Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31786 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 116 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 13:19 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:29 -1000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-24 13:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-06-24 22:47 +0200
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 15:02 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 12:50 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 05:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 13:39 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 17:04 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 14:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 15:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-26 11:47 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 13:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 18:47 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:21 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 04:53 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:56 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:14 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:20 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:43 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 14:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:24 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 17:45 -1000
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 15:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 05:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-26 09:29 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:10 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:15 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:29 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:28 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 10:30 -0500
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 12:32 -0700
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-27 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 15:32 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 13:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 16:14 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 02:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-28 12:22 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 07:34 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 10:26 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 07:18 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 12:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 11:31 -1000
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 03:20 +0300
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:11 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:16 +0000
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 11:00 +0000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-29 05:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 15:46 +0300
Re: There is no standard stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-06-29 14:48 +0000
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 18:43 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 05:58 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-29 06:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 11:03 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-28 12:13 -0500
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:25 -0500
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-29 15:01 +0200
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-29 14:35 -0500
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-30 03:20 +0200
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:27 +0000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:18 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-25 07:47 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 14:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 16:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 03:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 08:06 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:55 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-27 00:00 -0400
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-30 06:38 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 12:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:18 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:23 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 16:01 -0400
Re: There is no standard Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-06-25 05:04 -0500
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:44 -0400
Re: There is no standard googlegroups@mailfilter.33mail.com - 2014-06-25 13:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard barrym95838@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard m II <C@in.the.hat> - 2014-06-26 19:37 -0600
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:35 -0400
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-25 09:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 10:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:16 -0400
Re: There is no standard BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700 |
| Subject | There is no standard |
| Message-ID | <e1fbd115-5b9a-406a-97ee-deac681c1838@googlegroups.com> |
which cannot be interpreted in a number of ways. Jason
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe2d5cfa-ca54-4664-9d35-878a0cdadb3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31786 |
Did you fart?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83dfbd03-6cb8-4b17-9348-ccb009f1896b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31786 |
Simple - 'There is no standard'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 10:05 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <54-dnWLLhpdgRDTOnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31788 |
On 6/24/14 9:48 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > Simple - 'There is no standard'. > That is not actually true. The statement with Jason's qualification is true, though not particularly interesting or helpful. Cheers, Elizabetg -- ================================================== 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 | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7080b2a-115b-4d5c-a030-985a5c259926@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31791 |
I just realized that a number of things can be interpreted in a number of ways too. Actually I think it's all of the things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 10:29 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <VbudnWHJPYo4QjTOnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31793 |
On 6/24/14 10:19 AM, Roger Levy wrote: > I just realized that a number of things can be interpreted in a number of ways too. Actually I think it's all of the things. > Yes. Which is why Jason's observation isn't interesting or helpful. 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 | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80c41d2e-17a8-4b2e-8c7f-c8b7128eea1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31793 |
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:19:28 PM UTC+2, Roger Levy wrote: > I just realized that a number of things can be interpreted > in a number of ways too. Actually I think it's all of the things. It certainly doesn't work that way with mathematics. However, at some point (when it starts to become interesting) Mr. Goedel spoils the broth. -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AKK <akk@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 22:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <53a9e3f9$0$6702$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #31795 |
