Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #47094 > unrolled thread
| Started by | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-13 20:05 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-17 21:08 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 214 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
C to Forth (was Ting) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-05-13 20:05 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-13 14:06 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-14 00:27 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-13 21:55 -0700
RTX20xx ...Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2016-05-19 08:58 +0100
Re: RTX20xx ...Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-21 04:08 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-21 04:09 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-13 14:33 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-14 00:28 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-13 21:02 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-14 15:15 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-14 17:39 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-14 16:56 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-14 20:25 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:16 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-15 00:19 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 08:58 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-15 08:24 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:18 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-15 18:52 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-16 06:23 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-16 15:12 -0700
Programmable "people" "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-20 23:34 +0000
Re: Programmable "people" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 00:48 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 14:21 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-15 10:42 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-05-17 20:33 +1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-17 08:39 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-17 14:06 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-17 11:40 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 19:20 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 08:32 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-15 12:18 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-05-25 13:41 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:22 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-15 17:24 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-15 19:30 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-16 13:37 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-16 07:25 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-05-16 21:50 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-16 16:06 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 01:04 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 01:43 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-17 10:05 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 11:08 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-18 10:49 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-19 13:27 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 06:01 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-19 10:32 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 10:11 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 16:29 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 14:16 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-19 14:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 14:42 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-20 03:46 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-20 04:53 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-20 22:16 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-20 21:43 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-21 15:56 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-21 02:52 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-20 22:11 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-21 03:13 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-21 15:43 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-22 22:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-05-23 08:30 +0200
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 23:39 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 23:36 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-23 04:24 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 09:14 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-23 10:35 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-23 18:53 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-23 19:43 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 00:28 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-23 21:53 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 01:56 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 09:03 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 22:09 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 22:59 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-24 04:32 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 12:46 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 15:26 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 15:57 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-05-25 07:44 +0200
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-24 23:29 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-24 22:09 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-25 03:57 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-05-24 11:04 +0100
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-24 14:01 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 15:05 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-19 21:25 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-20 03:57 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 06:48 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-20 09:40 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-20 09:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 13:53 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 14:16 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-21 03:01 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-21 10:23 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 13:37 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-23 04:38 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-23 23:11 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-24 13:15 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 13:51 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 19:36 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-20 22:50 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-21 16:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 14:04 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 15:33 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 19:14 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-22 17:11 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 20:58 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:50 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 08:09 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:38 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 07:58 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 18:55 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 16:00 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 06:54 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:04 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 07:19 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:40 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:04 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 03:41 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-24 01:51 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 10:00 +0800
