Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29767 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-22 03:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 03:02 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-22 09:04 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2014-04-23 15:37 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-24 01:20 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-24 17:24 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-25 00:22 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 00:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-25 05:16 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 10:19 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 09:40 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 15:01 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 10:57 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 16:58 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-04-26 07:52 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-25 09:01 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:17 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:16 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-23 22:12 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 11:02 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 19:21 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 21:52 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-25 00:27 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 20:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 19:40 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 21:57 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2014-04-25 21:04 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-25 15:57 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 11:49 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-26 10:30 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-27 17:55 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-28 11:33 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-28 20:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-29 07:46 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-28 21:57 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-01 20:59 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-02 07:46 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-02 20:31 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-03 08:26 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-03 19:33 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 03:35 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-04 11:06 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 01:11 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-05 20:45 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-06 12:53 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-05-07 09:59 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:12 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-08 02:05 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-10 23:01 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-05 20:58 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-06 07:16 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-05 20:52 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:17 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 11:13 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-06 07:12 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 10:57 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-06 17:06 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 07:52 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-06 17:11 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 08:57 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:38 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:56 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 04:10 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... thomas.worthington@london.ac.uk - 2014-05-08 04:42 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 11:17 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:31 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 02:29 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 13:39 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 01:26 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 04:11 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 08:34 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 11:04 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 17:28 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:55 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-09 10:42 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 19:59 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-09 20:25 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 05:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 22:08 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-12 22:11 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-13 22:37 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-14 04:09 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-05-14 04:44 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 05:05 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-14 20:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 01:08 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-18 22:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2014-05-19 09:48 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:50 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-22 00:46 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-19 22:37 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:58 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-22 11:05 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-22 23:19 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-23 11:34 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:44 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 14:20 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-27 10:30 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 19:58 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 07:45 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-28 03:03 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:36 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-28 23:03 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-29 11:01 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-30 16:44 