28/2016 6:07 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > суббота, 28 мая 2016 г., 23:12:28 UTC+3 пользователь hughag...@gmail.com написал: > >> One of the many mistakes of ANS-Forth was to define a single language for both desktop-computers and micro-controllers --- that made some sense in the 1980s when the same processors (6502 and Z80) were used for both --- it made no sense in 1994 when the 32-bit x86 and PowerPC were used in desktop-computers, but 8-bit and 16-bit processors were used in micro-controllers. > > Another heresy: return stack must not be used for temporary data storing in embedded Forth implementation, because address width and data width may be not equal. This is especially important for FPGA-based Forth CPU, because return stack may be implemented with minimum possible width to save FPGA space and improve timings. There are CPUs which will not allow movement from data space to the return stack. So? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 14:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b030d986-9e03-4b54-9983-1e2ede4ff32d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47581 |
суббота, 28 мая 2016 г., 5:26:01 UTC+3 пользователь Paul Rubin написал: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > >> Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, > > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? A lot of PL around use > > POSIX for file I/O, and having something different requires at least > > explanation. > > There aren't that many PL's with a historical tradition of running on > small systems with no file system and no OS. Exactly. So why we need to fix separate and different syntax for file operations? Let other standards defines file library, not ANS-Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 04:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JtSdnYgLNuaJJdfKnZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47592 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > ???????, 28 ??? 2016 ?., 5:26:01 UTC+3 ???????????? Paul Rubin ???????: >> Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: >> >> Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, >> > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? A lot of PL around use >> > POSIX for file I/O, and having something different requires at least >> > explanation. >> >> There aren't that many PL's with a historical tradition of running on >> small systems with no file system and no OS. > > Exactly. So why we need to fix separate and different syntax for > file operations? Let other standards defines file library, not > ANS-Forth. This is curious. Why do you object to optional wordsets like this? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 04:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JtSdnYkLNuY2KtfKnZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47578 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > ???????, 27 ??? 2016 ?., 18:00:20 UTC+3 ???????????? Andrew Haley ???????: > >> >> It shouldn't be. POSIX is a big lump, and not generally applicable to >> >> Forth systems. >> > >> > This is your opinion. >> >> It's a fact. Lots of Forth systems don't run on top of POSIX, >> therefore it is not generally applicable. > > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? Do you have to ask? This is c.l.f. If you want to discuss comp.lang.something else there are other groups. >> > This leads to many incompatible dialects. >> >> No it doesn't: quite the reverse, in fact. Pick one of the >> alternatives, and you don't have the incompatibilities. That's the >> whole idea. > > But in fact, many forthers didn't it. Some. There are dialects. That's OK. But to claim that a standard led to incompatible dialects is ridiculous. > Why do we need compatibility in the 'second level of language', if > no serious proven set of libraries are available on the market and > nobody require to be compatible with ANS Forth? Perhaps you don't, but this is to revisit the question of what the standard is for: this question has already been asked and answered. >> What's a "home-made standard"? The standard I'm talking about has >> the support of serious professionals, so what you say is instantly >> proved to be false. I'm sure some professionals don't like it, but >> not all. > > So what? When you told about professionals, it means a level of > quality, not a right to write everything they want. It does not: Professional: a person who earns his living from a specified activity. > I see ANS-Forth quality is bad. So don't use it, then. >> > My point here the current standard is too complex and overloaded by >> > non-mandatory definitions. >> >> OK, that's an actual technical point. We might even have some >> agreement in this area. > > I think programmers are free to write their own implementations. Do you see anyone here disagreeing with that? > In USSR, when first industrial complex for spaceships was built, > it's chief Sergey Korolev delays paths planning. He commands to wait > until peoples will travel between buildings and make actual paths, > when mark it. This is a good example of following actual facts to > achieve best results. Yes, that's an excellent example of how to do things. Believe it or not, it's also how the Forth standard is done. >> > There are no reasons to use 'ANS compatibility' as an argument is >> > discussions. >> >> Why not? Just because you don't care about standard compatibility, >> you believe that no-one else should care either? > > I don't need to believe. If I can write high-performance, compact or > easy-to-use code, I don't want to see arguments like 'other peoples > care about compatibility, so go away'. Nobody here has told you to go away. > The main problem this is based on innatural things. There are simple > questions: where it was used? What about main features? What about > customer's feedback (not about Forth inside, but about features > implemented). What about independent professional's reaction (from > non-forthers)? All of these are perfectly reasonable things to discuss. >> Let me see if I understand you correctly. This is where we discuss >> both standard and nonstandard Forth, and it's been that way for a long >> time. But you don't like to see talk of standards, so you are >> demanding that we stop talking about them. > > The fact I suggest peoples to be free does not mean I want to > convert them to my slaves. So don't, then. We will continue to discuss both standard and nonstandard Forth here. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13584236-b1b1-4d7b-9352-4d479d10f4ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47606 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 2:34:37 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > > The fact I suggest peoples to be free does not mean I want to > > convert them to my slaves. > > So don't, then. We will continue to discuss both standard and > nonstandard Forth here. The problem here is that Andrew Haley assumes that Elizabeth Rather alone determines what is standard and what is non-standard --- he is essentially saying that everything other than ANS-Forth can be dismissed by Elizabeth Rather as being non-standard and meaningless --- what a total ass-kisser Andrew is! ANS-Forth was just a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. --- it was never anybody's standard --- ANS-Forth is full of ambiguity, so it can't be a standard, because the ANS-Forth-compliant compilers are all incompatible with each other. Everybody who believes that ANS-Forth is a standard for Forth is one of Elizabeth Rather's ass-kissers (or "pocket boys" to use Ilya's term).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 15:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <905692c7-8686-46f2-9364-493429f8b0d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47606 |
воскресенье, 29 мая 2016 г., 12:34:37 UTC+3 пользователь Andrew Haley написал: > > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? > > Do you have to ask? This is c.l.f. If you want to discuss > comp.lang.something else there are other groups. This is not productive position. When you try to make Forth too different, this makes it less attractive for non-Forth programmers. They may want to try, but looking at too many strange things, they are more likely to abandon. Stack and postfix are the base and cannot be changed (basically). This means Forth should be made more user-friendly in all other areas, including library formats. > Some. There are dialects. That's OK. But to claim that a standard > led to incompatible dialects is ridiculous. Dialects often looks more intresting than standard. You still don't show me benefits from using only OPEN-FILE and other file IO from ANS. > > Why do we need compatibility in the 'second level of language', if > > no serious proven set of libraries are available on the market and > > nobody require to be compatible with ANS Forth? > > Perhaps you don't, but this is to revisit the question of what the > standard is for: this question has already been asked and answered. It was not an answer. It was what you want to see around, but it don't works. > > So what? When you told about professionals, it means a level of > > quality, not a right to write everything they want. > > It does not: > > Professional: a person who earns his living from a specified activity. This is because you are focused on money, not on long-term benefits for society. If you think professional is a person who already got a lot of money, this looks like a principal conflict between cultures. You can try to keep maximum benefits for ANS committee from he current situation, claiming they are only professionals here, but this leads to ignorance from programmers who are ready to use Forth, but don't need any consultation. > > I think programmers are free to write their own implementations. > > Do you see anyone here disagreeing with that? Formally, no. In background, yes. > > The main problem this is based on innatural things. There are simple > > questions: where it was used? What about main features? What about > > customer's feedback (not about Forth inside, but about features > > implemented). What about independent professional's reaction (from > > non-forthers)? > > All of these are perfectly reasonable things to discuss. There are not a lot of discussions of this kind so far. This is not a my problem, of course :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 15:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <WZqdnftm-ZOIPtHKnZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47615 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > ???????????, 29 ??? 2016 ?., 12:34:37 UTC+3 ???????????? Andrew Haley ???????: > >> > Why do you speak about Forth systems only? >> >> Do you have to ask? This is c.l.f. If you want to discuss >> comp.lang.something else there are other groups. > > This is not productive position. When you try to make Forth too different, I'm not. Your question was: "Why do you speak about Forth systems only?" The answer was: because this is c.l.f. I'm not proposing to make Forth too different. > this makes it less attractive for non-Forth programmers. They may > want to try, but looking at too many strange things, they are more > likely to abandon. Stack and postfix are the base and cannot be > changed (basically). This means Forth should be made more > user-friendly in all other areas, including library formats. Hmm. I don't think that follows. The main things Forth has to contribute are IMO the areas in which it is differnt from other languages and systems. In particular, Forth is elegant and very simple. Of course, I would vbe very happy if someone wrote a specification for a standard way to interface Forth with posix. But I don't think that this needs to be pat of a language standard. >> Some. There are dialects. That's OK. But to claim that a standard >> led to incompatible dialects is ridiculous. > > Dialects often looks more