Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-11-19 16:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2012-11-29 11:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 16:03 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 16:06 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 08:15 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 12:07 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-20 02:27 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Winston19842005 <winston19842005@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 21:59 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 19:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 01:33 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-20 05:09 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 18:48 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-20 09:49 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 10:59 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-19 19:06 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-19 14:25 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 20:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 05:42 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:23 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 21:05 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:24 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 18:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-20 03:07 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:35 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 21:02 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 02:04 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 19:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 01:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-21 04:51 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-21 04:43 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-11-21 20:34 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 12:04 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-22 21:19 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 02:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 03:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 03:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-23 12:13 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 12:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-23 10:43 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 15:10 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-23 13:40 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 13:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-24 01:29 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-24 04:54 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-24 16:56 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-25 04:16 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-26 14:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 09:12 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 22:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 03:52 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 07:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 09:57 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 20:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-24 04:53 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-24 14:32 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-24 21:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:27 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-23 19:12 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 22:39 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-24 16:54 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-25 05:09 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-11-25 13:33 +0200
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-24 12:20 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-24 20:45 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 14:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 18:17 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 04:26 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 15:28 +0200
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-21 17:29 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:21 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-21 13:00 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:31 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 17:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 20:33 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Humphries <mwh@intranetsys.com> - 2012-11-22 10:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-22 17:16 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:12 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-20 17:30 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-11-20 19:40 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 19:50 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-20 15:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:43 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 08:46 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-24 10:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-24 11:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-24 22:32 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-25 07:54 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-25 17:02 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-25 16:20 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-25 19:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-26 14:59 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 11:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 13:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 15:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 16:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 19:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 20:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 22:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 23:03 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 01:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-27 08:52 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 10:43 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-27 12:01 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-28 23:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-29 00:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-28 22:13 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 01:11 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-11-29 11:00 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-29 18:58 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 12:51 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 00:42 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 19:57 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 18:47 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-30 12:53 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 18:33 +0100
Debuggers (Re: why bother with standards ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-29 13:44 +0000