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-29 08:25 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:32 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:15 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 19:42 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 20:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 09:14 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:25 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-29 20:47 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 20:28 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-30 22:24 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-30 21:49 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-29 23:40 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 19:47 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-05-08 14:36 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 10:46 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 07:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lm40m3$7s3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30861 |
On 28/05/2014 03:58, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:20:41 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >> On 26/05/2014 19:44, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> You don't regard anybody to be a leader??? But you program in ANS-Forth, >>> while admitting that ANS-Forth has no purpose except to support Forth >>> Inc. and MPE legacy code? >> >> I don't see how you can read such an admission into the above. > > You said: "Forth Inc and MPE are commercial organisations that have a strong interest in legacy code that they want to keep running and they have a big say in what happens in the Forth 200X." > > Not just a big say, but the only say. > Not having attended any Forth 200X meetings I can't say either way. But I seriously doubt that they have the only say. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 03:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <W7KdnWq_c9faBRjOnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #30868 |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > > Not having attended any Forth 200X meetings I can't say either > way. But I seriously doubt that [MPE and Forth, Inc] have the only > say. I can guarantee you that they don't have the only say. They don't even have a majority. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3962c7e0-7c3f-4229-8cea-44014bbb0e66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30869 |
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:03:19 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > > Not having attended any Forth 200X meetings I can't say either > > way. But I seriously doubt that [MPE and Forth, Inc] have the only > > say. > > I can guarantee you that they don't have the only say. They don't > even have a majority. Elizabeth Rather was the chair-person of the ANS-Forth technical committee, and SwiftForth became ANS-Forth compliant without any of its myriad bugs fixed --- it is more accurate to say that ANS-Forth became SwiftForth compliant as ANS-Forth was in flux but SwiftForth was not. Now Forth-200x is required to be totally compatible with ANS-Forth... So you are just dreaming if you believe that Elizabeth Rather gives a hoot in hell about any input that you may provide to Forth-200x --- go back to pretending to be the Marine Corp --- you are nobody.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 23:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lm682b$vf7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30930 |
On 5/28/2014 7:36 PM, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:03:19 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >>> Not having attended any Forth 200X meetings I can't say either >>> way. But I seriously doubt that [MPE and Forth, Inc] have the only >>> say. >> >> I can guarantee you that they don't have the only say. They don't >> even have a majority. > > Elizabeth Rather was the chair-person of the ANS-Forth technical committee, and SwiftForth became ANS-Forth compliant without any of its myriad bugs fixed --- it is more accurate to say that ANS-Forth became SwiftForth compliant as ANS-Forth was in flux but SwiftForth was not. This reply is for everyone else in the group. I don't expect anything I say to have any impact on Hugh. I ran into this when I was the chair of an IEEE group called the National Capitol Area Consultants Network, NCACN. Everyone on the executive committee seemed to expect me to run it like I was the CEO. I read the by-laws and the chair had two responsibilities the other members did not. One was to run the meetings by Robert's Rules of Order. The other was to appoint the chairs of any sub-committees formed. That was it. There is *no* executive privilege in this capacity. All decisions were made by the committee by voting. I would bet money that Elizabeth's roll is/was very similar. Being chair typically does not provide much influence over the outcome of this sort of proceedings. So Hugh's paranoid ramblings are just that... -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25a6b8ee-3813-42fc-9ce9-7fc78cff0360@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30938 |
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:03:33 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > Being chair typically does not provide much influence over the outcome of > this sort of proceedings. So Hugh's paranoid ramblings are just that... My idea was not to comment this part of the thread, but I like to share the experience which I had with conference voting back in Germany long ago. It was very simple: When something had to be decided, the chair person asked for raising hands for 'yes' or 'no' or 'undecided'. Took me a while until I discovered that the chair person raised his hand first, and when asking for a 'yes' first, most hands went up, and when asking for a 'no' first, most hands went up. So the chair person got a decision in his own mind by asking for 'yes' first or for 'no' first, depending on the vote he liked to get. That was long ago and it was in Germany. I'm sure this won't happen in the United States and will never happen in a Forth meeting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-30 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014May30.184404@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #30951 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes:
>On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:03:33 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>