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:08 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-24 04:36 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 02:48 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-23 19:28 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-23 11:46 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 13:30 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-24 13:37 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 14:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-05-26 00:29 +0200
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 23:29 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:06 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-25 19:30 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-25 20:52 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 23:27 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:40 +0300
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-26 10:03 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-27 07:22 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 06:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:00 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 15:51 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-27 16:27 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-27 19:25 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-28 13:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 15:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-28 19:15 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:41 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 14:50 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-29 04:36 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-29 04:34 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-29 12:19 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 15:37 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-30 15:31 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 14:54 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-05-30 14:44 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-30 19:21 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 13:49 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-31 04:01 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 15:02 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-31 17:27 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-06-01 07:22 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 16:09 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-06-01 18:03 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 06:36 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-06-01 02:54 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:50 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-06-01 07:38 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 10:58 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-06-01 11:32 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:10 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:04 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-06-01 17:57 -1000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-06-01 22:54 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-06-02 04:59 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 11:44 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 14:58 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:43 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 15:07 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 22:44 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 07:14 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 10:33 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 10:31 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 16:57 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 23:57 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:01 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:17 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 13:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 14:09 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-01 10:07 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 17:13 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 02:14 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 11:50 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 15:28 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 18:52 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 09:41 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 01:12 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-05-17 04:34 -0500
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-05-17 10:46 -0700
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-18 09:10 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 09:36 -0400
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-16 17:58 +0000
Cross compilers [Was: C to Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-18 04:58 -0500
Re: Cross compilers [Was: C to Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-05-18 11:25 +0000
Re: Cross compilers [Was: C to Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-05-18 10:28 -0500
Recognizers (was: Cross compilers) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-05-18 16:48 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-16 15:11 +0000
Re: C to Forth (was Ting) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-05-17 21:08 +1000
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 20:05 +0000 |
| Subject | C to Forth (was Ting) |
| Message-ID | <5736338d.13710740@news.eternal-september.org> |
On Fri, 6 May 2016 17:36:24 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >We were looking at using forth as an intermediate compiled step as a >possible way to create an easily ported C compiler to a new ISA. Kind of >like the old stage2 approach. >w.. The Europay OTA project used a two-stack virtual machine for which there were both Forth and C compilers. The VM was designed to be kind to C as well as to Forth. Europay became a part of Mastercard and the OTA documents may be hard to find. If you do not already have them and need/want them, send me an email. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87zirt3bxn.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #47094 |
stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: > Europay became a part of Mastercard and the OTA documents may be hard > to find. If you do not already have them and need/want them, send me > an email. I tried to find them a year or two ago (including posting a query here) with no success. If they're available now and don't involve an expensive purchase, that's great. I'll email you. Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160514002756.4c33536f@_> |
| In reply to | #47095 |
On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:06:28 -0700 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: > > Europay became a part of Mastercard and the OTA documents may be > > hard to find. If you do not already have them and need/want them, > > send me an email. > > I tried to find them a year or two ago (including posting a query > here) with no success. If they're available now and don't involve an > expensive purchase, that's great. I'll email you. Thanks! Why is it that no one ever asks me? ... I've found all four files archived at least twice by Wayback Archive. FYI, I'm not sure what is on page 4 of Overview.pdf. Both of the pdf viewers (ePDFviewer and Zathura) that I have for Linux can't seem to handle that page, or they're taking an excessively long time. They will go to the other pages. The first two links have four files. Rod Pemberton Archive of MLG directory (possibly CLF regular M.L. Gassanenko? ...) http://web.archive.org/web/20041021061206/http://www.forth.org.ru/~mlg/std/OTA/ Archived files from "Watson" under section "Open Terminal Architecture" http://web.archive.org/web/20041110203830/http://hedgehogs.softjoys.ru/Watson/resources/ Forth Dimensions, V19N2, pg 7-11 "A Platform-Independent Token System for Payment Terminals" by Peter Johannes, Stephen Pelc, and Elizabeth Rather http://www.forth.org/fd/FD-V19N2.pdf Forth Dimensions, V19N2, pg 11 "Background: Payment Systems in Europe" by P. Johannes, Europay International http://www.forth.org/fd/FD-V19N2.pdf Just a five page reprint of both FD V19N2 articles from www.forth.com http://dl.forth.com/sitedocs/OTA_FD.pdf "Smart Cards and the Open Terminal Architecture" by Edward K. Conklin, Dec 01, 1998, Dr. Dobb's Journal http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/smart-cards-and-the-open-terminal-archit/184410748 Forth Dimensions http://www.forth.org/fd/contents.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 21:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87eg952q7h.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> |