Am 24.06.2014 22:33, schrieb mhx@iae.nl: > On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:19:28 PM UTC+2, Roger Levy wrote: >> I just realized that a number of things can be interpreted >> in a number of ways too. Actually I think it's all of the things. > > It certainly doesn't work that way with mathematics. > However, at some point (when it starts to become interesting) > Mr. Goedel spoils the broth. > > -marcel > One sore tooth can comprise the one and only relevant singularity, including Goedel. ;-) Exactly then, there is no Standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4100f47-f17b-4194-8153-8ea447211bd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31791 |
среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 0:05:17 UTC+4 пользователь Elizabeth D. Rather написал: > On 6/24/14 9:48 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > Simple - 'There is no standard'. > > > > > > > That is not actually true. The statement with Jason's qualification is > > true, though not particularly interesting or helpful. > There are a critical differencies between filling the forms and creating an actual standard. How many peoples can say: 'Yes, we should better to stop our own attempts and use this clear, actual and well-described document'? And how many prefer to alter current ANS? Bad things are subjects to be changed, not a sacral items to defend from all 'heretics'. However, with no real understanding of Forth practical usage no reasons to change anything can appear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-24 12:50 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <0IGdnayTRv8tnTfOnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31797 |
On 6/24/14 12:02 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 0:05:17 UTC+4 пользователь Elizabeth D. Rather написал: >> On 6/24/14 9:48 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> >>> Simple - 'There is no standard'. >> >>> >> >> >> >> That is not actually true. The statement with Jason's qualification is >> >> true, though not particularly interesting or helpful. >> > > There are a critical differencies between filling the forms and creating an actual standard. How many peoples can say: 'Yes, we should better to stop our own attempts and use this clear, actual and well-described document'? And how many prefer to alter current ANS? Bad things are subjects to be changed, not a sacral items to defend from all 'heretics'. However, with no real understanding of Forth practical usage no reasons to change anything can appear. > Forth94 (ANS/ISO Forth) was created by a committee of vendors, users, and supporters who met 4x/year for 6 years. Their draft was subject to several public reviews, and all review comments responded to. So it was hardly a matter of "filling the forms." The current (200x) effort has fewer physical meetings but equally diverse membership and responsiveness. Most people who are maintaining publicly available systems (both commercial and free) are supporting the standard (even as many of them work towards the next one), because they recognize that standards are important to ensure both portable code and (even more important) portable programmers (who can easily use systems from multiple sources). People who are writing their own Forth for their personal intellectual satisfaction have different needs, and often explore non-standard approaches for a variety of reasons. None of this has anything to do with "sacral items" and "heretics" as far as I can tell. 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 | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95881202-0f17-4100-b859-0d652fe96006@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31798 |
среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 1:50:23 UTC+3 пользователь Elizabeth D. Rather написал: > On 6/24/14 12:02 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 0:05:17 UTC+4 пользователь Elizabeth D. Rather написал: > > >> On 6/24/14 9:48 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > >> > > >>> Simple - 'There is no standard'. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> That is not actually true. The statement with Jason's qualification is > > >> > > >> true, though not particularly interesting or helpful. > > >> > > > > > > There are a critical differencies between filling the forms and creating an actual standard. How many peoples can say: 'Yes, we should better to stop our own attempts and use this clear, actual and well-described document'? And how many prefer to alter current ANS? Bad things are subjects to be changed, not a sacral items to defend from all 'heretics'. However, with no real understanding of Forth practical usage no reasons to change anything can appear. > > > > > > > Forth94 (ANS/ISO Forth) was created by a committee of vendors, users, > > and supporters who met 4x/year for 6 years. Their draft was subject to > > several public reviews, and all review comments responded to. So it was > > hardly a matter of "filling the forms." The current (200x) effort has > > fewer physical meetings but equally diverse membership and responsiveness. > > > > Most people who are maintaining publicly available systems (both > > commercial and free) are supporting the standard (even as many of them > > work towards the next one), because they recognize that standards are > > important to ensure both portable code and (even more important) > > portable programmers (who can easily use systems from multiple sources). > > People who are writing their own Forth for their personal intellectual > > satisfaction have different needs, and often explore non-standard > > approaches for a variety of reasons. None of this has anything to do > > with "sacral items" and "heretics" as far as I can tell. > > > > Cheers, > > Elizabeth > committee of vendors, users, and supporters who met 4x/year for 6 years Do you want to repeat all of these are not 'sacral items'? :) Do you want to claim 24 meetings is enough to prepare an irrevocably perfect standard? Anyway, there are many changes in IT area since 1994, that simply cannot be predicted by any committee. The PC world going to 32-bit OSes in the middle of 90s and going to 64 bit now. The personal computers itself are splitted to smartphones, pads and notebooks/desktops in the terms of performance, functions, size and power. How can you ever claim that 20-years old document is good enough to be actual today? Simplest case - 1.23 is recognizes by most of programmers as a floating-point number. Not double-size integer number. So you must be very convincing to force them to use 1.23E0 everywhere. I dont want to focus at particular cases, but pay attention to reaction of almost all of committee-related peoples. 'Use ANS, it's perfect. Otherwise you are not a real forther'. I think, such position can attract only a weak-character hobbysts instead of professional programmers, which can provide a good-quality feedback from a real world applications. At least, take a look on any PL ratings - Forth is falling down continuously. This cannot be repaired by any standard. This does not mean Forth is bad or every people from committee is bad. Just focus to right things, not to a new iteration of 'personal administrative satisfaction' ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jun25.153947@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #31813 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes:
>Simplest case - 1.23 is recognizes by most of programmers as a floating-poi=
>nt number. Not double-size integer number. So you must be very convincing t=
>o force them to use 1.23E0 everywhere.