Re: Debuggers (Re: why bother with standards ?) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 09:36 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-29 06:01 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 10:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-29 12:22 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 10:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-11-29 21:13 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 17:11 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 03:37 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-30 02:11 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 05:24 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-30 11:23 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 21:16 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 08:38 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 18:43 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 12:15 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 09:23 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 18:24 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 11:06 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 17:35 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 22:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 21:08 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 17:41 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-30 08:43 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:30 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-30 10:40 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-30 14:03 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-30 14:06 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-30 14:51 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-11-30 14:58 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-02 18:02 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-03 16:34 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-12-03 21:39 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-03 14:49 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 09:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 11:26 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 11:39 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-05 15:32 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-05 20:57 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 18:55 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-05 20:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-06 19:05 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-06 16:14 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bill Marcum <bill@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-12-07 20:13 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-12-03 14:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:20 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 06:52 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-29 19:12 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 14:55 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 01:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-11-21 12:40 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:51 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 19:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 21:54 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-11-24 08:03 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-11-30 14:45 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-30 10:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-04 03:52 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 11:47 -0800
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 03:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56d7bfbb-0dc0-4471-93a2-1098f4817789@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17417 |
On Nov 20, 4:29 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 19, 5:25 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > > Sure, as long as the system is strictly for your own use and you don't > > care about being able to use code other people have written, there's no > > need to adhere to a standard. > > This is a false dichotomy --- that a Forther must either adhere to the > ANS-Forth standard or work entirely alone. The third possibility is > that Chris' Forth will make more sense than ANS-Forth and the Forth > community will migrate from ANS-Forth to Chris-Forth as the new > standard. > > Assuming that the guy has a 3-digit I.Q., it would be almost > impossible for his Forth to make less sense than ANS-Forth, so the > third possibility seems the most likely to me. > > When my Straight Forth comes out, everything else will become obsolete > --- the question of Chris-Forth vs. ANS-Forth will become moot (well, > ANS-Forth certainly will be obsoleted; Chris-Forth might survive if it > is reasonably good). > > Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? That's irrelevant. HTML was a standard that came from another, earlier standard (SGML). It was based on SGML, but didn't conform to it until HTML4; it was a de-facto standard (de-facto in the sense that one implementation became the reference point for other implementations) until HTML2. Javascript followed a similar model to be codified as ECMAscript; Ruby got ISO/IEC standardisation this year after a decade of "benevolent dictatorship". Perl never went that route; it's still a de-facto standard. With Forth, a technical committee of interested users and vendors took two earlier Forth-xx de-facto standards and codified it in ANS Forth. XML, another SGML derivative, didn't exist until it was codified in 1997/1998. CDMI, where I sit on the technical work group, was like XML, and it was a standard before there were any applications. It's now an ISO/IEC standard, and there are products that use it; but like XML applications, they followed the original codification of the spec. Whichever model is used, de-facto or standard first, they all have one thing in common; more than one person decides that This Is A Good Thing (TIAGT). That will be the downfall of Chris-Forth, Straight Forth and any number of other projects of this nature; the need for other people to follow you, and the need for investment, and often lots of both. If you are proposing a standard that has no reference implementation, and if my experience of CDMI is anything to go by, that's a tough route for one person. I work for the company that "invented" this protocol, but we lost control the day we proposed to a number of other companies that TIAGT -- but we knew we couldn't do it alone, and we needed an ecosystem of other CDMI compliant products to prevent it being a proprietary (if open) standard. The price of interoperability and a larger market was to spend lots of money and intellectual capital in giving your idea to others for free. At that point we lost control of our standard; and as inventor of Straight Forth, if it's any good, you will too. It takes compromise to achieve agreement amongst several parties that have competing interests and goals. Plus experience has shown us on the technical work group that some of the initial design criteria that looked good on paper and in small scale research projects turned out not to be such a good idea for interoperability