>> Being chair typically does not provide much influence over the outcome of
>> this sort of proceedings. So Hugh's paranoid ramblings are just that...
>
>My idea was not to comment this part of the thread, but I like to share the=
> experience which I had with conference voting back in Germany long ago.
>
>It was very simple:
>When something had to be decided, the chair person asked for raising hands =
>for 'yes' or 'no' or 'undecided'. Took me a while until I discovered that t=
>he chair person raised his hand first, and when asking for a 'yes' first, m=
>ost hands went up, and when asking for a 'no' first, most hands went up. So=
> the chair person got a decision in his own mind by asking for 'yes' first =
>or for 'no' first, depending on the vote he liked to get.
I guess this works for meetings where a lot of the participants do not
have an opinion formed on most of the issues they decide on, and where
decisions are taken without coing for a consensus.
The way we work in Forth200x is to discuss an issue, and if there is
consensus, make a formal vote (which then typically reflects the
consensus). If there is no consensus, the issue is typically not
brought to vote. I.e., if one person stubbornly resists a proposal,
it typically won't be voted on. My guess is that the Forth-94 TC
worked in a similar way.
The downside of this is that progress is at glacial speeds, if not
slower. Everybody has to be convinced that a proposal is good before
it becomes accepted; this also has a chilling effect on submissions of
proposals. Although a consensus seems to be forming for quotations,
nobody has written up a porposal yet.
The upside is that the result is pretty solid, albeit maybe somewhat
behind the times.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 08:25 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <esKdnYGftsoS5hrOnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #30938 |
On 5/28/14 5:03 PM, rickman wrote: ... > This reply is for everyone else in the group. I don't expect anything I > say to have any impact on Hugh. > > I ran into this when I was the chair of an IEEE group called the > National Capitol Area Consultants Network, NCACN. Everyone on the > executive committee seemed to expect me to run it like I was the CEO. I > read the by-laws and the chair had two responsibilities the other > members did not. One was to run the meetings by Robert's Rules of > Order. The other was to appoint the chairs of any sub-committees > formed. That was it. There is *no* executive privilege in this > capacity. All decisions were made by the committee by voting. > > I would bet money that Elizabeth's roll is/was very similar. Being > chair typically does not provide much influence over the outcome of this > sort of proceedings. So Hugh's paranoid ramblings are just that... Indeed, that was the case. All technical decisions were made by a Technical Subcommittee or TSC (which included all TC members plus visitors and operated much less formally). It was chaired by Greg Bailey who, for those who don't know him, is no tool of anybody. All proposals passed by the TSC had to be formally ratified by the membership of the TC itself, and ANSI rules required "consensus" (which we interpreted to be a 75% majority). There were typically 16-18 voting members at a meeting, including vendors (FORTH, Inc., Creative Solutions, MPE later on, several others), users (companies ranging fron Ford Motor Co., Western Union, NASA, and others to many small businesses), and organizations (FIG, several FIG subgroups). FORTH, Inc. had one vote. When we started publishing drafts for public review, all public comments and our responses were reviewed by ANSI. The Standard became final only when there were no more technical changes as a result of a last 4-mo. public review. Please bookmark this for future reference. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-21 23:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <llj9gs$5id$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30349 |
On 14/05/2014 06:37, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:11:35 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >> On 10/05/2014 04:25, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >>> Quotations can't be done in ANS-Forth, or Forth-200x as it currently stands.. This really has to be done at the language-design level. > >> If that's the case please explain why Knuth's Man or Boy works in ANS >> Forth, see Stephen Pelc in >> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/comp.lang.forth/x8hUOj1MetU/tSHs6EMudLEJ > > In that thread, Pelc said: > On Friday, July 20, 2012 4:12:21 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >> There is a Forth example by Gerry Jackson which provides an >> example of lambda definitions. This example is in ANS Forth and >> runs on a range of systems. >> www.qlikz.org/forth/lambda.zip > > The link provided doesn't work, so I couldn't download the code and examine it. Are you the "Gerry Jackson" that he mentions? Can you make the code available again? > I've emailed you a copy of the code, let me know if you haven't received it. > What I said was true --- ANS-Forth doesn't provide any way for the quotation to access the locals in the creator function --- all that can be done in ANS-Forth is Payson-faked quotations that are just syntactic sugar for :NONAME. > > I'm guessing that in your code your "local variables" are actually fields in a struct that is on the heap and you pass the pointer to the struct around with the xt of the closure, and also pass it into the closure as a parameter. That's more or less correct. It works by scanning the source code twice, once to identify where enclosed definitions start and end. The second time jumping around compiling inner definitions first and working outwards. > My working definitions are that a closure has the local variables on the heap, and a quotation has the local variables on a locals' stack (usually the return stack). This technique is routinely done in C, and it can be done in ANS-Forth too. You are not going to have syntax for your struct-based locals that is at all comparable to normal syntax for locals. This technique is incredibly ugly in C, and it would be in ANS-Forth too --- this is just a clunky work-around that is done in languages that lack quotations (in 2014, this is mostly just old-school languages such as C and ANS-Forth, as most of the modern languages have either quotations or closures). I