Apparently the Forth-94 committee was more accomodating of this view
than (most? all?) Forth system implementors are even to this day.
1.23 is not specified in Forth-94, so the Forth system is free to
interpret it as a floating-point number (or in any other way, e.g.,
also in the traditional way as a double integer). However, trying a
few Forth systems (iForth-2.1, SwiftForth, VFX, Gforth), they all
interpret it as double integer.
BTW, it suffices to write 1.23e to get a floating-point number (if the
system supports it; of the four systems mentioned above, SwiftForth
and VFX do not support floating-point by default).
- 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 | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 08:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7927641-c9f6-4d71-b199-e48f9d001a15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31815 |
среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 16:39:47 UTC+3 пользователь Anton Ertl написал: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes: > > >Simplest case - 1.23 is recognizes by most of programmers as a floating-poi= > > >nt number. Not double-size integer number. So you must be very convincing t= > > >o force them to use 1.23E0 everywhere. > > > > Apparently the Forth-94 committee was more accomodating of this view > > than (most? all?) Forth system implementors are even to this day. > > 1.23 is not specified in Forth-94, so the Forth system is free to > > interpret it as a floating-point number (or in any other way, e.g., > > also in the traditional way as a double integer). However, trying a > > few Forth systems (iForth-2.1, SwiftForth, VFX, Gforth), they all > > interpret it as double integer. > > BTW, it suffices to write 1.23e to get a floating-point number (if the > > system supports it; of the four systems mentioned above, SwiftForth > > and VFX do not support floating-point by default). > In general, it does not help so much, because I must jump between forth systems trying to find the best one. In addition, potential Forth users generally does not want to obey any strange rules. If you want to force others to use 1.23e, you probably get answer like 'I use other PLs and can write 1.23, without 'e', so please fix it in your Forth, if you can'. Ask that users for another features, and you will get a number of 'use-cases'. Tell them 'you MUST' and your probably get 'no, we dont MUST, because we have many other programming languages'. So you can choose between waiting the pack of followers (how many professionals can be found in hordes of fans?) and acting with real users. What should you choose in the case of PL, shares 51-100 ranks in TIOBE rating? I think, it is a question of existence, not just showing respect to 20 yesrs old committee papers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jun25.190415@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #31818 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes:
>In general, it does not help so much, because I must jump between forth sys=
>tems trying to find the best one.
Well, 1.23 does the same on all standard Forth systems.
>In addition, potential Forth users genera=
>lly does not want to obey any strange rules. If you want to force others to=
> use 1.23e, you probably get answer like 'I use other PLs and can write 1.2=
>3, without 'e', so please fix it in your Forth, if you can'.
As you point out, I cannot force them. I provide a system, and it
behaves that way. While complaints about 1.23 not being an FP number
are posted here now and then, they hardly ever come in email or bug
reports.
>Ask that users=
> for another features, and you will get a number of 'use-cases'. Tell them =
>'you MUST' and your probably get 'no, we dont MUST, because we have many ot=
>her programming languages'. So you can choose between waiting the pack of f=
>ollowers (how many professionals can be found in hordes of fans?) and actin=
>g with real users.
The real users are those who program in Forth, and they may have code
where 1.23 occurs, and if so, of course it is intended as a double
number. And none of us wants to break their code.