| In reply to | #47106 |
Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> writes: > Archive of MLG directory (possibly CLF regular M.L. Gassanenko? ...) > http://web.archive.org/web/20041021061206/http://www.forth.org.ru/~mlg/std/OTA/ Oh thanks, this looks like what what I wanted. > Forth Dimensions, V19N2, pg 7-11 > "A Platform-Independent Token System for Payment Terminals" by Peter > Johannes, Stephen Pelc, and Elizabeth Rather > http://www.forth.org/fd/FD-V19N2.pdf I do remember seeing this and related articles, but they were missing most of the details.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 08:58 +0100 |
| Subject | RTX20xx ...Re: C to Forth (was Ting) |
| Message-ID | <20160519085835.464fea69@HP-6550b> |
| In reply to | #47106 |
On Sat, 14 May 2016 00:27:56 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > Why is it that no one ever asks me? ... Do you have electronic copy of the Harris/Intersil? RTX20xx Hardware or Programmers' Guides? I'm curious about just how complex this part is, and how it differs from Novix, J1 and similar. Jan Coombs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 04:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: RTX20xx ...Re: C to Forth (was Ting) |
| Message-ID | <20160521040853.7fe3e68e@_> |
| In reply to | #47297 |
On Thu, 19 May 2016 08:58:35 +0100 Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2016 00:27:56 -0400 > Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > > Why is it that no one ever asks me? ... > > Do you have electronic copy of the Harris/Intersil? RTX20xx > Hardware or Programmers' Guides? > > I'm curious about just how complex this part is, and how it > differs from Novix, J1 and similar. These are cited in the bibliographies of various works: "Harris RTX-2000 Programmer's Reference Manual" "The RTX-2000 Hardware Reference Manual" "Implementing a Software UART on the Harris RTX2000" I didn't find them online or indexed in 7 search engines, 5 research archives, WayBack Archive, Google Groups, Google Books, or torrent search engines. I did find the following. HS-RTX2010RH Datasheet http://www.intersil.com/content/dam/Intersil/documents/hs-r/hs-rtx2010rh.pdf MPE RTXcore http://www.mpeforth.com/arena/rtxcore_brief.pdf Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 04:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160521040910.676cd6bb@_> |
| In reply to | #47106 |
On Sat, 14 May 2016 00:27:56 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:06:28 -0700 > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: > > > Europay became a part of Mastercard and the OTA documents may be > > [...] > FYI, I'm not sure what is on page 4 of Overview.pdf. Both of the pdf > viewers (ePDFviewer and Zathura) that I have for Linux can't seem to > handle that page, or they're taking an excessively long time. They > will go to the other pages. I was still having problems viewing page 4 of Overview.pdf. I thought I was going to have to load it up on Windows 10 with Adobe Acrobat Reader, but I managed to fix it on Linux. Using pdfseparate on Linux separated the file into page, but page 4 still wasn't viewable. Executing pdf2ps and viewing with gs the page rendered well. So, the solution for Linux is to execute pdf2ps on Overview.pdf, rm delete Overview.pdf, then execute ps2pdf on Overview.ps. The page appears to be complete, but I don't know if something was edited out or modified. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4762cab7-9c37-4137-9e9b-5a3ead1f8868@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47094 |
On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 1:05:57 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2016 17:36:24 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> > wrote: > > >We were looking at using forth as an intermediate compiled step as a > >possible way to create an easily ported C compiler to a new ISA. Kind of > >like the old stage2 approach. > >w.. > > The Europay OTA project used a two-stack virtual machine for which > there were both Forth and C compilers. The VM was designed to be > kind to C as well as to Forth. Europay became a part of Mastercard > and the OTA documents may be hard to find. If you do not already > have them and need/want them, send me an email. None of this is ANS-Forth! This seems highly hypocritical, that your job as a Forth-200x committee member is to force ANS-Forth down everybody's throat by damning anybody who refuses to brown-nose as being non-standard --- yet your own efforts at making money invariably abandon ANS-Forth on the first day of the project. I get the impression that ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are purposely crippled to prevent anybody from using them in competition with MPE --- the whole idea is that anybody who wants to learn Forth gets stuck in gForth hell, and they can never write any commercial-grade programs --- but if they abandon ANS-Forth (as I did in MFX) then you immediately damn them for being non-standard. ANS-Forth is a cult --- it has no practical value whatsoever --- ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code (due to gForth being useless for writing commercial programs).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 00:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20160514002835.6333f47c@_> |
| In reply to | #47098 |
On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 1:05:57 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > On Fri, 6 May 2016 17:36:24 -0400, Walter Banks > > <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > > >We were looking at using forth as an intermediate compiled step as > > >a possible way to create an easily ported C compiler to a new ISA. > > >Kind of like the old stage2 approach. > > >w.. > > > > The Europay OTA project used a two-stack virtual machine for which > > there were both Forth and C compilers. The VM was designed to be > > kind to C as well as to Forth. Europay became a part of Mastercard > > and the OTA documents may be hard to find. If you do not already > > have them and need/want them, send me an email. > > None of this is ANS-Forth! So? ... The fact that there is a VM design that can support both Forth and C, even if it is limited in certain aspects, is likely valuable to someone. I've provided links in my other post for anyone interested. > This seems highly hypocritical, that your > job as a Forth-200x committee member is to force ANS-Forth down > everybody's throat by damning anybody who refuses to brown-nose as > being non-standard --- yet your own efforts at making money > invariably abandon ANS-Forth on the first day of the project. Hugh, people need money to live, including you. Get over it. Get a job. Stop wasting your time here. It's clear that you're not in need of the help of anyone here. You've got it all figured out, correct or not, and you can already code Forth. Also, they don't seem to be in need your help either. How long has it been since someone asked about your novice package? I think it was, like what, one guy in the past five years. So, why do you keep on ranting about stuff you cannot change? What's the point? ... > I get the impression that ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are purposely > crippled to prevent anybody from using them in competition with MPE Standards are frequently used to protect or enrich incumbents. That doesn't mean that it is the case here though, although