intresting than standard. True. > You still don't show me benefits from using only OPEN-FILE and other > file IO from ANS. Still? Is this a question that you already asked? When? >> > Why do we need compatibility in the 'second level of language', if >> > no serious proven set of libraries are available on the market and >> > nobody require to be compatible with ANS Forth? >> >> Perhaps you don't, but this is to revisit the question of what the >> standard is for: this question has already been asked and answered. > > It was not an answer. It was what you want to see around, but it > don't works. Not at all. The question was answered in a straightforward and truthful way. If there's anything you didn't understand, feel free to ask. If you have a reason to believe it was insincere, you need to explain why. Preferably in a way that doesn't insult anybody. > >> > So what? When you told about professionals, it means a level of >> > quality, not a right to write everything they want. >> >> It does not: >> >> Professional: a person who earns his living from a specified activity. > > This is because you are focused on money, not on long-term benefits > for society. No, it's because that's what the English word "professional" means. > If you think professional is a person who already got a > lot of money, this looks like a principal conflict between > cultures. You can try to keep maximum benefits for ANS committee > from he current situation, claiming they are only professionals > here, Nobody has claimed that. > but this leads to ignorance from programmers who are ready to > use Forth, but don't need any consultation. > >> > I think programmers are free to write their own implementations. >> >> Do you see anyone here disagreeing with that? > > Formally, no. In background, yes. I don't understand what you mean by this. >> > The main problem this is based on innatural things. There are simple >> > questions: where it was used? What about main features? What about >> > customer's feedback (not about Forth inside, but about features >> > implemented). What about independent professional's reaction (from >> > non-forthers)? >> >> All of these are perfectly reasonable things to discuss. > > There are not a lot of discussions of this kind so far. This is not > a my problem, of course :) Indeed not. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-30 14:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <995326c2-a4fd-4de1-af84-2e774698bfe2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47642 |
понедельник, 30 мая 2016 г., 23:31:19 UTC+3 пользователь Andrew Haley написал: > > This is not productive position. When you try to make Forth too different, > > I'm not. Your question was: "Why do you speak about Forth systems > only?" The answer was: because this is c.l.f. I'm not proposing to > make Forth too different. File access is not an exclusive Forth invention. Many languages use file operations and this is not too wise idea to highlight Forth difference by proposing different syntax for non-important things. If Forth will be more familiar when possible, more programmers can say 'we have a little enough list to learn, so why don't try?' > Hmm. I don't think that follows. The main things Forth has to > contribute are IMO the areas in which it is differnt from other > languages and systems. In particular, Forth is elegant and very > simple. Differency is not a rule or style. Some key things in Forth cannot be done with common syntax, such as stack and postfix notation, but it is a wrong way to continue invention of strange things. > Of course, I would vbe very happy if someone wrote a specification for > a standard way to interface Forth with posix. But I don't think that > this needs to be pat of a language standard. A noticeable problem is related to Forth extensions. They are optional, but many peoples interprets it like 'you must do not implement it at all or implement it as extension describes'. So when C++ programmer comes and ask 'can I have fopen/fread/fclose in Forth?' the common answer is 'no, it is not allowed by Forth standard!' Think about this and answer to yourself, do you really want to invite more colleagues (and make all possible to establish cooperation), or you just want to keep illusion you are a member of elite club? > > You still don't show me benefits from using only OPEN-FILE and other > > file IO from ANS. > > Still? Is this a question that you already asked? When? Ive asked several times, why Forth fileIO use different syntax. > Not at all. The question was answered in a straightforward and > truthful way. If there's anything you didn't understand, feel free to > ask. If you have a reason to believe it was insincere, you need to > explain why. Preferably in a way that doesn't insult anybody. I've told you that reasons to propose different syntax looks innatural. This is not my misunderstanding in terms how to work with files. I want to point you current version of ANS shows no strategy, no logic structure and don't target real applications. Look at me as at your investor before write an answer :) > > This is because you are focused on money, not on long-term benefits > > for society. > > No, it's because that's what the English word "professional" means. This word pronounces exactly equal in Russian, so it is not an 'English word'. Professionals must solve real tasks for peoples, don't play their games with standards, which are only tools. > >> > I think programmers are free to write their own implementations. > >> > >> Do you see anyone here disagreeing with that? > > > > Formally, no. In background, yes. > > I don't understand what you mean by this. Finally, there is a 'last argument' here: 'this is non-standard'. So some peoples allowing others to play theis games, until it is not too serious. > Indeed not. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Ok,... candle :) How many projects you are done last year with Forth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web