Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #20102 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-02-28 11:35 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-03-08 04:22 -0500 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 95 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-02-28 11:35 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 20:46 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-01 19:33 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-02 03:33 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-03 18:09 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-03 15:01 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-04 03:06 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-03-04 11:38 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-02 11:34 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-03-02 13:47 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-02 14:07 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-02 12:38 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-02 15:50 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-02 22:11 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-03 02:51 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-03 14:56 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-03 22:42 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-03 22:02 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 00:19 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-05 00:14 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 16:34 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-07 18:04 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-08 01:31 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 14:41 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-09 17:04 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-08 02:19 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-08 04:25 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-08 03:35 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-08 06:58 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-03-08 20:57 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-03 11:25 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-03 15:13 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-03-04 20:55 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-04 15:17 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-03-05 00:27 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-04 18:41 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:49 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-05 02:59 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-05 06:58 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-02 14:50 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-03 11:06 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-03 14:17 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-02 17:55 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-02 20:24 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-03 14:25 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-03-03 16:27 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-03 15:15 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-03 13:41 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-03-10 00:51 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-10 04:35 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-03-10 20:56 -0700
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-11 03:47 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-03-13 23:48 -0700
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-13 21:01 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-03-14 00:23 -0700
Re: State and the standard ... Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-03-14 09:18 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-11-21 14:26 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-14 03:34 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-14 11:25 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2013-03-11 01:51 -0700
Re: State and the standard ... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-10 03:03 -0700
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-07 18:00 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-03 22:49 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-03-05 00:18 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-04 18:44 -0600
intelligent COMPILE, and smart COMPILE, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-04 17:52 +0000
Re: intelligent COMPILE, and smart COMPILE, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-05 00:49 +0100
Re: intelligent COMPILE, and smart COMPILE, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-05 10:55 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-02 22:22 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-02 17:37 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-03 18:08 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 16:26 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... Michael L Gassanenko <m_l_g3@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-04 23:08 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-05 10:47 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-05 08:11 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-05 13:44 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-05 09:26 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... Michael L Gassanenko <m_l_g3@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-07 04:24 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-03-07 09:42 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-07 08:16 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 17:14 +0000
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-08 08:57 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-09 17:31 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-09 12:28 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-09 21:41 +0100
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-06 17:51 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-06 13:13 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-06 17:51 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-06 13:12 -1000
Re: State and the standard ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-05 18:18 -0600
Re: State and the standard ... Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-06 08:22 -0800
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-06 17:49 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-06 17:56 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-06 18:17 -0500
Re: State and the standard ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-08 04:22 -0500
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-08 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Mar8.181401@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #20405 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>Second, many academic and free-lance Forth programmers devote their
>energies to developing kernels, rather than writing sharable application
>code.
>
>The current Forth standards make it possible to share and reuse code.
>It's the choice of the programmers whether they want to make use of this
>capability.
Now why is that? Why do other languages have a thriving culture of
sharing reusable code and Forth doesn't?
One of the reasons is that the idea of code reuse is despised by a
significant part of the Forth community, according to lore starting
with Charles Moore.
Another reason is that there are still things missing in the standard
that would make sharing and reusing code easy. Some suggestions for
features in that area have been met with indifference or hostility,
and that probably comes from the culture mentioned above.
If someone proposes a feature that is useful for writing or combining
several reusable libraries, that feature is often opposed with the
argument that it just takes a few seconds to write or change the three
lines that having this feature would automate.
