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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #33326 > unrolled thread

Old Forth implementations

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

Contents

  Old Forth implementations Just Ian <superian@gmail.com> - 2014-09-09 05:16 -0700
    Re: Old Forth implementations Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-09-09 17:01 +0100
      Re: Old Forth implementations Just Ian <superian@gmail.com> - 2014-09-09 12:28 -0700
        Re: Old Forth implementations Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-09-09 20:51 +0100
    Re: Old Forth implementations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-09-09 07:50 -1000
      Re: Old Forth implementations albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-09-10 09:01 +0000
      Re: Old Forth implementations Just Ian <superian@gmail.com> - 2014-09-10 02:29 -0700
        Re: Old Forth implementations hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-09-10 18:46 -0700
          Re: Old Forth implementations Just Ian <superian@gmail.com> - 2014-09-11 05:45 -0700
          Re: Old Forth implementations Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-09-11 12:41 -0400
            Re: Old Forth implementations hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-09-11 20:41 -0700
              Re: Old Forth implementations albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-09-12 10:46 +0000
            Re: Old Forth implementations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-12 00:28 -0400
              Re: Old Forth implementations Just Ian <superian@gmail.com> - 2014-09-12 02:36 -0700
                Re: Old Forth implementations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-12 10:47 -0400
                  Re: Old Forth implementations "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-09-12 16:22 +0100
              Re: Old Forth implementations Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-09-12 13:54 -0400
    Re: Old Forth implementations francois.ganza@wanadoo.fr - 2014-09-12 00:15 -0700
      Re: Old Forth implementations hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-09-12 20:15 -0700
        Re: Old Forth implementations Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-13 11:06 -0700
          Re: Old Forth implementations hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-09-14 19:06 -0700
            Re: Old Forth implementations francois.ganza@wanadoo.fr - 2014-09-15 22:55 -0700
              Re: Old Forth implementations Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2014-09-16 03:26 -0700
            Re: Old Forth implementations "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-09-16 16:24 +0100
              Re: Old Forth implementations mhx@iae.nl - 2014-09-19 12:37 -0700
              Re: Old Forth implementations hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-09-19 17:18 -0700
                Re: Old Forth implementations Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-09-20 02:21 -0500
              Re: Old Forth implementations Just Ian <superian@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 11:05 -0700
                Re: Old Forth implementations "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-09-23 08:18 -1000
        Re: Old Forth implementations francois.ganza@wanadoo.fr - 2014-09-13 15:00 -0700
    Re: Old Forth implementations stephen@mpeforth.com - 2014-09-17 14:32 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#33376

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 11:06:19 AM UTC-7, Steve Graham wrote:
> hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> > She has never written a program in her life.
> 
> What is your proof that Elizabeth has never written a program in her life?

It is not possible to prove a negative. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

If you can show any example of code that she wrote however, that would be proof that I am wrong. I've never seen anything on comp.lang.forth from her except code snippets that were copied directly out of "Starting Forth."

Here is a typical example:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/elizabeth$20stars%7Csort:date/comp.lang.forth/tIcxMWtjxkY/Ufyw-QgK8MwJ

On Friday, September 20, 2013 8:52:47 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> For learners, stack comments are especially helpful, since by having to 
> state them at the beginning of the definition they're led to focus on 
> the stack going in and coming out, and the comment is there to remind 
> them. One of the early simple exercises in Forth Application Techniques 
> involves printing out [n] stars, which many define as:
> 
> : STARS ( n -- )   0 DO ." * " LOOP  DROP ;
> 
> The ones who include the stack comment are far less likely to just type 
> STARS without an argument or forget the DROP at the end. But the 
> consequences of forgetting the number are also a good teaching moment. ;-)

She says this code was copied out of the "Forth Applications Techniques" book, but I remember the same example with the row of asterisks in "Starting Forth" --- it is possible that "Forth Applications Techniques" was mostly just a rehash of "Starting Forth."