or at scale, and the final ISO draft is quite a bit different from the early proposals. If you're proposing a de-facto standard reference implementation, then in today's market it's going to have to be good. Very good indeed. You'll need a base system and tools for several platforms, a commitment to bug fixes and enhancements, and a few application developers that are committed to getting your product (and hence you) to work for them. You'll need assistance and help from a number of talented coders, and perhaps one or two who can blog or speak to the product in terms that attracts others. That's before you've got anywhere. The next step is the biggest. Whichever way you choose to do it, by developing a standard or a product that you would like to see as a de- facto standard, this does not ensure adoption. People do that. It has to look technically strong, fix a well defined set of problems; and to be appealing, effective, well communicated, and marketed. Being lucky and in the right place at the right time helps too for the mass audience you'll need to attract. You'll find out if you start this process that some to many of these people won't agree with you, or that they ignore you, or deride you for your efforts. They may very well point out that there's already a standard, with a reference implementation and many commercial and non- commercial products that support it, so why should they switch? You may find that you don't like these people you've attracted; gays, people who disagree with you, and so on. You'll need tolerance, the patience of a saint and a thick skin as well as technical, marketing and sales talent, none of which you have in abundance. But you may have a trick or two up your sleeve. Perhaps the desire to succeed where others have seldom done so will change your approach. I hope so, since I fear your stock of goodwill with the ANS folks is exhausted. Working with them to make a better standard is probably out of the question. You've committed yourself to either going it alone or eating humble pie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112017351966471-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17427 |
> Whichever model is used, de-facto or standard first, they all have one > thing in common; more than one person decides that This Is A Good > Thing (TIAGT). That will be the downfall of Chris-Forth, Straight > Forth and any number of other projects of this nature; the need for > other people to follow you, and the need for investment, and often > lots of both. In this context Forth or the language chosen is irrelevant. Taos does not depend on any specific language ! It never did. A bunch of macros, or a byte code intepreter, or a bytecode compiler, or your precious Forth !!! The structure of Taos never needed any specific language or language feature ! That I would consider a Forth like replacement to VP1 or VP2 shows how much I respect Forth and Chuck ! I was chatting to a friend the other day about 'the old days' and I said 'You know, after 5 Byte articles, Edge and IEEE front covers, making people faint ! during a demo, booting a 320 node super computer from the 286 PC they used as a doorstop. Everything else is gravey !' Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 21:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8hcfl$6c7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17427 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message news:56d7bfbb-0dc0-4471-93a2-1098f4817789@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 20, 4:29 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 19, 5:25 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: ... > > > Sure, as long as the system is strictly for your own use and you don't > > > care about being able to use code other people have written, there's > > > no need to adhere to a standard. > > > This is a false dichotomy --- that a Forther must either adhere to the > > ANS-Forth standard or work entirely alone. The third possibility is > > that Chris' Forth will make more sense than ANS-Forth and the Forth > > community will migrate from ANS-Forth to Chris-Forth as the new > > standard. > > > Assuming that the guy has a 3-digit I.Q., it would be almost > > impossible for his Forth to make less sense than ANS-Forth, so the > > third possibility seems the most likely to me. > > > When my Straight Forth comes out, everything else will become obsolete > > --- the question of Chris-Forth vs. ANS-Forth will become moot (well, > > ANS-Forth certainly will be obsoleted; Chris-Forth might survive if it > > is reasonably good). > > > > Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? > > That's irrelevant. ... > HTML was a standard that came from another, earlier standard (SGML). > It was based on SGML, but didn't conform to it until HTML4; it was a > de-facto standard (de-facto in the sense that one implementation > became the reference point for other implementations) until HTML2. > Javascript followed a similar model to be codified as ECMAscript; Ruby > got ISO/IEC standardisation this year after a decade of "benevolent > dictatorship". Perl never went that route; it's still a de-facto > standard. With Forth, a technical committee of interested users and > vendors took two earlier Forth-xx de-facto standards and codified it > in ANS Forth. > > XML, another SGML derivative, didn't exist until it was codified in > 1997/1998. CDMI, where I sit on the technical work group, was like > XML, and it was a standard before there were any applications. It's > now an ISO/IEC standard, and there are products that use it; but like > XML applications, they followed the original codification of the > spec. This is irrelevant. > Whichever model is used, de-facto or standard first, they all have one > thing in common; more than one person decides that This Is A Good > Thing (TIAGT). "A camel is a horse designed by committee." "Too many cooks spoil the broth." The various problems with both Forth and C are a result of this. Other people came along afterwards and said: "We need this." and "Why doesn't it have this?". The "fixes" and additions created bugs and problems. What's needed is a smart, visionary, programmer, or small team, who maintains tight control until the software is developed enough that it can stand on it's own with infrequent help from maintenance programmers. > That will be the downfall of Chris-Forth, Straight > Forth and any number of other projects of this nature; the need for > other people to follow you, and the need for investment, and often > lots of both. It sounds like Chris is about to abandon his Forth. That's the "death knell" for all open-source projects. The original creator is usually critical to the "life" of an open-source project. He knows the software the best and can implement any user desired changes in the most effective manner. He is also the one going to be doing most of the coding, even after being open-sourced. Other programmers 1) don't always understand what is important to keep or what the code does, and 2) being less familiar with the code, unintentionally "trash" the code base, i.e., novices. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 02:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <218c2565-03d3-49e7-94e6-2e7d28058e2d@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17448 |