never claimed it was pretty or efficient, you said it couldn't be done at all, the fact it runs Knuth's Man or Boy test proves otherwise. > > I have said at least a dozen times that I don't want closures and I consider them to be a bad idea. For one thing, they are an order of magnitude slower than stack-based locals; such gross inefficiency is going to limit Forth to being a toy-language and preclude it from ever being used in application programming. Closures are for scripting languages in which speed is not a concern (most or all scripting languages are also dynamic-OOP, which is another speed killer). The only advantage of closures over quotations is that the closure can outlive the creator function. As I have said though, this is a solution to a non-problem, as there is no point in doing this, and :NONAME already does this anyway. > > If your code is good, I can put it in the novice package. I doubt that you'll think it's good enough. I intended it as just proof it could be done and was a package people could load and experiment with. Doing some things in ANS Forth is cumbersome and this code is rather large. [..] -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 11:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a87dfeb-18ef-4a2c-9873-09b40b1629f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30546 |
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:32:01 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > > What I said was true --- ANS-Forth doesn't provide any way for the quotation to access the locals in the creator function --- all that can be done in ANS-Forth is Payson-faked quotations that are just syntactic sugar for :NONAME. > > > I'm guessing that in your code your "local variables" are actually fields in a struct that is on the heap and you pass the pointer to the struct around with the xt of the closure, and also pass it into the closure as a parameter. > > That's more or less correct. It works by scanning the source code twice, > once to identify where enclosed definitions start and end. The second > time jumping around compiling inner definitions first and working outwards. Well, I'm over the flu and delving into your code. This is pretty big and complicated code though, so I'm not going to come to any conclusion this weekend. Also, I have never used SAVE-INPUT and RESTORE-INPUT previously, so I have to learn that. > I never claimed it was pretty or efficient, you said it couldn't be done > at all, the fact it runs Knuth's Man or Boy test proves otherwise. You said in there that you originally did this as pre-processing. That is "cheating" in the sense that the features aren't really in the language itself. There are pre-processors for C that give it a variety of features that aren't really in C --- this is how Objective C originally worked. Pre-processing Forth would be horrible as it would kill the whole interactive development feature. But your version that I'm working with uses SAVE-INPUT and RESTORE-INPUT to effectively pre-process the Forth code from Forth --- so this is not cheating, and it is actually ANS-Forth code --- so I was wrong and you were right, in that it can be done in ANS-Forth. > > If your code is good, I can put it in the novice package. > > I doubt that you'll think it's good enough. I intended it as just proof > it could be done and was a package people could load and experiment > with. Doing some things in ANS Forth is cumbersome and this code is > rather large. Oh, it is good enough for the novice package --- my standards aren't high --- I have useless code in there already. If I can include coroutines, then you can include your :LAM stuff. There is actually similarity here. The reason why coroutines weren't practical was that they had to communicate on the stack --- I wonder if they could be made to communicate with local variables too? Can you elaborate on: good enough for what? You wrote this as a proof that it could be done. Who were you communicating with? Me? Pelc? The gremlin outside of your window? Doing multiple passes in Forth, when Forth is really a single-pass compiler, is somewhat like torturing a prisoner until he gives a false confession. You have tortured ANS-Forth until it passed Knuth's Man-Or-Boy test. What is the point of this??? Why don't you write a Forth compiler that is not ANS-Forth and that has lambda functions built in at the language design level? That is what I'm doing. My code, written in assembly-language, is an order of magnitude less complicated than your code (my compiler is single-pass), and an order of magnitude more efficient. Why don't you do the same? Why are you opposed to a Lambda Forth standard that competes with ANS-Forth? You are doing quite a lot for ANS-Forth, but what is ANS-Forth doing for you? All that you have accomplished by sticking with ANS-Forth is to have Stephen Pelc say that you are being "clever and obscure" and that your code is "kewl" --- as if you were a bright 14-year-old who won the blue ribbon at the junior-high-school science-fair --- and Pelc will use your code forever as an example of how lambda functions are possible in ANS-Forth, and this will be his standard excuse for not having lambda functions in Forth-200x. The end result will be that Forth-200x will not have lambda functions at any practical level, but thanks to you they will get to claim to have lambda functions --- somewhat like claiming to be the Marine Corp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-27 19:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lm2maj$qvl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30763 |