I don't think Elizabeth Rather ever tests her code (the DROP is not necessary here). My own experience with programming is that code always has to be tested for bugs, even it is simple and you "know" that it will work. The advantage of Forth over C is that it is easy to test colon words on the REPL, even on a micro-controller --- that is a big part of why people program in Forth rather than C --- not that E.R. would know, as she has never written a program in her life in any language.

A lot of people love to talk about programming. They can debate all day as to whether functional programming is better than procedural, or whether dynamic-OOP is better than static-OOP, etc.. Well, I have sobering news for these windbags --- none of this stuff matters if your code doesn't work --- and the only way to ensure that your code works is by testing it.

The internet is full of people who claim to be leading experts on various subjects. You can find gun enthusiasts who debate endlessly about which is the best caliber (9mm, .45ACP, etc., etc.). And you can find programming enthusiasts who debate endlessly about which is the best language. And car enthusiasts, etc.. Who the hell cares? It used to be said that a million monkeys banging on keyboards randomly would eventually produce something of value --- now, thanks to the internet, we know from experience that this is not true.

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

#33377

> : STARS ( n -- )   0 DO ." * " LOOP  DROP ;

This is another problem of Forth, all words exemples are 40 years old...

When i start to learn Forth ( 1983 i was 8 years old) 
It was Forth Pampuk on HECTOR HRX.

This Forth had graphics fonctions. (especially sprite !!! )

I think Forth need a new standard with moder features

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

#33378

> 
> 
> 
> This Forth had graphics fonctions. (especially sprite !!! )
> 
> 

I implemented vector sprites and bitmap sprites in colorforth dialect

https://code.google.com/p/reda4/

all is open source, you can see the code

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

#33380

on 15/09/2014 03:06:20,  wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 13, 2014 11:06:19 AM UTC-7, Steve Graham wrote:
>> hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:

>> > She has never written a program in her life.

> > On Saturday, September 13, 2014 11:06:19 AM UTC-7, Steve Graham wrote:

>> What is your proof that Elizabeth has never written a program in her life
> ?
> 
> It is not possible to prove a negative. "Absence of evidence is not
> evidenc e of absence."
> 
> If you can show any example of code that she wrote however, that would
> be proof that I am wrong. 

[snipped the usual dipstick logic, since we've all read his insane crap
before]

I like clf. I like most of the people that post here (in the sense of
liking what they post, that is). But then there's Hugh. What a rancid and
poisonous old tosser this man is.

Look at the topic here; Old Forth implementations. Now look at Hugh's
posts on this most innocuous of threads. Shit, every one of them. Until
Hugh loses his internet access, has an irreversible brain fart, or get
shot by someone as unhinged as he is, there will be no discssions about
Forth on clf. Just the sound of Hugh, vomiting and shitting over
everyone's posts.

I'm out of here.

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

#33445

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:24:50 PM UTC+2, Alex McDonald wrote:
> on 15/09/2014 03:06:20,  wrote:
> 
[..]
> [snipped the usual dipstick logic, since we've all read his insane crap
> before]
[..]
> I'm out of here.

Please don't.

-marcel

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

#33450

On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:24:50 AM UTC-7, Alex McDonald wrote:
> on 15/09/2014 03:06:20,  wrote:
> I like clf. I like most of the people that post here (in the sense of
> liking what they post, that is). But then there's Hugh. What a rancid and
> poisonous old tosser this man is.
> 
> Look at the topic here; Old Forth implementations. Now look at Hugh's
> posts on this most innocuous of threads. Shit, every one of them. Until
> Hugh loses his internet access, has an irreversible brain fart, or get
> shot by someone as unhinged as he is, there will be no discssions about
> Forth on clf. Just the sound of Hugh, vomiting and shitting over
> everyone's posts.
> 
> I'm out of here.

Alex McDonald's idea of "discussions about Forth on C.L.F." involve this kind of troll-attack:
"You and I have had a long discussion about the poor quality of the 
implementation of popular sorts you wrote in your novice package, where 
you have serious misunderstandings of how pointers work."