>What should you choose in the case of PL, shares 51-100 =
>ranks in TIOBE rating? I think, it is a question of existence, not just sho=
>wing respect to 20 yesrs old committee papers.
We show respect to existing code; as mentioned, the Forth-94 committee
does not specify the meaning of 1.23 (and neither does the Forth-200x
committee).
- 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 | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a88ae68-1b29-4cbc-9ebc-f569d416755e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31827 |
среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 21:04:15 UTC+4 пользователь Anton Ertl написал: > Well, 1.23 does the same on all standard Forth systems. And this is a problem, because new users does not want to have this kind of result. > As you point out, I cannot force them. I provide a system, and it > behaves that way. While complaints about 1.23 not being an FP number > are posted here now and then, they hardly ever come in email or bug > reports. Ask non-forthers. Ask embedded electronic engineers, mathemathics, etc. > The real users are those who program in Forth, and they may have code > where 1.23 occurs, and if so, of course it is intended as a double > number. And none of us wants to break their code. This is closer to the question I want to focus to. You are talking about Forth programmers. Of course, they are dont want to break their code... at least because they have it! Look at programmers, who have no Forth code yet. The have a number of things to learn, including stack operations, postfix nonations and basic code templates. If you try to make they life harder, you can force them to teach the rules to represent floating point numbers, strings (c-addr u instead of more common and friendly to OS API ASCIIZ) and so on. In result, you probably lost any new user by the cost of keeping your old code untouched. Note some IT literature evaluate the coding expenses as 6% of total software project expenses. Situation is changed, but what about your reflection? > We show respect to existing code; as mentioned, the Forth-94 committee > does not specify the meaning of 1.23 (and neither does the Forth-200x > committee). I can suggest to found a Forth code museum in the order to showing respect to old code :) I can remember several examples of similar reaction: 'this is non-standard word'. 0 VALUE X 1 +TO X - I think this is clear enough to understand. " Message" PRINT - also clear enough. Floating point itself is not an issue, the main problem is attempts to freeze current Forth state and force it to distribution between programmers... by magic, it seems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <929e0567-335e-4825-8bd5-c7df5a8516b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31841 |
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:45:47 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 21:04:15 UTC+4 пользователь Anton Ertl написал: > > We show respect to existing code... > > I can suggest to found a Forth code museum in the order to showing respect to old code :) LOL --- Good suggestion! We could have a display case showing PAD, and all of the visitors could gawk at it in the same way that they might gawk at a wagon from the 19th century --- they would exclaim: "How primitive!" In my experience, the people primarily focused on supporting legacy code are non-programmer "MBA-diots." They invested money in that old code, and they want their investment to last as long as possible or forever --- the code is like a truck or some such thing that they bought, and they don't want to throw it out and buy another one --- they don't realize that the next program is much less expensive because the programmers now have all of the knowledge that they acquired when writing the first program, so rewriting it is not like buying a new truck that is as expensive or more expensive than the first truck. Also, they want to fire all of the skilled (expensive) programmers who wrote the program, for the purpose of saving money, and then hire new programmers (entry-level semi-skilled programmers who work for cheap) to do maintenance work on the old program --- so they want the standard to be in stasis for decades or forever. Programmers are much less concerned about supporting legacy code --- they feel confident in their ability to port an old-standard program over to a new-standard, or to just rewrite the program from scratch. It is the non-programmers who believe that a computer program can't be rewritten, because they have never written a program in their lives, and they imagine that writing a program must be terribly difficult. > ...the main problem is attempts to freeze current Forth state and force it to distribution between programmers... by magic, it seems. Yes, that's it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 11:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53ac0855$0$15826$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #31841 |
In article <4a88ae68-1b29-4cbc-9ebc-f569d416755e@googlegroups.com>, Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: >среда, 25 июня 2014 г., 21:04:15 UTC+4 >пользователь Anton Ertl написал: > >> Well, 1.23 does the same on all standard Forth systems. > >And this is a problem, because new users does not want to have this kind >of result. Okay, so your not happy with Forth. Go ahead and write your own standard. You will find it surprising difficult to make it consistent, and even more difficult to make something you can write actual programs in it, and yet more difficult to make something that others can write actual programs in, and yet even more difficult to accomplish that they do want to do that. Then you will discover that those pointy haired bosses are blocking them from using your language. Groetjes Albert -- 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]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c83207d4-bb30-4b6e-95a3-fc7978c96b64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31871 |