On 26/05/2014 19:15, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:32:01 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: [...] >> I never claimed it was pretty or efficient, you said it couldn't be done >> at all, the fact it runs Knuth's Man or Boy test proves otherwise. > > You said in there that you originally did this as pre-processing. That > is "cheating" in the sense that the features aren't really in the language > itself. There are pre-processors for C that give it a variety of features > that aren't really in C --- this is how Objective C originally worked. > Pre-processing Forth would be horrible as it would kill the whole > interactive development feature. But your version that I'm working with > uses SAVE-INPUT and RESTORE-INPUT to effectively pre-process the Forth > code from Forth --- so this is not cheating, and it is actually ANS-Forth > code --- so I was wrong and you were right, in that it can be done in ANS-Forth. Thank you. > >>> If your code is good, I can put it in the novice package. >> >> I doubt that you'll think it's good enough. I intended it as just proof >> it could be done and was a package people could load and experiment >> with. Doing some things in ANS Forth is cumbersome and this code is >> rather large. > > Oh, it is good enough for the novice package --- my standards aren't high --- You surprise me. I think I said anyone can do whatever they want with my code, so whether you include it or not is your decision. > I have useless code in there already. If I can include coroutines, then you > can include your :LAM stuff. There is actually similarity here. The reason > why coroutines weren't practical was that they had to communicate on the stack > --- I wonder if they could be made to communicate with local variables too? > > Can you elaborate on: good enough for what? You wrote this as a proof that > it could be done. Who were you communicating with? Me? Pelc? The gremlin > outside of your window? Someone, IIRC Andrew Haley, like you posted a message saying it couldn't be done. It seemed an interesting thing to attempt so I did. As for good enough - the code it compiles is inefficent e.g. it has to allocate space for a structure containing an xt and copy local variables into it, to execute the quotation/closure it has an indirect exec function that reads the xt and executes it. Also it doesn't do garbage collection, the programmer has to do it. There are also a few restrictions. All in all it seems best to regard it as providing a system for experimentation and familiarisation with the concepts. > > Doing multiple passes in Forth, when Forth is really a single-pass compiler, > is somewhat like torturing a prisoner until he gives a false confession. > You have tortured ANS-Forthuntil it passed Knuth's Man-Or-Boy test. > What is the point of this??? Fun I suppose, to prove it could be done, a challenge. > > Why don't you write a Forth compiler that is not ANS-Forth and that has > lambda functions built in at the language design level? That is what I'm > doing.. My code, written in assembly-language, is an order of magnitude > less complicated than your code (my compiler is single-pass), and an order > of magnitude more efficient. See, I said you wouldn't like it. I will be incorporating something like it in my Forth system in due course but with a better syntax. > Why don't you do the same? Why are you opposed to a Lambda Forth standard > that competes with ANS-Forth? Where did I say I was opposed to it? I don't see why something similar can't be incorporated into an ANS Forth system as a language extension. > You are doing quite a lot for ANS-Forth, but what is ANS-Forth doing for you? What any software standard does, if systems and software conform to it, you have portable programs. I can use code written by others and vice versa. > > All that you have accomplished by sticking with ANS-Forth is to have > Stephen Pelc say that you are being "clever and obscure" and that your > code is "kewl" --- as if you were a bright 14-year-old who won the blue > ribbon at the junior-high-school science-fair --- and Pelc will use your > code forever as an example of how lambda functions are possible in > ANS-Forth, and this will be his standard excuse for not having lambda > functions in Forth-200x. The end result will be that Forth-200x will > not have lambda functions at any practical level, but thanks to you > they will get to claim to have lambda functions --- somewhat like claiming > to be the Marine Corp. > I don't think they would do that. Reasons for non-inclusion would be one or more of not cost effective, technical disagreement about the spec, not needed as can be done in other ways, nobody would use it. Up to now people consistently forget that my package exists as there's little or no interest. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-27 20:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8af0822-7e55-451e-9a8e-946e2d42a997@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30848 |
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:42:28 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > > Why don't you write a Forth compiler that is not ANS-Forth and that has > > lambda functions built in at the language design level? That is what I'm > > doing.. My code, written in assembly-language, is an order of magnitude > > less complicated than your code (my compiler is single-pass), and an order > > of magnitude more efficient. > > See, I said you wouldn't like it. I will be incorporating something like > it in my Forth system in due course but with a better syntax. I do like it! All of the code in my novice package is ANS-Forth compatible. It is not easy to get code to work in this strait-jacket! My novice package is full of work-arounds for the myriad problems with ANS-Forth and/or bugs in ANS-Forth systems. But your code works within this extremely restrictive system. It is plenty good for the novice package. Just because it is an order of magnitude too slow doesn't bother me. It is like a bear riding a bicycle --- it is amazing that the bear can do this at all --- nobody worries about how slowly it travels, and how impractical this is as a means of transportation. > > Why don't you do the same? Why are you opposed to a Lambda Forth standard > > that competes with ANS-Forth? > > Where did I say I was opposed to it? I don't see why something similar > can't be incorporated into an ANS Forth system as a language extension. If it is is incorporated into ANS-Forth as a language extension, it will be an order of magnitude more complicated than necessary, and an order of magnitude too inefficient. You are totally not understanding how simple and efficient this stuff is when it is done at the language-design level. When you say that this could be incorporated into ANS-Forth as a language extension, you are saying that you are opposed to a Lambda Forth standard that incorporates lambda functions at the language design level. You are just trying to win the "science-fair" --- you have zero concern for practicality. On a positive note, Pelc did say that your code is "kewl" --- nobody has ever said anything positive about my novice package, not even in a sarcastic way, as Pelc did with his "kewl" for you --- my novice package is routinely denounced as "crap." So, is it better to be "kewl" or to be "crap"? These seem to be the only options that Pelc offers. > > All that