it could be. > --- the whole idea is that anybody who wants to learn Forth gets > stuck in gForth hell, and they can never write any commercial-grade > programs --- Hey, you know that I'm "not a Forth guy," but even I don't understand how you can argue that gForth can't be used for commercial-grade programs. If a business wants to use Forth, without initially paying for a commercial version of Forth, that gForth is very likely the program they'll start with. They may decide to modify it over a long time period to fit their needs, or they may decide that upgrading to a commercial program is a better choice. Of course, such a business is likely to be running code on commercial, high-speed, fault-tolerant servers or using cloud servers. So, the fact that gForth may not be as fast as commercial Forth programs is not an issue. > ANS-Forth is a cult --- it has no practical value whatsoever --- As I told you before, most of my Forth was ANS compliant even though it was based on fig-Forth and bits and pieces from Forth-79 and Forth-83 and ANS Forth. That's even with a C backend. So, saying ANS Forth has no practical value whatsoever is like saying the earlier Forths have no value either. > ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big > internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 21:02 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <45KdnYh9FtAEUKvKnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47107 |
On 5/13/16 6:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: ... >> ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big >> internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code > > I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. I can only speak authoritatively for the Forth94 committee, but it included some of the finest and most experienced Forth programmers around at the time. Take a look at the list of contributing members in the free published draft. I don't know all of the members of Forth 20xx, but the ones I do know have outstanding programming backgrounds. 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 | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42875847-66b1-49e6-b1fd-1ffcbe26c930@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47111 |
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 12:02:50 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 5/13/16 6:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) > > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > ... > >> ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big > >> internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code > > > > I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. > > I can only speak authoritatively for the Forth94 committee, but it > included some of the finest and most experienced Forth programmers > around at the time. Take a look at the list of contributing members in > the free published draft. I don't know all of the members of Forth 20xx, > but the ones I do know have outstanding programming backgrounds. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth You list Ray Duncan as a contributing member. In 1993, one year before ANS-Forth came out, he was describing aspects of ANS-Forth as "brain damaged" on c.l.f.. When ANS-Forth came out he gave up on Forth altogether. You also list Charles Moore as a contributing member. He doesn't support you either. In all likelihood, none of the people that you list as supporters actually support you. You just make this stuff up! I wrote MFX in 1994/1995 using UR/Forth (from Ray Duncan's LMI). Realistically, this would not have been possible in ANS-Forth --- ANS-Forth was crippled to make cross-compilation difficult. In UR/Forth I was able to take an xt an determine whether it was immediate or not, and which vocabulary it was defined in --- this was needed for error-checking --- you disallowed this in ANS-Forth. If the ANS-Forth committee included the "finest and most experienced Forth programmers around at the time," then why were they unable to write a compiler for ANS-Forth? You pushed ANS-Forth through ANSI without any compiler having ever been written for it. You were in a hurry to get the ANSI stamp because doing so makes you the "leading expert" on Forth and puts you in a position to denounce everybody else (me, for example) as being non-standard. ANS-Forth was just a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. to make Forth Inc. appear more important than they are. You didn't have a compiler for ANS-Forth --- ANS-Forth became the standard without being tested --- if ANS-Forth had been tested, people would have noticed the myriad bugs and ambiguities. ANS-Forth is a cult --- ANS-Forth has no practical value whatsoever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 17:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nh899b$ngk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47126 |
On 5/14/2016 5:15 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 12:02:50 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 5/13/16 6:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) >>> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> ... >>>> ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big >>>> internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code >>> >>> I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. >> >> I can only speak authoritatively for the Forth94 committee, but it >> included some of the finest and most experienced Forth programmers >> around at the time. Take a look at the list of contributing members in >> the free published draft. I don't know all of the members of Forth 20xx, >> but the ones I do know have outstanding programming backgrounds. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth > > You list Ray Duncan as a contributing member. In 1993, one year before ANS-Forth came out, he was describing aspects of ANS-Forth as "brain damaged" on c.l.f.. When ANS-Forth came out he gave up on Forth altogether. > > You also list Charles Moore as a contributing member. He doesn't support you either. In all likelihood, none of the people that you list as supporters actually support you. You just make this stuff up! > > I wrote MFX in 1994/1995 using UR/Forth (from Ray Duncan's LMI). Realistically, this would not have been possible in ANS-Forth --- ANS-Forth was crippled to make cross-compilation difficult. In UR/Forth I was able to take an xt an determine whether it was immediate or not, and which vocabulary it was defined in --- this was needed for error-checking --- you disallowed this in ANS-Forth. > > If the ANS-Forth committee included the "finest and most experienced Forth programmers around at the time," then why were they unable to write a compiler for ANS-Forth? You pushed ANS-Forth through ANSI without any compiler having ever been written for it. You were in a hurry to get the ANSI stamp because doing so makes you the "leading expert" on Forth and puts you in a position to denounce everybody else (me, for example) as being non-standard. ANS-Forth was just a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. to make Forth Inc. appear more important than they are. You didn't have a compiler for ANS-Forth --- ANS-Forth became the standard without being tested --- if ANS-Forth had been tested, people would have noticed the myriad bugs and ambiguities. > > ANS-Forth is a cult --- ANS-Forth has no practical value whatsoever. > If ANS-Forth is seriously flawed then what existing Forth is not so flawed? I'm curious to see if any current or older Forth version does not share some of the ANS-Forth issues. I'm not personally hung up on Standards but appreciate a Forth that is consistent and logical even if it doesn't meet the Standards. I'm no Forth expert but have always looked at Forth as a programmable tool that one tweaks to accomplish ones goals, so one persons Forth is not necessarily someone else's Forth. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38177b76-0347-4737-8c76-eb4bd860ea19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47128 |
