Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #46216 > unrolled thread

File extensions and Gforth on Openhub

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-26 08:15 +0000
    Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-03-27 00:53 +0000
      Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-27 07:32 +0000
        Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-03-27 21:29 +0000
          Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-28 13:21 +0000
            relative file names and INCLUDED (was: File extensions ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-28 14:25 +0000
              Re: relative file names and INCLUDED (was: File extensions ...) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-28 15:35 +0000
                Re: relative file names and INCLUDED (was: File extensions ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-03-28 19:58 +0000
                Re: relative file names and INCLUDED (was: File extensions ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-29 07:42 +0000
                  Re: relative file names and INCLUDED (was: File extensions ...) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-29 11:33 +0000
                    Re: relative file names and INCLUDED (was: File extensions ...) Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-03-29 15:34 +0000
                      Re: relative file names and INCLUDED Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 12:31 -0400
                        Re: relative file names and INCLUDED Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-03-30 14:21 +0000
                          Re: relative file names and INCLUDED Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:35 -0400
                      Re: relative file names and INCLUDED (was: File extensions ...) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-29 16:58 +0000
          Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-28 12:29 +0000
            Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-03-29 11:47 +0000
      Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub mhx@iae.nl - 2016-03-27 01:36 -0700
      Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-03-27 15:19 +0000
    Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 19:51 -0700
      Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-27 08:01 +0000
        Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-03-27 15:00 +0100
          Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-27 14:15 +0000
            Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-03-29 08:13 +0100
              Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 00:15 -0700
                Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-29 09:45 +0000
              Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-29 08:39 +0000
                Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-03-29 11:09 +0100
                  Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-29 10:35 +0000
                    Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-03-29 14:23 +0100
                      Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-29 16:47 +0000
                        Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 12:14 +0100
                          Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Bob Butler <bob@work.com> - 2016-03-30 11:11 +0000
                            Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-30 14:10 +0000
                          Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-30 14:00 +0000
                            Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 17:27 +0100
                              Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-30 16:47 +0000
                    Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 09:41 -0700
          Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-28 13:34 +0000
            Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-28 14:17 +0000
              Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-28 15:24 +0000
                Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 10:51 -0700
                  Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-03-28 18:35 -0700
                  Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-03-29 08:05 +0100
                Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-29 07:12 +0000
                  Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 00:42 -0700
                  Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-03-29 09:55 +0000
                    Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-29 10:23 +0000
      Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-03-27 14:09 +0000
      Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-03-27 15:20 +0000
    Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub "Steve(spt)" <steven@jupiter-ace.co.uk> - 2016-03-28 06:44 -0700
    Re: File extensions and Gforth on Openhub Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-03-30 08:49 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#46255

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:17:22 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
(Anton Ertl) wrote:

>stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>MPE can live with .forth (and .frt) as a default extension for
>>Forth. We prefer .forth.
>
>The question at hand is if you can live with .4th, on which we decided
>during the 2015 standards meeting, at which you were present.  If you
>cannot live with that, why didn't you speak up then?

.4th is just ugly, and I said so at the meeting. It may be acceptable
in the DOS 8.3 world, but that's a limited heritage these days.

>> After all FAT partitions are only there
>>to boot Linux and for embedded systems.
>
>Embeedded systems should be a good reason to make the standard file
>extension FAT-compatible.  BTW, FAT partitions are not needed for
>booting Linux.

It may be so, but there are plenty of Linuces that rely on them.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46257

stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
> .4th is just ugly, and I said so at the meeting. 

As a US english speaker with juvenile tendencies, .frt is both ugly and
unintentionally funny (I keep reading it as "fart").  Maybe it's just
me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46267

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 2:48:25 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
> > .4th is just ugly, and I said so at the meeting. 
> 
> As a US english speaker with juvenile tendencies, .frt is both ugly and
> unintentionally funny (I keep reading it as "fart").  Maybe it's just
> me.

I must concur. For the English native speaker it is not good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46276

On 28/03/2016 18:51, Paul Rubin wrote:
> stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>> .4th is just ugly, and I said so at the meeting.
>
> As a US english speaker with juvenile tendencies, .frt is both ugly and
> unintentionally funny (I keep reading it as "fart").  Maybe it's just
> me.
>

I dislike .frt for exactly the same reason.