you have accomplished by sticking with ANS-Forth is to have > > Stephen Pelc say that you are being "clever and obscure" and that your > > code is "kewl" --- as if you were a bright 14-year-old who won the blue > > ribbon at the junior-high-school science-fair --- and Pelc will use your > > code forever as an example of how lambda functions are possible in > > ANS-Forth, and this will be his standard excuse for not having lambda > > functions in Forth-200x. The end result will be that Forth-200x will > > not have lambda functions at any practical level, but thanks to you > > they will get to claim to have lambda functions --- somewhat like claiming > > to be the Marine Corp. > I don't think they would do that. Reasons for non-inclusion would be one > or more of not cost effective, technical disagreement about the spec, > not needed as can be done in other ways, nobody would use it. Up to now > people consistently forget that my package exists as there's little or > no interest. There is little or no interest in an ANS-Forth language extension because it is an order of magnitude more complicated than necessary, and an order of magnitude too inefficient. Pelc uses this lack of interest as an excuse to not put lambda functions in Forth-200x at the language design level (which would allow them to be useful). Elizabeth Rather doesn't know what lambda functions are, so that settles that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 09:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lm45sc$8te$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30862 |
On 28/05/2014 04:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > I do like it! All of the code in my novice package is ANS-Forth compatible. > It is not easy to get code to work in this strait-jacket! My novice package > is full of work-arounds for the myriad problems with ANS-Forth and/or bugs > in ANS-Forth systems. But your code works within this extremely > restrictive system. It is plenty good for the novice package. OK, you are free to incorporate it. >>> Why don't you do the same? Why are you opposed to a Lambda Forth standard >>> that competes with ANS-Forth? >> >> Where did I say I was opposed to it? I don't see why something similar >> can't be incorporated into an ANS Forth system as a language extension. > > If it is is incorporated into ANS-Forth as a language extension, it will be > an order of magnitude more complicated than necessary, and an order of > magnitude too inefficient. > > You are totally not understanding how simple and efficient this stuff is > when it is done at the language-design level. As I haven't thought about that you're almost certainly right. Can you give an example to illustrate your point? > > When you say that this could be incorporated into ANS-Forth as a language > extension, you are saying that you are opposed to a Lambda Forth standard > that incorporates lambda functions at the language design level. Not at all, just because something can be done doesn't mean that I am opposed to a better solution such as you suggest. In fact I wish you well in developing your new standard and look forward to seeing it. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f85021df-2e41-4667-9299-fe04fe0361ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30871 |
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:14:08 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 28/05/2014 04:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > I do like it! All of the code in my novice package is ANS-Forth compatible. > > It is not easy to get code to work in this strait-jacket! My novice package > > is full of work-arounds for the myriad problems with ANS-Forth and/or bugs > > in ANS-Forth systems. But your code works within this extremely > > restrictive system. It is plenty good for the novice package. > > OK, you are free to incorporate it. Thanks! A lot of my own code in the novice package is an order of magnitude more complicated than necessary and an order of magnitude too inefficient. My ALLOCATE FREE RESIZE etc. are an obvious example. If that was written in assembly-language it would be 10 times faster executing than what I have written in high-level Forth, and it wouldn't require an extra cell in every allocated block. Memory waste like this tends to cause data-cache thrashing, that can degrade the speed. Also, making the allocated blocks larger than necessary tends to cause heap fragmentation, so the user could conceivably run out of memory with a really big data-structure. My code here is an example of me being the bear riding the bicycle --- I got it to work, but at a beastly cost. I'll include your lambda.zip file in the novice package. I will also include a commentary text file of my own, but I will show it to you before I release the novice package upgrade so you can verify that I'm not making any untrue statements. I am still figuring out all of this code, especially SAVE-INPUT and RESTORE-INPUT that I'm not familiar with --- so I'm not ready to make any commentary at this time. > > You are totally not understanding how simple and efficient this stuff is > > when it is done at the language-design level. > > As I haven't thought about that you're almost certainly right. Can you > give an example to illustrate your point? Do you know 64-bit x86 assembly-language? FASM? > > When you say that this could be incorporated into ANS-Forth as a language > > extension, you are saying that you are opposed to a Lambda Forth standard > > that incorporates lambda functions at the language design level. > > Not at all, just because something can be done doesn't mean that I am > opposed to a better solution such as you suggest. In fact I wish you > well in developing your new standard and look forward to seeing it. Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 20:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lm82s6$8no$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30929 |