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 3:40:03 PM UTC-7, Cecil - k5nwa wrote: > On 5/14/2016 5:15 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 12:02:50 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 5/13/16 6:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) > >>> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > >> ... > >>>> ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big > >>>> internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code > >>> > >>> I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. > >> > >> I can only speak authoritatively for the Forth94 committee, but it > >> included some of the finest and most experienced Forth programmers > >> around at the time. Take a look at the list of contributing members in > >> the free published draft. I don't know all of the members of Forth 20xx, > >> but the ones I do know have outstanding programming backgrounds. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Elizabeth > > > > You list Ray Duncan as a contributing member. In 1993, one year before ANS-Forth came out, he was describing aspects of ANS-Forth as "brain damaged" on c.l.f.. When ANS-Forth came out he gave up on Forth altogether. > > > > You also list Charles Moore as a contributing member. He doesn't support you either. In all likelihood, none of the people that you list as supporters actually support you. You just make this stuff up! > > > > I wrote MFX in 1994/1995 using UR/Forth (from Ray Duncan's LMI). Realistically, this would not have been possible in ANS-Forth --- ANS-Forth was crippled to make cross-compilation difficult. In UR/Forth I was able to take an xt an determine whether it was immediate or not, and which vocabulary it was defined in --- this was needed for error-checking --- you disallowed this in ANS-Forth. > > > > If the ANS-Forth committee included the "finest and most experienced Forth programmers around at the time," then why were they unable to write a compiler for ANS-Forth? You pushed ANS-Forth through ANSI without any compiler having ever been written for it. You were in a hurry to get the ANSI stamp because doing so makes you the "leading expert" on Forth and puts you in a position to denounce everybody else (me, for example) as being non-standard. ANS-Forth was just a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. to make Forth Inc. appear more important than they are. You didn't have a compiler for ANS-Forth --- ANS-Forth became the standard without being tested --- if ANS-Forth had been tested, people would have noticed the myriad bugs and ambiguities. > > > > ANS-Forth is a cult --- ANS-Forth has no practical value whatsoever. > > > If ANS-Forth is seriously flawed then what existing Forth is not so > flawed? I'm curious to see if any current or older Forth version does > not share some of the ANS-Forth issues. > > I'm not personally hung up on Standards but appreciate a Forth that is > consistent and logical even if it doesn't meet the Standards. I'm no > Forth expert but have always looked at Forth as a programmable tool that > one tweaks to accomplish ones goals, so one persons Forth is not > necessarily someone else's Forth. > > -- > Cecil - k5nwa Prior to ANS-Forth, Forth was pretty consistent and logical. For example, we always knew which words were immediate or non-immediate. With ANS-Forth we can have systems such as VFX in which words like IF are non-immediate but get special-cased by COMPILE, so they actually execute at compile-time like immediate words. That is just bizarre! We also have systems such as gForth in which FIND returns different xt values depending upon what STATE is at the time that FIND is executed. That is beyond bizarre! My disambiguifiers fix these bizarre differences between ANS-Forth systems, but Pelc refuses to put the disambiguifiers in VFX --- apparently he only does what Leon Wagner tells him to do, and Leon Wagner likes ambiguity (presumably because having a broken FIND makes writing a cross-compiler difficult, and both Forth Inc. and MPE make their money selling cross-compilers so they are trying to prevent competition). Forth-83 had some problems, but the problems were minor and easily solved. 1.) Forth-83 specified a cell size of 2 bytes. This was trivial to solve. I defined the constant W to be the cell size and used it throughout the programs. I could port programs between 16-bit and 32-bit and all I had to do was change the value in W between 2 and 4. 2.) Forth-83 specified ITC. This was trivial to solve. Lots of Forth systems used DTC or STC, and programs could be ported between them without difficulty. The only programs that couldn't be ported were those that accessed the ITC threaded code, but that is a very bad idea that was rarely done, so this never became an issue in my experience (none of my programs did this). 3.) Forth-83 lacked some features needed for cross-compilation. Before I could begin MFX, I had to write all of these myself in assembly-language for UR/Forth relying on carnal knowledge of UR/Forth. I put all of this code in a single file so that, if MFX ever got ported to another Forth-83 system, only that file would have to be rewritten for the new system. It was a pretty short file --- there were only a handful of needed words. You said: "I'm curious to see if any current or older Forth version does not share some of the ANS-Forth issues." I'm not aware of any of the older Forth systems prior to ANS-Forth that shared any of the ANS-Forth issues. All of the problems in ANS-Forth were introduced by ANS-Forth. Forth was logical and consistent prior to ANS-Forth. Elizabeth Rather introduced all of this ambiguity in ANS-Forth because she is just not a programmer and knows nothing about Forth --- there was never any call for ambiguity! Forth is an inherently simple language. This is actually why a lot of people, including myself, got interested in Forth originally. ANS-Forth was just full of ambiguity and gratuitous complication, and Forth-200x is worse. It just blows my mind that something consistent and logical could be turned into such a mess --- this is the work of idiots who don't know what they are doing! --- it should be an easy job to write a standard that is consistent and logical, and which supports cross-compilation (cross-compilation is the primary use of a desktop-computer Forth system).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 20:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nh8iva$i3v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47129 |
On 5/14/2016 6:56 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > Prior to ANS-Forth, Forth was pretty consistent and logical. For example, we always knew which words were immediate or non-immediate. With ANS-Forth we can have systems such as VFX in which words like IF are non-immediate but get special-cased by COMPILE, so they actually execute at compile-time like immediate words. That is just bizarre! We also have systems such as gForth in which FIND returns different xt values depending upon what STATE is at the time that FIND is executed. That is beyond bizarre! My disambiguifiers fix these bizarre differences between ANS-Forth systems, but Pelc refuses to put the disambiguifiers in VFX --- apparently he only does what Leon Wagner tells him to do, and Leon Wagner likes ambiguity (presumably because having a broken FIND makes writing a cross-compiler difficult, and both Forth Inc. and MPE make their money selling cross-compilers so they are trying to prevent competition). > > Forth-83 had some problems, but the problems were minor and easily solved. > > You said: "I'm curious to see if any current or older Forth version does not share some of the ANS-Forth issues." > I'm not aware of any of the older Forth systems prior to ANS-Forth that shared any of the ANS-Forth issues. All of the problems in ANS-Forth were introduced by ANS-Forth. Forth was logical and consistent prior to ANS-Forth. Elizabeth Rather introduced all of this ambiguity in ANS-Forth because she is just not a programmer and knows nothing about Forth --- there was never any call for ambiguity! > > Forth is an inherently simple language. This is actually why a lot of people, including myself, got interested in Forth originally. ANS-Forth was just full of ambiguity and gratuitous complication, and Forth-200x is worse. It just blows my mind that something consistent and logical could be turned into such a mess --- this is the work of idiots who don't know what they are doing! --- it should be an easy job to write a standard that is consistent and logical, and which supports cross-compilation (cross-compilation is the primary use of a desktop-computer Forth system). > Indeed that is one of the best things about Forth, it being simple yet expandable to the point that you can make it anything you want. One of the older versions I like was Pygmy Forth which did not follow the F83 standards but was it' own thing, unfortunately it was made for DOS which is no longer compatible with Windows 10, my current OS. I looked at many of those versions of Forth such as eForth, Fig Forth and its variants but they also suffer from being DOS compatible and not Windows 10 compatible. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 00:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nh8svn$83l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47128 |