On Nov 21, 1:58 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message > > news:56d7bfbb-0dc0-4471-93a2-1098f4817789@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 20, 4:29 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 19, 5:25 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, as long as the system is strictly for your own use and you don't > > > > care about being able to use code other people have written, there's > > > > no need to adhere to a standard. > > > > This is a false dichotomy --- that a Forther must either adhere to the > > > ANS-Forth standard or work entirely alone. The third possibility is > > > that Chris' Forth will make more sense than ANS-Forth and the Forth > > > community will migrate from ANS-Forth to Chris-Forth as the new > > > standard. > > > > Assuming that the guy has a 3-digit I.Q., it would be almost > > > impossible for his Forth to make less sense than ANS-Forth, so the > > > third possibility seems the most likely to me. > > > > When my Straight Forth comes out, everything else will become obsolete > > > --- the question of Chris-Forth vs. ANS-Forth will become moot (well, > > > ANS-Forth certainly will be obsoleted; Chris-Forth might survive if it > > > is reasonably good). > > > > Tell us Chris --- will you have closures? > > > That's irrelevant. > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > HTML was a standard that came from another, earlier standard (SGML). > > It was based on SGML, but didn't conform to it until HTML4; it was a > > de-facto standard (de-facto in the sense that one implementation > > became the reference point for other implementations) until HTML2. > > Javascript followed a similar model to be codified as ECMAscript; Ruby > > got ISO/IEC standardisation this year after a decade of "benevolent > > dictatorship". Perl never went that route; it's still a de-facto > > standard. With Forth, a technical committee of interested users and > > vendors took two earlier Forth-xx de-facto standards and codified it > > in ANS Forth. > > > XML, another SGML derivative, didn't exist until it was codified in > > 1997/1998. CDMI, where I sit on the technical work group, was like > > XML, and it was a standard before there were any applications. It's > > now an ISO/IEC standard, and there are products that use it; but like > > XML applications, they followed the original codification of the > > spec. > > This is irrelevant. > > > Whichever model is used, de-facto or standard first, they all have one > > thing in common; more than one person decides that This Is A Good > > Thing (TIAGT). > > "A camel is a horse designed by committee." > > "Too many cooks spoil the broth." > > The various problems with both Forth and C are a result of this. Other > people came along afterwards and said: "We need this." and "Why doesn't it > have this?". The "fixes" and additions created bugs and problems. What's > needed is a smart, visionary, programmer, or small team, who maintains tight > control until the software is developed enough that it can stand on it's own > with infrequent help from maintenance programmers. A benevolent dictator. Unfortunately, most people don't have the necessary skills to be one. You, I and Hugh Aguilar don't qualify. > > > That will be the downfall of Chris-Forth, Straight > > Forth and any number of other projects of this nature; the need for > > other people to follow you, and the need for investment, and often > > lots of both. > > It sounds like Chris is about to abandon his Forth. That's the "death > knell" for all open-source projects. The original creator is usually > critical to the "life" of an open-source project. He knows the software the > best and can implement any user desired changes in the most effective > manner. He is also the one going to be doing most of the coding, even after > being open-sourced. Other programmers 1) don't always understand what is > important to keep or what the code does, and 2) being less familiar with the > code, unintentionally "trash" the code base, i.e., novices. > That's but one method of software development, and it doesn't scale. It's not the way that commercial software or even the bulk of open source is developed, where all sorts of standards and cooperation are vital. Many successful open source products are funded by commercial companies, where again, teams rather than individuals and standards (both specified and de-facto) are employed. It takes more than one brilliant and hyper productive individual banging out code to make a successful code base. For example at scale, which I'm sure you're aware of; http://www.linuxfoundation.org/. > Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 19:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <757d3586-8b4b-424c-89c8-b5c9bb5affdb@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17427 |
On Nov 20, 4:07 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > You may find that you don't like these people you've attracted; gays, > people who disagree with you, and so on. You'll need tolerance, the > patience of a saint and a thick skin as well as technical, marketing > and sales talent, none of which you have in abundance. Well, there is a reason why it is called "Straight" Forth --- flaming gays will get my boot in their behind to speed their way out the door. I'm not so desperate for followers that I will tolerate the association of losers --- only the most elite of humanity will become Straight Forth programmers. > But you may have a trick or two up your sleeve. Perhaps the desire to > succeed where others have seldom done so will change your approach. I > hope so, since I fear your stock of goodwill with the ANS folks is > exhausted. Working with them to make a better standard is probably out > of the question. You've committed yourself to either going it alone or > eating humble pie. I have noticed that a lot of losers are attracted to fringe causes as a way to hide their incompetence. I can make an analogy to history. It would be a bad idea for a person who doesn't know anything about the Civil War to claim to be an expert, because there are a lot of people around who know a lot about the subject, and everybody knows at least a little about the subject. By comparison, the person could claim to be an expert on the Peloponnesian War and spout great quantities of nonsense, and nobody will call him on it because almost nobody knows anything more than the most rudimentary facts about the subject themselves. Nowadays, Forth is very obscure. When I have mentioned to programmers that I program in Forth, they typically think that I'm mispronouncing "Fortran" --- they went through college and various professional jobs and never even heard of Forth. This is why Passaniti spends all of his time on comp.lang.forth pretending expertise, although the only programming language that he knows is Perl --- comp.lang.forth is a haven for losers who want to fake up expertise and not get caught. Well, I'm not like Elizabeth Rather who embraces every loser as one of her own --- I'll just boot them out --- that is the only "trick" that I know for succeeding! P.S. I went to the gun show the other weekend to get a deer rifle. While I was there I bought a book: "The Devil Knows how to Ride --- the true story of William Clarke Quantrill." I also noticed multiple vendors selling t-shirts that say, "molon labe" (many of them written in the Greek alphabet!), which I did NOT buy. It makes sense that rednecks should know about the Civil War, as that is where the whole redneck culture arose. It seems absurd that they should pretend to be experts on ancient Greek history though. Anyway, that is where my analogy above came from.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 01:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <206033ea-9d14-4136-90e1-b169af101ca5@q1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17452 |