On 29/05/2014 00:25, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >>> You are totally not understanding how simple and efficient this stuff is >>> when it is done at the language-design level. >> >> As I haven't thought about that you're almost certainly right. Can you >> give an example to illustrate your point? > > Do you know 64-bit x86 assembly-language? FASM? > I can get by with it but it's probably not necessary for you to post any assembler code. I think we can take it as read that if you write an assembler version of some Forth code it will be much faster, possibly your 10 times. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here. I'll try to explain what I mean. Say you incorporate closures and quotations in your hostForth, at the language design level you have to specify some syntax and semantics to enable them to be implemented and used. The infrastructure of your system will have been designed to handle closures and implementation will probably involve writing a few new primitives in assembler and some Forth word definitions. If I want to add it as a language extension to my own Forth system I should be able to use the same syntax and semantics. The infrastructure will not have been designed to incorporate closures. I have a choice of either doing almost the same (new primitives + Forth definitions + extra work modifying the infrastructure to suit) or to implement it purely in Forth as an add-on, probably not ANS Forth but my own dialect so it won't be portable. If I choose the former, assuming the infrastructure can be modified and the basic design is as efficient, it should be approximately as efficient as yours. If the latter then it will be a lot slower. When I said add it as a language extension to my system I meant that I would do the first alternative, I think you may have assumed I meant the second. If not what am I missing? -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a2388ef-854a-46da-809b-376703f7d463@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30957 |
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:47:26 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 29/05/2014 00:25, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> You are totally not understanding how simple and efficient this stuff is > >>> when it is done at the language-design level. > > >> As I haven't thought about that you're almost certainly right. Can you > >> give an example to illustrate your point? > > > Do you know 64-bit x86 assembly-language? FASM? > > I can get by with it but it's probably not necessary for you to post any > assembler code. I think we can take it as read that if you write an > assembler version of some Forth code it will be much faster, possibly > your 10 times. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here. I'll try to > explain what I mean. > > Say you incorporate closures and quotations in your hostForth, at the > language design level you have to specify some syntax and semantics to > enable them to be implemented and used. The infrastructure of your > system will have been designed to handle closures and implementation > will probably involve writing a few new primitives in assembler and some > Forth word definitions. Nope! Still totally not getting it... I said "language design" --- not "writing a few new primitives in assembler." I'm not actually going to post any assembler code, or Forth code, or any other kind of code --- that is like standing on the train tracks with a sack over my head, as the C.L.F. clown army will predictably just say that it "sucks" and is "crap" --- I think they have lost the right to look at my code a long time ago (any meaningful code anyway --- I may still publicly release minor upgrades to the novice package, such as one including your code and a few trivial enhancements such as >255-char string support). This is Elizabeth Rather's greatest achievement --- to squelch any creative work in Forth, and limit everybody to focusing their creativity on the problem of working around the gross design-flaws of ANS-Forth --- essentially, to hold everybody at Forth Inc.'s level of incompetence. The result is that, in 2014, we are still making dinky little advances such as supporting >255-char strings, but totally avoiding major issues such as lambda functions that would allow Forth to support general-purpose data-structures. If you give me your word that you will keep it to yourself, I will tell you in private correspondence how lambda functions can be implemented efficiently. I have already seen code of mine, and my invented algorithm, posted on C.L.F. with my name removed from the copyright notice: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/LC53%7Csort:relevance/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-30 22:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lmast4$vsi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30989 |
On 30/05/2014 04:28, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:47:26 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >> On 29/05/2014 00:25, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> You are totally not understanding how simple and efficient this stuff is >>>>> when it is done at the language-design level. >> >>>> As I haven't thought about that you're almost certainly right. Can you >>>> give an example to illustrate your point? >> >>> Do you know 64-bit x86 assembly-language? FASM? >> >> I can get by with it but it's probably not necessary for you to post any >> assembler code. I think we can take it as read that if you write an >> assembler version of some Forth code it will be much faster, possibly >> your 10 times. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here. I'll try to >> explain what I mean. >> >> Say you incorporate closures and quotations in your hostForth, at the >> language design level you have to specify some syntax and semantics to >> enable them to be implemented and used. The infrastructure of your >> system will have been designed to handle closures and implementation >> will probably involve writing a few new primitives in assembler and some >> Forth word definitions. > > Nope! Still totally not getting it... > > I said "language design" --- not "writing a few new primitives in assembler.." OK > > If you give me your word that you will keep it to yourself, I will tell you > in private correspondence how lambda functions can be implemented efficiently. > Thanks for the offer but I don't think I'll accept it, I wouldn't like to inadvertently give your ideas away. I prefer to work and communicate in an open way without having to worry about what I can and can't say. Anyway I'm not planning to implement closures in the immediate future - plenty of other things to do. Presumably you received the sequence diagram I emailed. > I have already seen code of mine, and my invented algorithm, posted on C.L.F. > with my name removed from the copyright notice: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/LC53%7Csort:relevance/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ > I would be annoyed too. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-30 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b4b7d5d-bb94-416b-956b-4cd4d0134b74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31051 |