On 5/14/2016 6:39 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote: > On 5/14/2016 5:15 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 12:02:50 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather >> wrote: >>> On 5/13/16 6:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) >>>> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> ... >>>>> ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big >>>>> internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code >>>> >>>> I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. >>> >>> I can only speak authoritatively for the Forth94 committee, but it >>> included some of the finest and most experienced Forth programmers >>> around at the time. Take a look at the list of contributing members in >>> the free published draft. I don't know all of the members of Forth 20xx, >>> but the ones I do know have outstanding programming backgrounds. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Elizabeth >> >> You list Ray Duncan as a contributing member. In 1993, one year before >> ANS-Forth came out, he was describing aspects of ANS-Forth as "brain >> damaged" on c.l.f.. When ANS-Forth came out he gave up on Forth >> altogether. >> >> You also list Charles Moore as a contributing member. He doesn't >> support you either. In all likelihood, none of the people that you >> list as supporters actually support you. You just make this stuff up! >> >> I wrote MFX in 1994/1995 using UR/Forth (from Ray Duncan's LMI). >> Realistically, this would not have been possible in ANS-Forth --- >> ANS-Forth was crippled to make cross-compilation difficult. In >> UR/Forth I was able to take an xt an determine whether it was >> immediate or not, and which vocabulary it was defined in --- this was >> needed for error-checking --- you disallowed this in ANS-Forth. >> >> If the ANS-Forth committee included the "finest and most experienced >> Forth programmers around at the time," then why were they unable to >> write a compiler for ANS-Forth? You pushed ANS-Forth through ANSI >> without any compiler having ever been written for it. You were in a >> hurry to get the ANSI stamp because doing so makes you the "leading >> expert" on Forth and puts you in a position to denounce everybody else >> (me, for example) as being non-standard. ANS-Forth was just a >> marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. to make Forth Inc. appear more >> important than they are. You didn't have a compiler for ANS-Forth --- >> ANS-Forth became the standard without being tested --- if ANS-Forth >> had been tested, people would have noticed the myriad bugs and >> ambiguities. >> >> ANS-Forth is a cult --- ANS-Forth has no practical value whatsoever. >> > If ANS-Forth is seriously flawed then what existing Forth is not so > flawed? I'm curious to see if any current or older Forth version does > not share some of the ANS-Forth issues. > > I'm not personally hung up on Standards but appreciate a Forth that is > consistent and logical even if it doesn't meet the Standards. I'm no > Forth expert but have always looked at Forth as a programmable tool that > one tweaks to accomplish ones goals, so one persons Forth is not > necessarily someone else's Forth. Nearly all of the issues Hugh complains about only exist in Hugh's head. His idea of a truly worthy Forth is only the one that he writes. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 00:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9be73bfc-d5ce-4058-bb34-867fe1d5dbde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #47134 |
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 9:16:14 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 5/14/2016 6:39 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote: > > On 5/14/2016 5:15 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 12:02:50 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather > >> wrote: > >>> On 5/13/16 6:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) > >>>> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > >>> ... > >>>>> ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big > >>>>> internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code > >>>> > >>>> I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. > >>> > >>> I can only speak authoritatively for the Forth94 committee, but it > >>> included some of the finest and most experienced Forth programmers > >>> around at the time. Take a look at the list of contributing members in > >>> the free published draft. I don't know all of the members of Forth 20xx, > >>> but the ones I do know have outstanding programming backgrounds. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Elizabeth > >> > >> You list Ray Duncan as a contributing member. In 1993, one year before > >> ANS-Forth came out, he was describing aspects of ANS-Forth as "brain > >> damaged" on c.l.f.. When ANS-Forth came out he gave up on Forth > >> altogether. > >> > >> You also list Charles Moore as a contributing member. He doesn't > >> support you either. In all likelihood, none of the people that you > >> list as supporters actually support you. You just make this stuff up! > >> > >> I wrote MFX in 1994/1995 using UR/Forth (from Ray Duncan's LMI). > >> Realistically, this would not have been possible in ANS-Forth --- > >> ANS-Forth was crippled to make cross-compilation difficult. In > >> UR/Forth I was able to take an xt an determine whether it was > >> immediate or not, and which vocabulary it was defined in --- this was > >> needed for error-checking --- you disallowed this in ANS-Forth. > >> > >> If the ANS-Forth committee included the "finest and most experienced > >> Forth programmers around at the time," then why were they unable to > >> write a compiler for ANS-Forth? You pushed ANS-Forth through ANSI > >> without any compiler having ever been written for it. You were in a > >> hurry to get the ANSI stamp because doing so makes you the "leading > >> expert" on Forth and puts you in a position to denounce everybody else > >> (me, for example) as being non-standard. ANS-Forth was just a > >> marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. to make Forth Inc. appear more > >> important than they are. You didn't have a compiler for ANS-Forth --- > >> ANS-Forth became the standard without being tested --- if ANS-Forth > >> had been tested, people would have noticed the myriad bugs and > >> ambiguities. > >> > >> ANS-Forth is a cult --- ANS-Forth has no practical value whatsoever. > >> > > If ANS-Forth is seriously flawed then what existing Forth is not so > > flawed? I'm curious to see if any current or older Forth version does > > not share some of the ANS-Forth issues. > > > > I'm not personally hung up on Standards but appreciate a Forth that is > > consistent and logical even if it doesn't meet the Standards. I'm no > > Forth expert but have always looked at Forth as a programmable tool that > > one tweaks to accomplish ones goals, so one persons Forth is