-- 
Gerry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46279

stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:17:22 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>>stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>>MPE can live with .forth (and .frt) as a default extension for
>>>Forth. We prefer .forth.
>>
>>The question at hand is if you can live with .4th, on which we decided
>>during the 2015 standards meeting, at which you were present.  If you
>>cannot live with that, why didn't you speak up then?
>
>.4th is just ugly, and I said so at the meeting.

The purpose of file extensions is not beauty.  The question still is
if you can live with .4th.  And at the meeting you did not say that
you cannot, and we had a consensus on .4th.

It's not my favourite extension, either, but we did not succeed in
finding an extension that everybody finds beautiful and that has all
the other advantages of .4th (in particular, lack of conflicts with
existing non-Forth file formats), and we won't find such an extension
now.  If we try to go back on our decisions, we won't get anywhere.
Is that your intention?

>>BTW, FAT partitions are not needed for
>>booting Linux.
>
>It may be so, but there are plenty of Linuces that rely on them.

Such as?

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46280

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>>BTW, FAT partitions are not needed for booting Linux.
>>It may be so, but there are plenty of Linuces that rely on them.
> Such as?

I think Android.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46284

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:12:40 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
(Anton Ertl) wrote:

>>.4th is just ugly, and I said so at the meeting.
>
>The purpose of file extensions is not beauty.  The question still is
>if you can live with .4th.  And at the meeting you did not say that
>you cannot, and we had a consensus on .4th.

If it's the only way forward, I'll live with it. However, if you
think that this is important for Forth source code, you need to 
consider line endings.

I have added .fs and .4th to the list of extensions that VFX knows
about.

>>It may be so, but there are plenty of Linuces that rely on them.
>
>Such as?

Most ARM Linux systems that I have seen, including Raspbian on a
Raspberry Pi. After all, you can ignore a device with 8 million sold
because it's ideologically impure, can't you?

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46286

stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>I have added .fs and .4th to the list of extensions that VFX knows
>about.

Great!

>>>It may be so, but there are plenty of Linuces that rely on them.
...
>Most ARM Linux systems that I have seen, including Raspbian on a
>Raspberry Pi.

Sounds to me like the firmware relies on FAT, not Linux.  If you boot
a PC with UEFI, you need a VFAT file system.  You need that whether
you boot Linux, Windows, or some other OS.  My guess is that the
Raspberry Pi firmware also requires FAT when booting an OS, whatever
that OS is.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46232

Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes:
>On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:49:54 AM UTC-5, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> One particular amusing aspect is that the statistics thinks that
>> Gforth contains 86k code lines of F# code, and 29 code lines of Forth
>> code.
>
>This conclusion uses https://www.openhub.net/p/ohcount , which
>includes the ability to disambiguate languages based on file
>contents.  Its source is on github.
...
>*shrug*. github and openhub both have language identification
>libraries.  One already supports Forth and making the other support
>it seems like a more direct path to getting openhub to accurately
>identify Forth code.

I have now added a patch for better Forth detection to ohcount:
<https://github.com/blackducksoftware/ohcount/pull/44>.  The last
update to ohcount was in 2014, so we will see if this actually works
out.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46235

Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 3:49:54 AM UTC-5, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> I came across <https://www.openhub.net/p/gforth>; the site produces
>> statistics over various software projects available in source,
>> including Gforth.  The statistics are sometimes interesting, sometimes
>> amusing.
>>
>> One particular amusing aspect is that the statistics thinks that
>> Gforth contains 86k code lines of F# code, and 29 code lines of Forth
>> code.

>This conclusion uses https://www.openhub.net/p/ohcount , which
>includes the ability to disambiguate languages based on file
>contents.  Its source is on github.

>github used to only go by file extension, but it seems that they
>now use https://github.com/github/linguist for language
>identification, and it seems that it supports Forth:
>https://github.com/forthy42?tab=repositories

>bitbucket just lets you declare what language a project uses.