> Okay, so your not happy with Forth. Go ahead and write your own standard. > You will find it surprising difficult to make it consistent, and > even more difficult to make something you can write actual programs in > it, and yet more difficult to make something that others can write actual > programs in, and yet even more difficult to accomplish that they do want to > do that. Oh, why I'm unhappy? I'm very happy with Forth, but slightly unhappy with those, who ask me, when my Forth products will be compatible with standard. Usually they cannot explain, what exactly will be better and why. > Then you will discover that those pointy haired bosses are blocking them > from using your language. This is because you want to start with changing one standard to another :) Start with application and align your Forth to this requirements. Repeat it several times with success, and nobody ask what language did you use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2452a4d1-7def-46ed-b44e-a57dc435e62d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31883 |
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:22:14 PM UTC-4, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > Oh, why I'm unhappy? I'm very happy with Forth, but slightly unhappy with those, who ask me, when my Forth products will be compatible with standard. Usually they cannot explain, what exactly will be better and why. Why not make them compatible with the standard? All you have to do is to refrain from using the same name for something that works differently to the Forth94 specification, and document all the non-standardized words you use as "implementation dependencies" and, voila, standard Forth program. If its a system, and the underlying implementation is compatible with the Forth94 presumptions, a file with source for the Forth94 CORE and instructions somewhere how to load it, and its a Forth94 compliant system. If its a system with a compatible underlying implementation but smaller buffer sizes (eg, 64 byte input buffer, a file with source for the Forth94 CORE and instruction how to load it with warning about tighter resource constraints than Forth94 allows, and its a "Forth 94 aligned" system. If its a system with an incompatible underlying implementation, a file with source for the Forth94 CORE and a Forth94 compatible outer interpreter and instructions how to load it and that's a Forth94 compliant system too. Pointy haired bosses would like to imagine a world where programmers, and any other creative profession, are interchangeable commodities, and "Standard Program" and "Standard System" panders to that fantasy. Not having the standard wouldn't mean those pointy haired bosses suddenly drop their preference to checking off a "standard compliant" checkbox, it just means that its not possible for those who'd are willing to pander to that fantasy to give an answer that allows that checkbox on the checklist to be satisfied. > This is because you want to start with changing one standard to another :) Start with application and align your Forth to this requirements. Repeat it several times with success, and nobody ask what language did you use. The first seems to be imputing goals to people. The balance seems to be like what drives the Forth200x/2010x process, which seems to mostly be people aligning Forth to their requirements, then proposing that that be accepted as part of the standard. The added complication with Forth200x/201x is other people will have aligned Forth to their requirements in different ways, and they will object to parts of Forth200x/201x proposals that threaten to interfere with the way they do things. That's just the overhead of social programming. The lone wolf programmer is still as free as they ever were to be a lone wolf programmer and implement systems flouting Forth94 reserved names and implement programs assuming that names reserved in Forth94 have different specifications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0c4e92f-8767-441a-9105-e557393ba2fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31885 |
> Why not make them compatible with the standard? All you have to do is to refrain from using the same name for something that works differently to the Forth94 specification, and document all the non-standardized words you use as "implementation dependencies" and, voila, standard Forth program. Why not? Because I have no need to use any code from distant companies or sell my libraries. This is really important for mainstream languages, there are a tons of libraries to share. Forth has no such support, and more important thing in Forth is to find a more effective way to use its features in particular task. > Pointy haired bosses would like to imagine a world where programmers, and any other creative profession, are interchangeable commodities, and "Standard Program" and "Standard System" panders to that fantasy. Standard means nothing in the case of rare language. What happens in the case of some problems with project? Are there any committee experts to provide a professional consultation? Are there any support teams to solve problems with Forth? Are there any ways to provide feedback? Without any serious ecosystem having standard looks like a sort of 'cargo cult'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web