not > > necessarily someone else's Forth. > > Nearly all of the issues Hugh complains about only exist in Hugh's head. > His idea of a truly worthy Forth is only the one that he writes. Rickman is a sycophant of Elizabeth Rather. He continuously defends her like this. First we had John Passaniti, then Alex McDonald, and now Rickman --- a parade of disgusting little sycophants! Anyway, here is an example of ANS-Forth. We have section 4.1.2 with the ominous heading: "Ambiguous Conditions." One of the ambiguous conditions is: "attempting to obtain the execution token, (e.g., with 6.1.0070 ', 6.1.1550 FIND, etc.) of a definition with undefined interpretation semantics;" There are 50 some words in the standard that have "undefined interpretation semantics." These include everything that was traditionally immediate, such as IF etc.. So, we can't tick or FIND most of the words in the standard! Also, these words may or may not be immediate (if they are non-immediate, this means that COMPILE, special-cases them, as done in VFX). There is no way to determine if they are immediate or non-immediate however, because FIND doesn't work anymore. For a good laugh, read section 3.4.4.: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- When an ambiguous condition exists, a system may take one or more of the following actions: – ignore and continue; – display a message; – execute a particular word; – set interpretation state and begin text interpretation; – take other implementation-defined actions; – take implementation-dependent actions. The response to a particular ambiguous condition need not be the same under all circumstances. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, pretty much anything can happen, including reformatting your hard-disk. I have actually fixed this problem though. My disambiguifiers make all of these "undefined interpretation semantics" words immediate so they work the way they traditionally worked in Forth --- tick and FIND will work on them correctly. Here is one of my disambiguifiers: : if state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: IF ***" postpone if ; immediate There are 50 some of these disambiguifiers. This fixes the problem! Nobody on the Forth-200x committee, including Stephen Pelc, will accept the disambiguifiers however --- they want to have ambiguity! There is more weirdness. See section 6.1.1550 (this describes FIND): "For a given string, the values returned by FIND while compiling may differ from those returned while not compiling." This is Anton Ertl's justification in gForth for making FIND return different xt values depending upon what STATE is at the time that FIND is executed. He gets to claim that gForth is ANS-Forth standard, despite the fact that no other ANS-Forth system does this, and it is utter nonsense. Most likely what happened here is that the ANS-Forth committee were aware that FIND in cmForth returned different values inside of a colon word compared to outside of a colon word. What they didn't understand is that this was due to there being a different vocabulary in CONTEXT inside of colon words as compared to outside of colon words. Nobody on the ANS-Forth committee knew how a cross-compiler worked, so they didn't understand that CONTEXT is changed by colon and then changed back again by semi-colon. They didn't understand how vocabularies work, so they believed that FIND was STATE-smart and returned different values depending upon what STATE is, but that isn't true. The ANS-Forth committee really seemed to lack an understanding of how Forth works --- they didn't know how CONTEXT and CURRENT work --- Anton Ertl apparently doesn't understand how vocabularies work either, which is why he made FIND in gForth return different values depending upon STATE despite the fact that the vocabulary search order has not been changed. WTF??? Now we have little Rickman the sycophant who says that the issues of ANS-Forth are in my head --- no they're not --- they are in the ANS-Forth document sections that I listed above. I can list many other ANS-Forth document sections that are equal idiocy to these --- it is almost impossible to find any section in the ANS-Forth document that isn't rife with idiocy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 08:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nh9rj3$3o6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47137 |
On 5/15/2016 3:19 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 9:16:14 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 5/14/2016 6:39 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote: >>> On 5/14/2016 5:15 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 12:02:50 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/16 6:28 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 13 May 2016 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) >>>>>> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>>> ANS-Forth is just a collection of brown-nosers who want to be big >>>>>>> internet experts on Forth without ever writing any Forth code >>>>>> >>>>>> I won't argue with you on that one. That might true, in general. >>>>> >>>>> I can only speak authoritatively for the Forth94 committee, but it >>>>> included some of the finest and most experienced Forth programmers >>>>> around at the time. Take a look at the list of contributing members in >>>>> the free published draft. I don't know all of the members of Forth 20xx, >>>>> but the ones I do know have outstanding programming backgrounds. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Elizabeth >>>> >>>> You list Ray Duncan as a contributing member. In 1993, one year before >>>> ANS-Forth came out, he was describing aspects of ANS-Forth as "brain >>>> damaged" on c.l.f.. When ANS-Forth came out he gave up on Forth >>>> altogether. >>>> >>>> You also list Charles Moore as a contributing member. He doesn't >>>> support you either. In all likelihood, none of the people that you >>>> list as supporters actually support you. You just make this stuff up! >>>> >>>> I wrote MFX in 1994/1995 using UR/Forth (from Ray Duncan's LMI). >>>> Realistically, this would not have been possible in ANS-Forth --- >>>> ANS-Forth was crippled to make cross-compilation difficult. In >>>> UR/Forth I was able to take an xt an determine whether it was >>>> immediate or not, and which vocabulary it was defined in --- this was >>>> needed for error-checking --- you disallowed this in ANS-Forth. >>>> >>>> If the ANS-Forth committee included the "finest and most experienced >>>> Forth programmers around at the time," then why were they unable to >>>> write a compiler for ANS-Forth? You pushed ANS-Forth through ANSI >>>> without any compiler having ever been written for it. You were in a >>>> hurry to get the ANSI stamp because doing so makes you the "leading >>>> expert" on Forth and puts you in a position to denounce everybody else >>>> (me, for example) as being non-standard. ANS-Forth was just a >>>> marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. to make Forth Inc. appear more >>>> important than they are. You didn't have a compiler for ANS-Forth --- >>>> ANS-Forth became the standard without being tested --- if ANS-Forth >>>> had been tested, people would have noticed the myriad bugs and >>>> ambiguities. >>>> >>>> ANS-Forth is a cult --- ANS-Forth has no practical value whatsoever. >>>> >>> If ANS-Forth is seriously flawed then what existing Forth is not so >>> flawed? I'm curious to see if any current or older Forth version does >>> not share some of the ANS-Forth issues. >>> >>> I'm not personally hung up on Standards but appreciate a Forth that is >>> consistent and logical even if it doesn't meet the Standards. I'm no >>> Forth expert but have always looked at Forth as a programmable tool that >>> one tweaks to accomplish ones goals, so one persons Forth is not >>> necessarily someone else's Forth. >> >> Nearly all of the issues Hugh complains about only exist in Hugh's head. >> His idea of a truly worthy Forth is only the one that he writes. > > Rickman is a sycophant of Elizabeth Rather. He continuously defends her like this. First we had John