Alex is just a troll --- he hangs out on C.L.F. because he thinks that insulting people makes him a big expert, and so long as he brown-noses Elizabeth Rather he has a home here and will be welcomed by the other brown-nosers (such as Marcel Hendrix, Rickman, etc..).

Here is an example of Marcel Hendrix posting my code 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

If you read further in the thread, you will eventually find Marcel saying this:
"I don't know what [your algorithm] is designed to do"

I really consider ANS-Forth to be a cult. Elizabeth Rather has surrounded herself with fiercely loyal followers who attack non-members by lying about them. Their lies aren't believed by anybody except fellow cult-members however. Who is realistically going to believe that I don't understand how pointers work? The cult members become frustrated because the outside world is not taking them seriously, and so they begin making death threats against non-members:
"Until Hugh get shot by someone as unhinged as he is, there will be no discssions about Forth on clf."

This is why everybody in the real world avoids ANS-Forth --- because ANS-Forth is a cult --- but what is sad about this, is that the Forth language also gets discounted, as most people outside of the Forth community assume that ANS-Forth is Forth. In truth, ANS-Forth is just SwiftForth with the pretension of being the standard for the entire Forth community. I didn't use ANS-Forth when I wrote MFX however --- I used UR/Forth --- I didn't even consider ANS-Forth/SwiftForth, and neither did my employer. I'm not really aware of anybody in the real-world who does take ANS-Forth seriously --- ANS-Forth is entirely tied to Forth Inc., and Forth Inc. has a reputation for scamming its customers out of money and failing to deliver working software.

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

#33451

hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> Alex McDonald's idea of "discussions about Forth on C.L.F." involve this kind of troll-attack:
> "You and I have had a long discussion about the poor quality of the
> implementation of popular sorts you wrote in your novice package,
> where you have serious misunderstandings of how pointers work."

That's not a troll attack at all.  It's a perefectly reasonable
opinion, expressed far more politely than you generally manage to do.

Andrew.

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

#33532

Alex McDonald said:

> I'm out of here.

Kill files. Every decent news reader has them because they've been necessary for decades.

  Ian

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

#33534

On 9/23/14 8:05 AM, Just Ian wrote:
> Alex McDonald said:
>
>> I'm out of here.
>
> Kill files. Every decent news reader has them because they've been necessary for decades.

Yes, that's the answer. Hugh has been in mine for years, as has gavino. 
There's really no point in reading their stuff.

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]

#33373

Le samedi 13 septembre 2014 05:15:14 UTC+2, hughag...@yahoo.com a écrit : 
> I used UR/Forth. It had the machine-code for the primitives in one segment (CS), the Forth code and data in another segment (DS), and the dictionary in a third segment (accessed by ES, although ES could also be used by the programmer for other things).

192Kb aviable ? Amazing :+p

>Also, according to my benchmarks, UR/Forth was equal to Turbo C's Small code in regard to speed.

without mastering,speed is nothing

The first quality of Forth is : flexibility

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

#33408

On Tuesday, 9 September 2014 13:16:32 UTC+1, Just Ian  wrote:
> Going through the old stuff has reminded me that MPE used to sell a CD with its old PowerForth, 
> Modular Forth and - after I bought mine - one for Windows. It cost about £20 / $30 and you got zero 
> support, just the files the original purchasers got plus the manuals as PDF files.
> 
> Sadly, it stopped doing this some years ago. Did people expect support, despite the clear statement
> that there isn't any, or did the stock of CDs run out?

It became obvious that people were expecting support and using the low price to get a
supported product, however obsolete. Consequently we upped the price and added
privileges so that the obsolete product became more expensive than the current
product. The problem went away.

Similarly with our Lite cross compilers. The target code is not directly compatible with that
of the purchased products - the Lite compilers are for students and hobbyists.

The reality is that you/people/one has to pay for development in one way or another. The
jobs we do now, whether hosted or embedded, are vey much bigger than those of 20 years
ago. Hence, promoting 20 year old obsolete Forths is now of no real value except to
industrial archaeologists.

Stephen

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web