On Nov 21, 3:21 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 20, 4:07 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > You may find that you don't like these people you've attracted; gays, > > people who disagree with you, and so on. You'll need tolerance, the > > patience of a saint and a thick skin as well as technical, marketing > > and sales talent, none of which you have in abundance. > > Well, there is a reason why it is called "Straight" Forth --- flaming > gays will get my boot in their behind to speed their way out the door. > > I'm not so desperate for followers that I will tolerate the > association of losers --- only the most elite of humanity will become > Straight Forth programmers. > > > But you may have a trick or two up your sleeve. Perhaps the desire to > > succeed where others have seldom done so will change your approach. I > > hope so, since I fear your stock of goodwill with the ANS folks is > > exhausted. Working with them to make a better standard is probably out > > of the question. You've committed yourself to either going it alone or > > eating humble pie. > > I have noticed that a lot of losers are attracted to fringe causes as > a way to hide their incompetence. I can make an analogy to history. It > would be a bad idea for a person who doesn't know anything about the > Civil War to claim to be an expert, because there are a lot of people > around who know a lot about the subject, and everybody knows at least > a little about the subject. By comparison, the person could claim to > be an expert on the Peloponnesian War and spout great quantities of > nonsense, and nobody will call him on it because almost nobody knows > anything more than the most rudimentary facts about the subject > themselves. Nowadays, Forth is very obscure. When I have mentioned to > programmers that I program in Forth, they typically think that I'm > mispronouncing "Fortran" --- they went through college and various > professional jobs and never even heard of Forth. This is why Passaniti > spends all of his time on comp.lang.forth pretending expertise, > although the only programming language that he knows is Perl --- > comp.lang.forth is a haven for losers who want to fake up expertise > and not get caught. Well, I'm not like Elizabeth Rather who embraces > every loser as one of her own --- I'll just boot them out --- that is > the only "trick" that I know for succeeding! > > P.S. I went to the gun show the other weekend to get a deer rifle. > While I was there I bought a book: "The Devil Knows how to Ride --- > the true story of William Clarke Quantrill." I also noticed multiple > vendors selling t-shirts that say, "molon labe" (many of them written > in the Greek alphabet!), which I did NOT buy. It makes sense that > rednecks should know about the Civil War, as that is where the whole > redneck culture arose. It seems absurd that they should pretend to be > experts on ancient Greek history though. Anyway, that is where my > analogy above came from. You've made my point for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 04:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8i7v1$u2h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17452 |
"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:757d3586-8b4b-424c-89c8-b5c9bb5affdb@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com... > I'm not so desperate for followers that I will tolerate the > association of losers --- [...] So, Straight Forth has a psychology test included? Are you certified? How do I pass it? What do I have to do to unlock Straight Forth once I pass it? ;-) > [...] only the most elite of humanity will become > Straight Forth programmers. Isn't that the problem with most programming languages? I.e., too few programmers to reach critical mass. Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? Programming requires many man-hours as is. That's expensive for employers. If everyone could program, wouldn't that do for programming what reading and writing did for literature? I.e., wouldn't that produce a diverse and immense amount of code that would benefit society? The goals of FSF and FOSS movement seem to be to attack closed source, copyrighted software. That's really not the problem. The problem is the intellect that's required to program, or the elitism that excludes people from programming, or the lack of access to programming tools. > I have noticed that a lot of losers are attracted to fringe causes > as a way to hide their incompetence. How is that any different from politicians, physicists, mathematicians, engineers, doctors, and lawyers? Many of them are completely incompetent and many are attracted to fringe causes too. In many cases, it's purely the way they present their perspective that prevents others from recognizing them as total nutjobs. In other cases, membership in respected and established organizations which present an otherwise strange ideology in a non-threatening manner is used to hide radicalism. These people just haven't been labeled radicals by society, or by intrusive, self-righteous, authoritarian government agencies. Society doesn't know they are radicals and can't label them as such. Agencies only "attack" what they receive complaints about and deem to be a "threat". So, no one is going to complain you're radical if your a member of say, "The Society for the Preservation of and Enhancement of America", while that could mean it's a White Supremacist organization, or even a Black Supremacist organization ... If no one is complaining to the D.O.J. that incompetent fund manager Bernard Madoff was sentenced to federal prison for 150 years and $7.2 Billion USD for his illegal Ponzi scheme, but incompetent President Obama is a free man, beloved by 47% of the populace, after implementing his illegal, expensive, already failing, Ponzi scheme, i.e., Obamacare, then nothing gets done. > P.S. I went to the gun show the other weekend to get a deer rifle. [...] I'm not an animal activist or anything, since I'm strongly pro-gun rights. Even so, I don't actually own a gun. And, I don't hunt animals ... Hey, I didn't say I don't hunt. ;-) Well, I don't hunt. Or, more accurately, I haven't yet and maybe never will, but may someday ... I.e., I'm not opposed to it. Besides, you need gun rights for home defense. If someone comes into your home alive without your permission, they need to be sent back out dead, be it with or without a warrant. I'm just curious as to how one rationalizes