On Friday, May 30, 2014 2:24:01 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 30/05/2014 04:28, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > If you give me your word that you will keep it to yourself, I will tell you > > in private correspondence how lambda functions can be implemented efficiently. > > Thanks for the offer but I don't think I'll accept it, I wouldn't like > to inadvertently give your ideas away. I prefer to work and communicate > in an open way without having to worry about what I can and can't say. That is understandable. Forth-200x committee members, including Pelc, consider you to be a Forth programmer --- so you can write Forth code and be considered to be the Forth programmer who wrote the Forth code. All of them have said that I am not a Forth programmer and never will be a Forth programmer --- so I can't really publicize Forth code because they would steal it and say that they are the first Forth programmers to have written the code. > Anyway I'm not planning to implement closures in the immediate future - > plenty of other things to do. You would only be interested in what I'm doing if you were going to get involved. What I'm doing can't be pasted on top of ANS-Forth as a library extension due to problems with the ANS-Forth design. > Presumably you received the sequence diagram I emailed. I got it --- thanks. I will delve into your code again this weekend --- I don't really have much time during the week due to my job. > > I have already seen code of mine, and my invented algorithm, posted on C.L.F. > > with my name removed from the copyright notice: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/LC53%7Csort:relevance/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ > > I would be annoyed too. You are the first person to have ever said anything supportive of my position on the LC53 issue. My position being that I invented it and wrote it. Nobody else credits me with having written any of that code, on the basis that I'm not a Forth programmer, which would make it impossible for me to have written Forth code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lm8kgg$pth$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30318 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Indeed, that was the case. All technical decisions were made by a > Technical Subcommittee or TSC (which included all TC members plus > visitors and operated much less formally). It was chaired by Greg Bailey > who, for those who don't know him, is no tool of anybody. All proposals > passed by the TSC had to be formally ratified by the membership of the > TC itself, and ANSI rules required "consensus" (which we interpreted to > be a 75% majority). There were typically 16-18 voting members at a > meeting, including vendors (FORTH, Inc., Creative Solutions, MPE later > on, several others), users (companies ranging fron Ford Motor Co., > Western Union, NASA, and others to many small businesses), and > organizations (FIG, several FIG subgroups). FORTH, Inc. had one vote. > > When we started publishing drafts for public review, all public comments > and our responses were reviewed by ANSI. The Standard became final only > when there were no more technical changes as a result of a last 4-mo. > public review. The Forth200x follows loosely the ANSI rules. We don't have a separation between TC and TSC. Anton Ertl is the chair, Peter Knaggs the editor. All members are individuals, i.e. one man, one vote. There's one man from Forth Inc, and one from MPE. The Gforth team has three votes (Anton, Gerald and me), and the German Forth Gesellschaft two (Ullrich and me, but then, I have only one vote in total). We follow a rough consensus principle, as well, but it is somewhat different. Usually, we discuss until we reach a good consensus. If you look at the minutes, you see that there is rarely (if ever) more than one abstain or dissenting vote; most of the votes are 100% consensus. The idea here is that standard codifies common practice, so when people couldn't agree on something, it is not standard. So there is noone who has a veto right, but the Gforth team and the Forth Gesellschaft by those implicit rules could veto as group. But so would any other informal group, like the Windows/commercial software group against the Linux/free software group (we had such a division in Exeter, where for some reason all the free software guys were on one side of the table, and the commercial software guys were all on the other side of the table - this made several discussions harder than necessary ;-). BTW: There's a mistake in the list of meeting places on www.forth200x.org: The two meetings in Haus Rissen, Hamburg, are announced to habe been in "Essen". That needs to be fixed. The actual meeting notes correctly identify the location as "Hamburg". -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15efdbe2-370d-4d8c-b5dd-8dc8548e167a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30974 |
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:40:38 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: >If you look at the minutes, you see that there is rarely (if > ever) more than one abstain or dissenting vote; most of the votes are 100% > consensus. Sheep!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 14:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bt1fjoF1858U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #30167 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:29:19 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: >> >> A language is interesting if it changes the way you think about >> programming. By that standard, Forth is definitely interesting. > > That's totally true! Forth changed not only my thinking about programming, > but my programming habits, too. It's a great feature of Forth that, once a > word is properly defined and tested, it can be trusted always. It always > will work. Don't forget the proviso's to that statement Dirk. This assumes that the words on which you have built your new word do not change intrinsic behaviour underneath the word you so defined and tested. There may be a problem relying on this facet if you have DEFERed words in the mix that can have behaviour changes during operation. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web