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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15996 > unrolled thread

Forth Forum?

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

Contents

  Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-07 09:38 +0200
    Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 01:06 -0700
      Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-07 11:24 +0200
        Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 02:46 -0700
          Re: Forth Forum? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-11 06:10 -0700
        Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 02:51 -0700
          Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-07 12:12 +0200
            Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 03:37 -0700
              Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-07 13:05 +0200
                Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 04:52 -0700
                  Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-07 14:44 +0200
                Re: Forth Forum? Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-10-07 10:20 -0500
            Re: Forth Forum? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-07 07:51 -0700
              Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-07 17:47 +0200
    Re: Forth Forum? "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-10-07 10:48 +0100
      Re: Forth Forum? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-07 08:24 -1000
    Re: Forth Forum? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 07:35 -0700
      Re: Forth Forum? mentifex@myuw.net - 2012-10-08 14:36 -0700
        Re: Forth Forum? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 14:45 -0700
    Re: Forth Forum? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-07 07:49 -0700
      Re: Forth Forum? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-07 19:21 -0400
      Re: Forth Forum? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-07 21:41 +0200
        Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-08 17:45 +0200
          Re: Forth Forum? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-08 17:32 -0400
            Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-09 07:48 +0200
            Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 00:28 -0700
            Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 00:37 -0700
            Re: Forth Forum? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 00:55 -0700
              Re: Forth Forum? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 20:53 +0200
              Re: Forth Forum? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-10 20:43 -0700
              Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-11 14:42 +0200
            Re: Forth Forum? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 13:52 -0400
            Re: Forth Forum? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-11 04:36 -0400
              Re: Forth Forum? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-11 18:34 -0400
                Re: Forth Forum? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-12 03:15 -0400
            Re: Forth Forum? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-11 06:21 -0700
    Re: Forth Forum? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-07 19:15 -0400
      Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-08 17:26 +0200
        Re: Forth Forum? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-08 16:43 -0400
    Re: Forth Forum? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 19:39 -0400
      Re: Forth Forum? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-10-08 17:31 +0200
      Re: Forth Forum? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-11 06:22 -0700
        Re: Forth Forum? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-11 18:52 -0400
    Re: Forth Forum? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-11 06:09 -0700
      Re: Forth Forum? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-11 15:26 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#16029

"Paul Rubin" <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xipamuyjx.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> writes:
> > Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>
> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
> prefer Usenet to web forums.

If I have to create an account, submit a valid email address, submit any
personal information, or maintain and remember another password, then
"No." is the answer.  I.e., that's what most forums require to join and
post.

If I can post "anonymously", i.e., without setting up an account, and if the
forum doesn't reveal my IP when posting "anonymously", like Wikipedia, then
I'd consider using it.  A few forums run the IP through a hash function with
a salt to create a unique user ID number.  It changes with IP changes, but
you can assign an "alias" or your own name as your identity when you post,
if you wish to maintain an "identity".


Rod Pemberton

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

#16036

Paul Rubin wrote:

> "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> writes:
>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
> 
> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
> prefer Usenet to web forums.

Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us 
to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to 
know that Outlook has a news reader.

Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook".  And get your other coworkers who 
can't do Outlook to tell him, too.  Because the boss assumes "everybody 
can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#16052

On 07.10.2012 21:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> writes:
>>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>>
>> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
>> prefer Usenet to web forums.
>
> Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
> to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
> know that Outlook has a news reader.
>
> Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook".  And get your other coworkers who
> can't do Outlook to tell him, too.  Because the boss assumes "everybody
> can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".
>

You did not get the point.

It is not about Outlook, it is about the Forth clf "community" being 
practically invisible. If you don't care, don't care.

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

#16073

"A. K." <akk@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:5072f52d$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> On 07.10.2012 21:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > Paul Rubin wrote:
> >
> >> "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> writes:
> >>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
> >>
> >> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
> >> prefer Usenet to web forums.
> >
> > Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
> > to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
> > know that Outlook has a news reader.
> >
> > Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook".  And get your other coworkers who
> > can't do Outlook to tell him, too.  Because the boss assumes "everybody
> > can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".
> >
>
> You did not get the point.
>
> It is not about Outlook, it is about the Forth clf "community"
> being practically invisible. If you don't care, don't care.

Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?