that shooting and killing a deer is any different from shooting and killing a two to seven year old human child? That's effectively what one is doing. If you can kill a deer as many hunters do or kill a cow as many farmers do, why is it that we consider such people to be "good" people and solid Americans? We clearly don't consider them to be a violent threat or even potential murderers. We'd never even consider that they'd point a gun at a child, unless they actually did. Yet, they - sometimes repeatedly - kill something with the IQ of a child. The point is related to the prior paragraph about radical beliefs. They're frequently hidden in plain sight. In this example, it's acceptable to kill an animal with an IQ the same as a human child, but it's entirely wrong to kill a human child. We use intellect to justify not killing a child or we belittle animals as "dumb" or declare an animal life being of less value than a human life to justify killing them. So, that's a contradiction. Both can't true. It's either wrong to kill both, or it's just to kill both. The fact that humanity chooses to reject one and accept the other is one of many examples which reinforces America's "willful blindness" towards the abundant radical and strange beliefs that permeate our society. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 04:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <NIWdnTzRpu_CLTHNnZ2dnUVZ7oudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #17455 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow > your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? "Don't blame me for the fact that competent programming, as I view it as an intellectual possibility, will be too difficult for 'the average programmer'. You must not fall into the trap of rejecting a surgical technique because it is beyond the capabilities of the barber in his shop around the corner." -- Dijsktra, EWD 512: Comments at a Symposium. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 20:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a459a9d10e86bbb2edb57061bd07710e@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #17457 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > > > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow > > your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? > > "Don't blame me for the fact that competent programming, as I view it > as an intellectual possibility, will be too difficult for 'the average > programmer'. You must not fall into the trap of rejecting a surgical > technique because it is beyond the capabilities of the barber in his > shop around the corner." -- Dijsktra, EWD 512: Comments at a Symposium. Big words coming from somebody who never produced anything of value (and certainly no code) in his whole life. "Those who can do; those who can't teach." This typifies the idiot Dijsktra perfectly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 12:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7c5c9ce-6cf0-4c32-929e-2e5e5c2389e6@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17474 |
On Nov 21, 7:34 pm, Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > Rod Pemberton <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > > > > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > > > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow > > > your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? > > > "Don't blame me for the fact that competent programming, as I view it > > as an intellectual possibility, will be too difficult for 'the average > > programmer'. You must not fall into the trap of rejecting a surgical > > technique because it is beyond the capabilities of the barber in his > > shop around the corner." -- Dijsktra, EWD 512: Comments at a Symposium. > > Big words coming from somebody who never produced anything of value (and > certainly no code) in his whole life. "Those who can do; those who can't > teach." This typifies the idiot Dijsktra perfectly. And then there's you, another idiot barber on usenet. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-22 21:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k8mm7i$l9u$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #17475 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message news:b7c5c9ce-6cf0-4c32-929e-2e5e5c2389e6@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 21, 7:34 pm, Fritz Wuehler > <fr...@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > > Rod Pemberton <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: ... > > > > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > > > > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow > > > > your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? > > > > "Don't blame me for the fact that competent programming, as I view it > > > as an intellectual possibility, will be too difficult for 'the average > > > programmer'. You must not fall into the trap of rejecting a surgical > > > technique because it is beyond the capabilities of the barber in his > > > shop around the corner." -- Dijsktra, EWD 512: Comments at a > > > Symposium. > > > Big words coming from somebody who never produced anything of > > value (and certainly no code) in his whole life. "Those who can do; > > those who can't teach." This typifies the idiot Dijsktra perfectly. > > And then there's you, another idiot barber on usenet. > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ > Ah, good, now I don't have to insult "Fritz" over Dijsktra. Thanks! "Fritz" is an anonymous re-mailer pseudonym. If this "Fritz" is the "Fritz" I believe it is, he is supposedly a real programmer - one who programs big IBM "iron". Hence, I doubt he's being the "Devil's Advocate" on this one. So, I think it's clear his attack on Dijsktra was to "troll" for someone, perhaps me... Dijsktra and his ideas are very important to programming. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 02:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cc927a1f-5e67-407b-98d0-e0168a1f5694@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17489 |
On Nov 23, 2:15 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message > > news:b7c5c9ce-6cf0-4c32-929e-2e5e5c2389e6@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 21, 7:34 pm, Fritz Wuehler > > <fr...