Passaniti, then Alex McDonald, and now Rickman --- a parade of disgusting little sycophants! > > Anyway, here is an example of ANS-Forth. We have section 4.1.2 with the ominous heading: "Ambiguous Conditions." One of the ambiguous conditions is: > "attempting to obtain the execution token, (e.g., with 6.1.0070 ', 6.1.1550 FIND, etc.) of a definition with undefined interpretation semantics;" > > There are 50 some words in the standard that have "undefined interpretation semantics." These include everything that was traditionally immediate, such as IF etc.. So, we can't tick or FIND most of the words in the standard! Also, these words may or may not be immediate (if they are non-immediate, this means that COMPILE, special-cases them, as done in VFX). There is no way to determine if they are immediate or non-immediate however, because FIND doesn't work anymore. > > For a good laugh, read section 3.4.4.: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > When an ambiguous condition exists, a system may take one or more of the following actions: > – ignore and continue; > – display a message; > – execute a particular word; > – set interpretation state and begin text interpretation; > – take other implementation-defined actions; > – take implementation-dependent actions. > The response to a particular ambiguous condition need not be the same under all circumstances. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > So, pretty much anything can happen, including reformatting your hard-disk. > > I have actually fixed this problem though. My disambiguifiers make all of these "undefined interpretation semantics" words immediate so they work the way they traditionally worked in Forth --- tick and FIND will work on them correctly. > > Here is one of my disambiguifiers: > > : if state @ 0= abort" *** no interpretation semantics for: IF ***" postpone if ; immediate > > There are 50 some of these disambiguifiers. This fixes the problem! Nobody on the Forth-200x committee, including Stephen Pelc, will accept the disambiguifiers however --- they want to have ambiguity! > > There is more weirdness. See section 6.1.1550 (this describes FIND): > "For a given string, the values returned by FIND while compiling may differ from those returned while not compiling." > > This is Anton Ertl's justification in gForth for making FIND return different xt values depending upon what STATE is at the time that FIND is executed.. He gets to claim that gForth is ANS-Forth standard, despite the fact that no other ANS-Forth system does this, and it is utter nonsense. > > Most likely what happened here is that the ANS-Forth committee were aware that FIND in cmForth returned different values inside of a colon word compared to outside of a colon word. What they didn't understand is that this was due to there being a different vocabulary in CONTEXT inside of colon words as compared to outside of colon words. Nobody on the ANS-Forth committee knew how a cross-compiler worked, so they didn't understand that CONTEXT is changed by colon and then changed back again by semi-colon. They didn't understand how vocabularies work, so they believed that FIND was STATE-smart and returned different values depending upon what STATE is, but that isn't true. The ANS-Forth committee really seemed to lack an understanding of how Forth works --- they didn't know how CONTEXT and CURRENT work --- Anton Ertl apparently doesn't understand how vocabularies work either, which is why he made FIND in gForth return different values depending upon STATE despite the fact that the v ocabulary search order has not been changed. WTF??? > > Now we have little Rickman the sycophant who says that the issues of ANS-Forth are in my head --- no they're not --- they are in the ANS-Forth document sections that I listed above. > > I can list many other ANS-Forth document sections that are equal idiocy to these --- it is almost impossible to find any section in the ANS-Forth document that isn't rife with idiocy. As anyone can see, Hugh is not a well balanced person. He may have some useful things to say about Forth, but the question is whether it is worth reading through all his paranoid rantings to find them. Personally, I thing this group would be better off without him, not unlike the Forth standard committee found their work better without him. At risk of setting him off on another rant, I will point out that Hugh was once part of the Forth standards process, but he was unable to refrain from his rantings long enough to do any useful work and ended up in such conflict with nearly everyone else on the committee that he could not remain. It's a shame as Hugh could make useful contributions. The Forth community is full of eccentrics and eclectics, but even there Hugh stands out as too extreme to be compatible. Oh yeah, if anyone reading this does not already know Hugh well enough, ask him what he does for a living and how long it has been since he was paid to write Forth code... and why. Also, ask him where *his* Forth system is and when it will be released. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 08:24 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <fOSdnTj66-R2I6XKnZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47142 |
On 5/15/16 2:58 AM, rickman wrote: > At risk of setting him off on another rant, I will point out that Hugh > was once part of the Forth standards process, but he was unable to > refrain from his rantings long enough to do any useful work and ended up > in such conflict with nearly everyone else on the committee that he > could not remain. When and in what capacity was Hugh ever involved in the Forth standards process? He is not listed in any of the contributors either to Forth94 (ANS Forth) or Forth 2012. 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 17:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nhaosm$25j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47156 |
On 5/15/2016 2:24 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 5/15/16 2:58 AM, rickman wrote: >> At risk of setting him off on another rant, I will point out that Hugh >> was once part of the Forth standards process, but he was unable to >> refrain from his rantings long enough to do any useful work and ended up >> in such conflict with nearly everyone else on the committee that he >> could not remain. > > When and in what capacity was Hugh ever involved in the Forth standards > process? He is not listed in any of the contributors either to Forth94 > (ANS Forth) or Forth 2012. I thought I read here that for some period of time he participated until he fought with everyone so much he parted ways. I'm not sure if he was asked to leave or he left of his own initiative. Did I get this wrong? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 18:52 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <G5CdnZF_U4aZz6TKnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #47162 |
On 5/15/16 11:18 AM, rickman wrote: > On 5/15/2016 2:24 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 5/15/16 2:58 AM, rickman wrote: >>> At risk of setting him off on another rant, I will point out that Hugh >>> was once part of the Forth standards process, but he was unable to >>> refrain from his rantings long enough to do any useful work and ended up >>> in such conflict with nearly everyone else on the committee that he >>> could not remain. >> >> When and in what capacity was Hugh ever involved in the Forth standards >> process? He is not listed in any of the contributors either to Forth94 >> (ANS Forth) or Forth 2012. > > I thought I read here that for some period of time he participated until > he fought with everyone so much he parted ways. I'm not sure if he was > asked to leave or he left of his own initiative. Did I get this wrong? I do not believe he ever actually participated. He certainly did not when I was involved (through the 90's), and the Forth200x process has met entirely in Europe as far as I know. One has to attend a certain minimum number of meetings to be a voting participant. 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]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web