I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
much to raise Forth's profile.  What Forth needs first is to "break" the
"bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has.  Some of those were earned from
major failures.  Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile successes.
It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about which everyone
hates him for asking about.  Some of that possible success must come from
*not failing* where other more common solutions failed.  Basically, Forth
must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.  I suspect that
will change the language dramatically.  I'm still of the opinion Forth
doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to attempt a large scale
"comeback."  Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or
software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages.  To
do that, Forth is going to need some order applied to the language, i.e., a
"structured" Forth instead of write-once "spaghetti" code.

It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth is
me, a C programmer.  Well, of course, there is Hugh ...


Rod Pemberton

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

#16079

On 08.10.2012 23:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?

More the latter. Youngsters like to communicate in virtual web 
communities (see Facebook et al). But the the at least active clf Forth 
community is hidden in Usenet, which is not easily browser accessible.

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

#16081

On Oct 8, 10:28 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm>
wrote:
> "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote in message
>
> news:5072f52d$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 07.10.2012 21:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > > Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > >> "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> writes:
> > >>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>
> > >> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
> > >> prefer Usenet to web forums.
>
> > > Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
> > > to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
> > > know that Outlook has a news reader.
>
> > > Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook".  And get your other coworkers who
> > > can't do Outlook to tell him, too.  Because the boss assumes "everybody
> > > can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".
>
> > You did not get the point.
>
> > It is not about Outlook, it is about the Forth clf "community"
> > being practically invisible. If you don't care, don't care.
>
> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
>
> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
> much to raise Forth's profile.  What Forth needs first is to "break" the
> "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has.  Some of those were earned from
> major failures.  Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile successes.
> It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about which everyone
> hates him for asking about.  Some of that possible success must come from
> *not failing* where other more common solutions failed.  Basically, Forth
> must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.  I suspect that
> will change the language dramatically.  I'm still of the opinion Forth
> doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to attempt a large scale
> "comeback."  Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or
> software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages.  To
> do that, Forth is going to need some order applied to the language, i.e., a
> "structured" Forth instead of write-once "spaghetti" code.
>
> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth is
> me, a C programmer.  Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
>
> Rod Pemberton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rod: "Some of those were earned from major failures."

Really? Can you cite some examples of major Forth project failures?
I'm not aware of any.

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

#16082

>Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages.

What? Like NASA? :-)

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

#16083

>Basically, Forth must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.

Please define:

* Robust
* Fault tolerant

Suffer from hacks? Well okay. I think you're thinking about Forth ala
Gavino, i.e. in the web world. But there's a much larger world out
there. Forth is niche, and I wouldn't turn to Forth to develop a fault
tolerant, hack-proof, robust web based system. There are other
languages (and systems/sub-systems, such as SQL, fault tolerant
message queues etc) perhaps better suited to the task.

Forth shines at essentially two things:

* Low level/embedded
* Domain Specific (high-level) languages

If you really really want to equip Forth to *start* to be able to
compete in the web world, then a good place to start would be the
standardisation of a suite of networking/sockets words to allow it to
get on the web! That would give the young web folk a starting place.
Because, you know, if it can't talk on the web, then, like, it's not a
real programming language, man. Obviously. Duh.

Good luck with that. We can't even agree on the behaviour of FIND,
after 30+ years of its existence!

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

#16112

Mark Wills wrote:
> Suffer from hacks? Well okay. I think you're thinking about Forth ala
> Gavino, i.e. in the web world. But there's a much larger world out
> there. Forth is niche, and I wouldn't turn to Forth to develop a fault
> tolerant, hack-proof, robust web based system. There are other
> languages (and systems/sub-systems, such as SQL, fault tolerant
> message queues etc) perhaps better suited to the task.

Huh?  Actually, the current web ecosystem has proven to be not very 
hack-proof and fault tolerant.  IMHO the idea that a language is "hack-
proof" or such is nonsense, one of the most popular attack targets today 
is Java - which was deliberately created to be "secure".  It isn't.  
These of course are all "bugs", it's not features; in Forth, the 
insecure parts are features.

The way to make an execution environment secure is to sandbox it from 
the outside - not to sandbox it from within, as Java does.  If you read 
Googles papers about sandboxing e.g. Flash, they are very deliberate 
that the sandbox itself must be a rather simple and straight-forward 
thing to be robust enough.

Dijkstra had once said "Programs are either so simple that they contain 
obviously no bugs, or so complex that they contain no obvious bugs".  
That means to be secure, you must separate the supervision of a program 
from the program itself, and make the supervision a rather simple task.