>Personally I like the

>  .fs - Forth source
>  .fb - Forth blocks
>  .fi - Forth images

>convention.  Which has the appeal of being potentially extensible.
>You might have used .fp for Forth project files.  Perl does
>something similar with .pm (Perl module) vs. .pl; Python has '.py'
>and then '.pyc' for precompiled files, and then whatever '.pyo' is.
>The FFL at least also uses these extensions.

>>
>> Here are the non-Forth usages of some file extensions:
>>
>> .fth Foobar2000 Theme File; FileMaker Theme File
>> .f   Fortran
>> .frt FoxPro (file-extensions.org only lists GP-Forth)
>> .4   man pages and others
>>

>.4 is an extension for *compiled* manpages.  Not something you'd
>find in a repo.  I thought that F# was a pretty unimportant
>collision, since it's just O'Caml or SML or something dialect for
>.NET , but (with respect to .f) these are even less important.

>The last version of FoxPro was released in 1994.  Visual FoxPro was
>discontinued in 2007.  Theme files are not program source files.

>>
>> So we decided that theforth.net uses .4th as default file extension
>> (essentially for package.4th).  Now the question is if we should not
>> move in that direction as a community in general.  I.e., add .4th as
>> extension to various tools we support, and use .4th as extension in
>> new projects, or maybe even in new files in old projects.
>>

>*shrug*. github and openhub both have language identification
>libraries.  One already supports Forth and making the other support
>it seems like a more direct path to getting openhub to accurately
>identify Forth code.

>I guess the overall point is Forth advocacy, by way of increased
>visibility of Forth code.  That's a worthy goal, but, eh, '.4th' is
>an ugly extension.  I don't like the emphasis on the number four.
>The language is not actually called Fourth.  The potential advocacy
>benefit from settling on an extension is small enough that I think
>it should be weighed seriously against the small effect of the
>displeasure people might experience when working with this
>extension, which reminds them that some ancient filesystem had a
>character limit, or suggests that the language they're using is
>misspelled.

>(4th and 8th of course can get away with these extensions since
>this is the actual name of the implementation and language,
>respectively.)

>theforth.net looks nice, though.

And after 10 years of complaints, projecteuler.net insists
on doing syntax coloring that makes no sense for Forth.

>-- Julian
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46248

On Saturday, 26 March 2016 08:49:54 UTC, Anton Ertl  wrote:
> I came across <https://www.openhub.net/p/gforth>; the site produces
> statistics over various software projects available in source,
> including Gforth.  The statistics are sometimes interesting, sometimes
> amusing.
> 
> One particular amusing aspect is that the statistics thinks that
> Gforth contains 86k code lines of F# code, and 29 code lines of Forth
> code.
> 
> This reminded me that we had a discussion about Forth file extensions
> at EuroForth 2015 (or in the Forth-200x meeting).  Someone had already
> made some statistics about the popularity of file extensions (IIRC
> posted here).  In the discussion, it turned out that, while .4th is
> relatively unpopular, it was the only file extension in common use
> that is not primarily associated with some non-Forth usage.
> 
> Here are the non-Forth usages of some file extensions:
> 
> .fth Foobar2000 Theme File; FileMaker Theme File
> .f   Fortran
> .frt FoxPro (file-extensions.org only lists GP-Forth)
> .4   man pages and others
> 
> So we decided that theforth.net uses .4th as default file extension
> (essentially for package.4th).  Now the question is if we should not
> move in that direction as a community in general.  I.e., add .4th as
> extension to various tools we support, and use .4th as extension in
> new projects, or maybe even in new files in old projects.
> 
> - anton
> -- 
> M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
> comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
>      New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
>    EuroForth 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

bit OT .. older project like the Jupiter ACE - emulators have been using the .4th since 2004, and have UltraEditer and Notepadd++ syntax  files that have the .4th ready for Ace usere

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46314

Don't forget that this bike shed may be painted in several lush colours!

We would need an absolute minimum of four file extensions:

- .4th
- .4th.blocks
- .4th.blocks.with.newlines.every.64.characters
- .color.4th.or.whatever.chucks.latest.whim.is

Ha ha, only half serious. ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web