@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > > > Rod Pemberton <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > > > > > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow > > > > > your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? > > > > > "Don't blame me for the fact that competent programming, as I view it > > > > as an intellectual possibility, will be too difficult for 'the average > > > > programmer'. You must not fall into the trap of rejecting a surgical > > > > technique because it is beyond the capabilities of the barber in his > > > > shop around the corner." -- Dijsktra, EWD 512: Comments at a > > > > Symposium. > > > > Big words coming from somebody who never produced anything of > > > value (and certainly no code) in his whole life. "Those who can do; > > > those who can't teach." This typifies the idiot Dijsktra perfectly. > > > And then there's you, another idiot barber on usenet. > >http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ > > Ah, good, now I don't have to insult "Fritz" over Dijsktra. Thanks! > > "Fritz" is an anonymous re-mailer pseudonym. If this "Fritz" is the "Fritz" > I believe it is, he is supposedly a real programmer - one who programs big > IBM "iron". Hence, I doubt he's being the "Devil's Advocate" on this one. > So, I think it's clear his attack on Dijsktra was to "troll" for someone, > perhaps me... Dijsktra and his ideas are very important to programming. > > Rod Pemberton- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Really? Or did he just write down what a lot of other people thought was obvious? I nothing about the guy, but opinion seems quite divided about the chap. I wonder if opinion is divided along the lines of those that went to university (and thus had an opportunity to study him) and those that didn't. Those that didn't would have simply "got on with it". I read a few papers. I'm afraid it was gobbledygook to me. But I don't have a Phd. :-( One of his "papers" that I read was an account of a trip to give a speech to some bankers, and his travails with flight delays. I understood that one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 03:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e05295b-2bff-42b7-b2c8-c0899d93e615@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17494 |
On Nov 23, 10:05 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 2:15 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message > > >news:b7c5c9ce-6cf0-4c32-929e-2e5e5c2389e6@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 21, 7:34 pm, Fritz Wuehler > > > <fr...@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > > > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Rod Pemberton <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > > > > > > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow > > > > > > your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? > > > > > > "Don't blame me for the fact that competent programming, as I view it > > > > > as an intellectual possibility, will be too difficult for 'the average > > > > > programmer'. You must not fall into the trap of rejecting a surgical > > > > > technique because it is beyond the capabilities of the barber in his > > > > > shop around the corner." -- Dijsktra, EWD 512: Comments at a > > > > > Symposium. > > > > > Big words coming from somebody who never produced anything of > > > > value (and certainly no code) in his whole life. "Those who can do; > > > > those who can't teach." This typifies the idiot Dijsktra perfectly. > > > > And then there's you, another idiot barber on usenet. > > >http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ > > > Ah, good, now I don't have to insult "Fritz" over Dijsktra. Thanks! > > > "Fritz" is an anonymous re-mailer pseudonym. If this "Fritz" is the "Fritz" > > I believe it is, he is supposedly a real programmer - one who programs big > > IBM "iron". Hence, I doubt he's being the "Devil's Advocate" on this one. > > So, I think it's clear his attack on Dijsktra was to "troll" for someone, > > perhaps me... Dijsktra and his ideas are very important to programming. > > > Rod Pemberton- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Really? Or did he just write down what a lot of other people thought > was obvious? Consider the dates; it wasn't obvious then. Dijkstra wrote much that may be obvious now, but we've had 30, 40, nearly 50 or more years of soaking in the stuff. > > I nothing about the guy, but opinion seems quite divided about the > chap. > > I wonder if opinion is divided along the lines of those that went to > university (and thus had an opportunity to study him) and those that > didn't. Those that didn't would have simply "got on with it". > > I read a few papers. I'm afraid it was gobbledygook to me. But I don't > have a Phd. :-( You underestimate yourself. Read http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD00xx/EWD28.html. The discussion should remind you of Forth. The date of 1962 may persuade you that no-one (with exception of Moore and Rather) was "getting on with it" at that date. > > One of his "papers" that I read was an account of a trip to give a > speech to some bankers, and his travails with flight delays. I > understood that one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 03:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <042cbd4f-1c2f-4506-b09d-87b73640ca0a@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17495 |
On Nov 23, 11:05 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 10:05 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2:15 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> > > wrote: > > > > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message > > > >news:b7c5c9ce-6cf0-4c32-929e-2e5e5c2389e6@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 21, 7:34 pm, Fritz Wuehler > > > > <fr...@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > > > > > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > Rod Pemberton <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Most languages require some intelligence and education to program. > > > > > > > Shouldn't programming languages be designed for the, er... to borrow > > > > > > > your terms, the two-digit IQ crowd? > > > > > > > "Don't blame me for the fact that competent programming, as I view it > > > > > > as an intellectual possibility, will be too difficult for 'the average > > > > > > programmer'. You must not fall into the trap of rejecting a surgical > > > > > > technique because it is beyond the capabilities of the barber in his > > > > > > shop around the corner." -- Dijsktra, EWD 512: Comments at a > > > > > > Symposium. > > > > > > Big words coming from somebody who never produced anything of > > > > > value (and certainly no code) in his whole life. "Those who can do; > > > > > those who can't teach." This typifies the idiot Dijsktra perfectly. > > > > > And then there's you, another idiot barber on usenet. > > > >http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ > > > > Ah, good, now I don't have to insult "Fritz" over Dijsktra. Thanks! > > > > "Fritz" is an anonymous re-mailer pseudonym. If this "Fritz" is the "Fritz" > > > I believe it is, he is supposedly a real programmer - one who programs big > > > IBM "iron". Hence, I doubt he's being the "Devil's Advocate" on this one. > > > So, I think it's clear his attack on Dijsktra was to "troll" for someone, > > > perhaps me... Dijsktra and his ideas are very important to programming. > > > > Rod Pemberton- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Really? Or did he just write down what a lot of other people thought > > was obvious? > > Consider the dates; it wasn't obvious then. Dijkstra wrote much that > may be obvious now, but we've had 30, 40, nearly 50 or more years of > soaking in the stuff. > > > > > I nothing about the guy, but opinion seems quite divided about the > > chap. > > > I wonder if opinion is divided along the lines of those that went to > > university (and thus had an opportunity to study him) and those that > > didn't. Those that didn't would have simply "got on with it". > > > I read a few papers. I'm afraid it was gobbledygook to me. But I don't > > have a Phd. :-( > > You underestimate yourself. Readhttp://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD00xx/EWD28.html. > The discussion should remind you of Forth. The date of 1962 may > persuade you that no-one (with exception of Moore and Rather) was > "getting on with it" at that date. > > > > > > > One of his "papers" that I read was an account of a trip to give a > > speech to some bankers, and his travails with flight delays. I > > understood that one.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thank you Alex, I'll have a read at lunchtime! Mark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ff44e71-e160-4d1c-b8d4-336cfcc05b5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17495 |