The many mistakes that have been done with SQL injections show that 
"complex" isn't "good".  Web scripts are usually written in programming 
languages which are feature-rich in text processing, and the user abuse 
those features because they are so easy to use.  So people write a web 
form like  "select * from students where name=$name;", and $name is a 
string variable.  Well, we have such features even in standard Forth 
now, you could use SUBSTITUTE for that.  But it's wrong.  You shouldn't 
do it that way, and SQL even has a mechanism to pass parameters to 
queries, where you can compile the query once, and execute it with 
different parameters as often as you like - without risking any SQL 
injection ever.  These parameters won't be parsed and analyzed by the 
SQL statement compiler, so it doesn't matter if name is "Robert'; drop 
table students" (Little Bobby Table).  You don't even need to sanity 
check that name - it's always treated as non-interpretable string, and 
then it's fine to have funny characters in it.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#16179

On Oct 9, 12:55 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forth shines at essentially two things:
>
> * Low level/embedded
> * Domain Specific (high-level) languages

Mark: This is a pretty good vision of Forth.

Rod: I didn't know that you had a vision for Forth. Can you give us a
soundbite description?

As I've said many times, I think that it is a bad idea for Forth to
try to be everything to everybody (especially a web framework for
Gavino). This will result in Forth being a "jack of all trades and a
master of none." For Forth to succeed, it should focus on only what it
is good at (the two things mentioned by Mark above) --- I mean, don't
compete with Lisp in the desktop-computer world (and for their part,
the Lispers will promise not to compete with Forth in the micro-
controller world) --- compete primarily against C.

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

#16188

On 09.10.2012 09:55, Mark Wills wrote:
>> Basically, Forth must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.
>
> Please define:
>
> * Robust
> * Fault tolerant
>
> Suffer from hacks? Well okay. I think you're thinking about Forth ala
> Gavino, i.e. in the web world. But there's a much larger world out
> there. Forth is niche, and I wouldn't turn to Forth to develop a fault
> tolerant, hack-proof, robust web based system. There are other
> languages (and systems/sub-systems, such as SQL, fault tolerant
> message queues etc) perhaps better suited to the task.
>
> Forth shines at essentially two things:
>
> * Low level/embedded
> * Domain Specific (high-level) languages
>
> If you really really want to equip Forth to *start* to be able to
> compete in the web world, then a good place to start would be the
> standardisation of a suite of networking/sockets words to allow it to
> get on the web! That would give the young web folk a starting place.
> Because, you know, if it can't talk on the web, then, like, it's not a
> real programming language, man. Obviously. Duh.
>
> Good luck with that. We can't even agree on the behaviour of FIND,
> after 30+ years of its existence!
>

We use(d) Forth as embedded "Trojan horse" for remote debugging and 
telnet service sessions. That is as far as it goes in that domain with 
Forth IMO. A web server in Forth would have given us no additional 
benefit, but more vulnerability.

But IF there was a web communication requirement, I wouldn't extend the 
embedded Forth interpreter for it, but use the C ecosystem. Why? Because 
I can count our Forth-savvy service guys on 2 fingers, both fingers on 
the brink of retirement.

Just a real world example why pulling Forth groups out of their dinosaur 
hideout might have made sense ...... but to dinosaurs of course.  ;-)

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

#16107

On 10/8/2012 5:32 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "A. K."<akk@nospam.org>  wrote in message
> news:5072f52d$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
>> On 07.10.2012 21:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A. K."<akk@nospam.org>  writes:
>>>>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>>>>
>>>> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
>>>> prefer Usenet to web forums.
>>>
>>> Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
>>> to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
>>> know that Outlook has a news reader.
>>>
>>> Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook".  And get your other coworkers who
>>> can't do Outlook to tell him, too.  Because the boss assumes "everybody
>>> can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".
>>>
>>
>> You did not get the point.
>>
>> It is not about Outlook, it is about the Forth clf "community"
>> being practically invisible. If you don't care, don't care.
>
> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
>
> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
> much to raise Forth's profile.  What Forth needs first is to "break" the
> "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has.  Some of those were earned from
> major failures.

What major failures?  I find that there are people who have tried forth 
and like(d) it, people who have heard of Forth and think it is a joke 
and people who have never heard of it.  I listed them in order of size, 
smallest first.  I have never heard of any failures.


 > Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile successes.
> It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about which everyone
> hates him for asking about.  Some of that possible success must come from
> *not failing* where other more common solutions failed.  Basically, Forth
> must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.  I suspect that
> will change the language dramatically.  I'm still of the opinion Forth
> doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to attempt a large scale
> "comeback."  Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or
> software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages.  To
> do that, Forth is going to need some order applied to the language, i.e., a
> "structured" Forth instead of write-once "spaghetti" code.
>
> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth is
> me, a C programmer.  Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
>
>
> Rod Pemberton

What is your vision for forth?

Rick

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

#16183

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote in message
news:k4vgif$96h$1@speranza.aioe.org...
...

>
> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
>
> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
> much to raise Forth's profile.  What Forth needs first is to "break" the
> "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has.  Some of those were earned from
> major failures.  Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile
> successes.  It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about
> which everyone hates him for asking about.  Some of that possible success
> must come from *not failing* where other more common solutions failed.
> Basically, Forth must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from
> hacks.  I suspect that will change the language dramatically.  I'm still
> of the opinion Forth doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to
> attempt a large scale "comeback."  Basically, you're going to need a major
> programming company or software foundation to decide to use Forth
> instead of other languages.  To do that, Forth is going to need some order
> applied to the language, i.e., a "structured" Forth instead of write-once
> "spaghetti" code.
>
> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth
> is me, a C programmer.  Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
>
>

Hugh and rickman,

Forth users think Forth is just fine.  The large paragraph in the middle is
the "vision" for Forth.  That's what "it" needs to happen to become popular.
It needs changed perceptions and various improvements.


Rod Pemberton

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

#16201

On 10/11/2012 4:36 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton"<do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm>  wrote in message
> news:k4vgif$96h$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> ....
>
>>
>> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
>> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
>>
>> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
>> much to raise Forth's profile.  What Forth needs first is to "break" the
>> "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has.  Some of those were earned from
>> major failures.  Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile
>> successes.  It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about
>> which everyone hates him for asking about.  Some of that possible success
>> must come from *not failing* where other more common solutions failed.
>> Basically, Forth must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from
>> hacks.  I suspect that will change the language dramatically.  I'm still
>> of the opinion Forth doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to
>> attempt a large scale "comeback."  Basically, you're going to need a major
>> programming company or software foundation to decide to use Forth
>> instead of other languages.  To do that, Forth is going to need some order
>> applied to the language, i.e., a "structured" Forth instead of write-once
>> "spaghetti" code.
>>
>> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth
>> is me, a C programmer.  Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
>>
>>
>
> Hugh and rickman,
>
> Forth users think Forth is just fine.  The large paragraph in the middle is
> the "vision" for Forth.  That's what "it" needs to happen to become popular.
> It needs changed perceptions and various improvements.
>
>
> Rod Pemberton
>
>

I'm not sure what I said that you included me in this reply.

Rick

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

#16208

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k57hhh$ijf$1@dont-email.me...
> On 10/11/2012 4:36 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > "Rod Pemberton"<do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm>  wrote in message
> > news:k4vgif$96h$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> > ....
> >
> >>
> >> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> >> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will
> >> do much to raise Forth's profile.  What Forth needs first is to "break"
> >> the "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has.  Some of those were
> >> earned from major failures.  Then, it needs to have a few really
> >> high-profile successes.  It needs to do all the whacked out stuff
> >> Gavino asks about which everyone hates him for asking about.  Some of
> >> that possible success must come from *not failing* where other more
> >> common solutions failed.  Basically, Forth must be robust, fault
> >> tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.  I suspect that will change the
> >> language dramatically.  I'm still of the opinion Forth doesn't have the
> >> critical mass of programmers to attempt a large scale "comeback."
> >> Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or software
> >> foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages.  To do
> >> that, Forth is going to need some order applied to the language, i.e.,
> >> a "structured" Forth instead of write-once "spaghetti" code.
> >>
> >> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for
> >> Forth is me, a C programmer.  Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hugh and rickman,
> >
> > Forth users think Forth is just fine.  The large paragraph in the middle
> > is the "vision" for Forth.  That's what "it" needs to happen to become
> > popular. It needs changed perceptions and various improvements.
> >
> I'm not sure what I said that you included me in this reply.
>

Both of you asked about my vision for Forth, in response to my
10/8/2012 5:32PM post.  So, I clarified in one post.

At the end of your 10/9/2012 1:52PM post, you asked:

  "What is your vision for forth?"

Hugh, in his 10/10/2012 11:43PM post said:

  "Rod: I didn't know that you had a vision for Forth.  Can you give us a
soundbite description?"


Rod Pemberton

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

#16192

On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:28:53 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> wrote in message
> 
> news:5072f52d$0$6567$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> 
> > On 07.10.2012 21:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> 
> > > Paul Rubin wrote:
> 
> > >
> 
> > >> "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> writes:
> 
> > >>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
> 
> > >>
> 
> > >> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
> 
> > >> prefer Usenet to web forums.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
> 
> > > to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
> 
> > > know that Outlook has a news reader.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook".  And get your other coworkers who
> 
> > > can't do Outlook to tell him, too.  Because the boss assumes "everybody
> 
> > > can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".
> 
> > >
> 
> >
> 
> > You did not get the point.
> 
> >
> 
> > It is not about Outlook, it is about the Forth clf "community"
> 
> > being practically invisible. If you don't care, don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> 
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
> 
> much to raise Forth's profile.  What Forth needs first is to "break" the
> 
> "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has.  Some of those were earned from
> 
> major failures.  Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile successes.
> 
> It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about which everyone
> 
> hates him for asking about.  Some of that possible success must come from
> 
> *not failing* where other more common solutions failed.  Basically, Forth
> 
> must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.  I suspect that
> 
> will change the language dramatically.  I'm still of the opinion Forth
> 
> doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to attempt a large scale
> 
> "comeback."  Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or
> 
> software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages.  To
> 
> do that, Forth is going to need some order applied to the language, i.e., a
> 
> "structured" Forth instead of write-once "spaghetti" code.
> 
> 
> 
> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth is
> 
> me, a C programmer.  Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton

thx for the props

seems like factor is trying

it has a web framework!!

WOAAAA!!

I want forth which seems to get things done well and with less code to show a few apps mortals can use.

Perhaps this would involve some smart forth with some dumb config files?

like few basic web options for basic web server? or something like NFS but nicer?

I know these things are not easy I have tried to use forth instead of bash and failed miserably so far.

I can only dream of doing a craigslsit clone if forth, I wish someone like bernd paysan would do even a small site powered by forth people could point to and say there!! there is a nice lil nice performing site in forth and it only took xyz pages of code.

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

#16028

"A. K." <akk@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:50713193$0$6627$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
> which does not have a newsreader.

I'm posting from Outlook.  Albeit, it's a very old version.  I'd be
surprised if they removed newsgroup support.

The Opera browser has a built-in newsreader.

The link below should susbcribe you to c.l.f. using AIOE.org.  In Internet
Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, it'll start Outlook, if using Windows OS.  In
Opera, it'll start Opera's newreader.  I'd assume that if you also installed
Thunderbird that Mozilla Firefox will start Thunderbird, instead of Outlook.

news://www.aioe.org/comp.lang.forth


Rod Pemberton

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

#16048

On 08.10.2012 01:15, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:50713193$0$6627$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
>> which does not have a newsreader.
>
> I'm posting from Outlook.  Albeit, it's a very old version.  I'd be
> surprised if they removed newsgroup support.


Outlook 2010 does not support the NNTP protocol any more for reading 
Usenet news.

You'd have to install Outlook Express parallel to it, which is complete 
nonsense. And it could potentially mess things up with your Exchange 
mail server.

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

#16070

"A. K." <akk@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:5072f0bd$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> On 08.10.2012 01:15, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> wrote in message
> > news:50713193$0$6627$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
> >> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
> >> which does not have a newsreader.
> >
> > I'm posting from Outlook.  Albeit, it's a very old version.  I'd be
> > surprised if they removed newsgroup support.
>
>
> Outlook 2010 does not support the NNTP protocol any more for reading
> Usenet news.
>
> You'd have to install Outlook Express parallel to it, which is complete
> nonsense. And it could potentially mess things up with your Exchange
> mail server.
>

Correction: I use Outlook Express.  Sorry.


RP

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

#16031

On 10/7/2012 3:38 AM, A. K. wrote:
> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
> which does not have a newsreader. A browser accessible Forth Forum would
> be easier and probably attract more participants (Usenet is dwindling
> after all). Google groups is very unpractical.
>
> Question:
> Is there a decent Forth forum of "sufficient" popularity?
> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?

Far be it for me to recommend Google Groups, but that is what I used to 
use until their last software update made it nearly unusable in my 
opinion.  My last post in this group required me to remove the extra 
blank lines that someone else's GG post added in the quotes.  Insane...

But if you can't get here by any other means, GG is a way to keep in 
touch.  I don't think many here are going to move anywhere else.

Rick

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web