On Friday, November 23, 2012 6:05:11 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote: > Read http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD00xx/EWD28.html. The discussion should remind you of Forth. The date of 1962 may persuade you that no-one (with exception of Moore and Rather) was "getting on with it" at that date. Thanks, Alex! That's quite interesting! I read EWD28, and it really looks like a description of "how to write a Forth language"! At the end Dijkstra writes: "... the Machine presented here is so ridiculously inefficient that every practical implementation of a practical algorithmic language in all probability can be regarded as an optimization of it" - seems to be Chuck Moore did this task of practical implementation and optimisation - as far as I know nobody else did this. This link to EWD28 has been mentioned before at c.l.f. in "Influences on Moore & other Qs" by Tony Bartolini in June 2006.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 12:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6e84c54-b3ca-4d98-a6d8-56e0ba0bf50a@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17506 |
On Nov 23, 8:13 pm, visualfo...@rocketmail.com wrote: > On Friday, November 23, 2012 6:05:11 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote: > > Readhttp://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD00xx/EWD28.html. The discussion should remind you of Forth. The date of 1962 may persuade you that no-one (with exception of Moore and Rather) was "getting on with it" at that date. > > Thanks, Alex! > That's quite interesting! I read EWD28, and it really looks like a description of "how to write a Forth language"! > > At the end Dijkstra writes: "... the Machine presented here is so ridiculously inefficient that every practical implementation of a practical algorithmic language in all probability can be regarded as an optimization of it" - seems to be Chuck Moore did this task of practical implementation and optimisation - as far as I know nobody else did this. > > This link to EWD28 has been mentioned before at c.l.f. in "Influences on Moore & other Qs" by Tony Bartolini in June 2006. Which is interesting as it clarifies a number of dates; thank you. (Incidentally I started that post, and completely forgot about about the reply you refer to. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_frm/thread/5cb273cdcfd88646/e9a2906cafb03de3?lnk=gst&q=ewd28#e9a2906cafb03de3 Moore' work was almost a decade after Dijkstra's note.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 10:43 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Ybmdnar2BORmQjLNnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #17507 |
On 11/23/12 10:24 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > On Nov 23, 8:13 pm, visualfo...@rocketmail.com wrote: >> On Friday, November 23, 2012 6:05:11 AM UTC-5, Alex McDonald wrote: >>> Readhttp://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD00xx/EWD28.html. The discussion should remind you of Forth. The date of 1962 may persuade you that no-one (with exception of Moore and Rather) was "getting on with it" at that date. >> >> Thanks, Alex! >> That's quite interesting! I read EWD28, and it really looks like a description of "how to write a Forth language"! >> >> At the end Dijkstra writes: "... the Machine presented here is so ridiculously inefficient that every practical implementation of a practical algorithmic language in all probability can be regarded as an optimization of it" - seems to be Chuck Moore did this task of practical implementation and optimisation - as far as I know nobody else did this. >> >> This link to EWD28 has been mentioned before at c.l.f. in "Influences on Moore & other Qs" by Tony Bartolini in June 2006. > > Which is interesting as it clarifies a number of dates; thank you. > (Incidentally I started that post, and completely forgot about about > the reply you refer to. > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_frm/thread/5cb273cdcfd88646/e9a2906cafb03de3?lnk=gst&q=ewd28#e9a2906cafb03de3 > > Moore' work was almost a decade after Dijkstra's note. > But AFAIK not influenced by it. Chuck had no interest in academic computer science, and did not follow the literature. In the early 70's I was giving a talk on Forth, and someone asked if this was "structured programming." I hadn't heard the term, so later I asked Chuck and he hadn't either. We researched it, found Dijkstra's papers, and Chuck said, "it just seems like good programming to me." 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 15:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <6fGdnY7ST7HbezLNnZ2dnUVZ8jCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #17508 |
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 11/23/12 10:24 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: >> >> Moore' work was almost a decade after Dijkstra's note. >> > > But AFAIK not influenced by it. The influence is indirect, I think. Dijkstra -> Burroughs 5500 -> Chuck Moore. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 13:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x3900ov5w.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17508 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> Moore' work was almost a decade after Dijkstra's note. > But AFAIK not influenced by it. Chuck had no interest in academic > computer science, and did not follow the literature. I think Chuck has mentioned Forth being influenced by Lisp, and that he studied Lisp with McCarthy in the early 1960's. Lisp was a different branch of programming evolution than the Algol branch that Dijkstra was involved in though, I guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-23 13:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73705ac6-3bc8-482c-ab1a-ec9bc2be75f0@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17511 |
On Nov 23, 9:40 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> writes: > > >> Moore' work was almost a decade after Dijkstra's note. > > But AFAIK not influenced by it. Chuck had no interest in academic > > computer science, and did not follow the literature. > > I think Chuck has mentioned Forth being influenced by Lisp, and that he > studied Lisp with McCarthy in the early 1960's. Lisp was a different > branch of programming evolution than the Algol branch that Dijkstra was > involved in though, I guess. Sure was. Dijkstra disliked Lisp intensely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web