There are also people writing that the standard is not about portable
programs, but portable programmers, implying that features that allow
porting programs are unnecessary. The whole concept of taking a
program and running it unchanged on another system on another platform
appears alien and not desirable to a significant part of the Forth
community.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-08 08:57 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <gPudnX1JHdEqqafMnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20452 |
On 3/8/13 7:14 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> Second, many academic and free-lance Forth programmers devote their >> energies to developing kernels, rather than writing sharable application >> code. >> >> The current Forth standards make it possible to share and reuse code. >> It's the choice of the programmers whether they want to make use of this >> capability. > > Now why is that? Why do other languages have a thriving culture of > sharing reusable code and Forth doesn't? Several reasons, IMO: * Other languages produce precompiled binary libraries intended to be processed by a linker, so compiler compatibility isn't much of an issue. The absence of a linker requirement in Forth is a major convenience to most of us, but there are consequences. * There are larger communities of programmers in other languages, because universities embraced them more, and academia is a major source of distributed code. * Since so many people in the Forth community insist on writing their own kernels, and further insist on incorporating their own quirks, it's been hard to achieve compatibility at high levels. People complain that Forth standards are pretty low-level, even though very high level work is being done in Forth. This is why. Languages for which it's hard to write compilers suffer from this much less. * Since it's so easy to write common procedures in Forth, they tend to be tightly adapted to the application for which they're developed, which makes them less amenable to sharing. > One of the reasons is that the idea of code reuse is despised by a > significant part of the Forth community, according to lore starting > with Charles Moore. That is not entirely true. Chuck carried around with him a large library of things he had written in the past (in the 70's, a notebook full of microfiches and a reader!), and always started with past code when he could. Of course, then he re-wrote it for the application at hand (see my last point above). And everyone I know who is spending a career writing Forth applications has a bulging "back pocket" of reusable code. FORTH, Inc., MPE, and probably most other widely used systems have such libraries. > Another reason is that there are still things missing in the standard > that would make sharing and reusing code easy. Some suggestions for > features in that area have been met with indifference or hostility, > and that probably comes from the culture mentioned above. Probably because the perceived need for additional library tools just isn't all that strong. > If someone proposes a feature that is useful for writing or combining > several reusable libraries, that feature is often opposed with the > argument that it just takes a few seconds to write or change the three > lines that having this feature would automate. Yep. See above. > There are also people writing that the standard is not about portable > programs, but portable programmers, implying that features that allow > porting programs are unnecessary. The whole concept of taking a > program and running it unchanged on another system on another platform > appears alien and not desirable to a significant part of the Forth > community. What's a portable *program*? If it's a program of any significance, it has a user interface that's dependent on an underlying host OS and the language interface to it. Or it's an application that supports special hardware, proprietary protocols, etc. Tell me about all the whole C programs that run on any platform with any C compiler without change. Portable capabilities are possible in Forth and exist, about as much as there is a demand for them. 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 | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-09 17:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <khfo4b$fvs$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #20461 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> There are also people writing that the standard is not about portable >> programs, but portable programmers, implying that features that allow >> porting programs are unnecessary. The whole concept of taking a >> program and running it unchanged on another system on another platform >> appears alien and not desirable to a significant part of the Forth >> community. > > What's a portable *program*? If it's a program of any significance, it > has a user interface that's dependent on an underlying host OS and the > language interface to it. Or it's an application that supports special > hardware, proprietary protocols, etc. Tell me about all the whole C > programs that run on any platform with any C compiler without change. Yes, but let's consider reality. If I write a C program for Linux, I have two free compilers to use, and two proprietary: clang or gcc for the free ones, Portland or Intel's C compiler for proprietary. They are pretty interchangeable, as they all support at least most GCC extensions (which is also somewhat true for GCC itself, it sometimes doesn't support all GCC extensions ;-). I tried compiling Gforth on clang a few months ago, and there were only some minor quirks, easy to fix. clang is still not as good as GCC, concerning code quality, and it's also a lot slower to compile the engine. Compare that to porting MINOS to VFX. Yes, we have the situation here that everybody writes his own kernel and adds own quirks (like MPE's source code tokenzier), and I'm definitely in Anton's camp here: I would rather advise to fix these quirks instead of working around them. If we have less quirky systems, our programs would be more portable. And when comparing Forth systems, VFX is certainly one of the least quirky ones, and certainly also not one of those which you can easily rewrite yourself in an afternoon - not with the analytical compiler. For sure, a common C interface syntax would do us all good, to write non- trivial portable programs on hosted systems. I've recently done work with stranger C libraries than I was used to, i.e not as neat and clean as OpenGL, but something like the JNI interface. A C++-style library written in C. Function pointers in structs, callbacks, structs passed as arguments (*not* pointers to structs, structs as such)... and you absolutely need to call Java if you have a serious Forth application on Android. The good point: After you have managed to access the JNI library, the calls to Java from Forth are actually easier than the calls to C from Forth. I use my current-object principle, so it feels like a Forth-OOP system. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-09 12:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <BeidnRaHMMin4qbMnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20493 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> There are also people writing that the standard is not about portable >>> programs, but portable programmers, implying that features that allow >>> porting programs are unnecessary. The whole concept of taking a >>> program and running it unchanged on another system on another platform >>> appears alien and not desirable to a significant part of the Forth >>> community. >> >> What's a portable *program*? If it's a program of any significance, it >> has a user interface that's dependent on an underlying host OS and the >> language interface to it. Or it's an application that supports special >> hardware, proprietary protocols, etc. Tell me about all the whole C >> programs that run on any platform with any C compiler without change. > > Yes, but let's consider reality. If I write a C program for Linux, I have > two free compilers to use, and two proprietary: clang or gcc for the free > ones, Portland or Intel's C compiler for proprietary. They are pretty > interchangeable, I presume you mean GUN/Linux, not some other OS running on a Linux kernel (they do exist). That is is a very constrained and well- defined environment, so this hypothetical C program is nobody's idea of a portable program. It's portable only in the sense that it's not written in assembly language. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-09 21:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <khg6pe$qii$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #20496 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: >> Yes, but let's consider reality. If I write a C program for Linux, I >> have two free compilers to use, and two proprietary: clang or gcc for the >> free >> ones, Portland or Intel's C compiler for proprietary. They are pretty >> interchangeable, > > I presume you mean GUN/Linux, not some other OS running on a Linux > kernel (they do exist). And some are quite popular, like Android. The first port of Gforth to Android was using the AndroidTerm as environment, and on that layer, there is very little difference to a GNU/Linux. The libc lacks a few syscall bindings, like ppoll. There's now even an Xserver app (beta) if you want graphics ;-). Libraries have no version numbers, which means you have to change four lines in libtool to make it work on Android. Let's face it: To port Gforth to Android was a piece of cake - as text console Forth. The hard work was to let Gforth actually *use* the features the Android userland provides, and allow it to be installed as app. That's because Android's userland is about as vendor-lock-in as Window's. Maybe even more, because you are supposed to write your app in Java. In a particular Java dialect, where many things are done quite differently... > That is is a very constrained and well- > defined environment, so this hypothetical C program is nobody's idea > of a portable program. It's portable only in the sense that it's not > written in assembly language. If you go further, and say, you write a program for POSIX, you still have a very similar situation. You might need tools like autoconf, since C is not an interactive environment, and therefore adapting the source to what's available doesn't work out of the box, but in Forth, something like autoconf isn't necessary. If you want to know if a word is available, use [defined], if you want to know whether it behaves to a particular spec, test it. Popular options have what we call "Normative Kraft des Faktischen" (Kant, translated as "normative power/force of the factual") in Germany, and gcc's extensions proliferated, because it is/was the de-facto standard compiler for many unixoid systems, clearly beyond GNU/Linux. This sort of things make programs more portable, because the other vendors simply give up insisting on the quirks in their system. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh8h5q$u1s$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20309 |
"Rob Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com> wrote in message news:alpine.BSF.2.00.1303051331000.69374@yoko.controlq.com... > State and immediacy appear to be fundamental, > and apparently anything else would not be Forth. State as a variable or concept is fundamental, but only if you have _both_ compile and interactive modes. It's the result of needing both. If you have a compile only Forth, then you'd only have a single state. I.e., C doesn't have an interpreter or interactive state. It's compile only. It has one state. Rod Pemberotn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 13:13 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <-4CdnZrFwLk1UKrMnZ2dnUVZ_rcAAAAA@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20365 |
On 3/6/13 12:51 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Rob Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com> wrote in message > news:alpine.BSF.2.00.1303051331000.69374@yoko.controlq.com... > >> State and immediacy appear to be fundamental, >> and apparently anything else would not be Forth. > > State as a variable or concept is fundamental, but only if you > have _both_ compile and interactive modes. It's the result of > needing both. If you have a compile only Forth, then you'd only > have a single state. I.e., C doesn't have an interpreter or > interactive state. It's compile only. It has one state. Correct. Forth is naturally interactive; that's why most of us like it. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh8h4p$tvr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20306 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message news:FZCdnYUiv_nxqKvMnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@supernews.com... > On 3/5/13 5:47 AM, Rob Sciuk wrote: ... > > Just as Esparanto was created as a "normalized" human > > language, with no "irregular" verb conjugations (as compared > > to English, or any of the Latin based languages), I was > > wondering if Forth could be made entirely consistent, > > without "classes" of defining words. > > And we can all see how popular it's been, as a result, yes? > Right up there with Klingon and Elvish. > Wait a minute ... I though you guys (and gal) said Forth wasn't a popularity constest. I'd think that's especially true considering it lost the "programming wars". Let's do an "Andrew Haley" on that last statement Ms. Rather. We could replace Esparanto with Forth, Klingon with C, and Elvish with Java, and we'd get the same result: "And we can all see how popular [Forth has] been, as a result, yes? Right up there with [C] and [Java].'' Hilarious! Forth apparently is "a way", "a path", "a faith", "a religion", a "set of beliefs accepted as truth without basis". Right? ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 13:12 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <-4CdnZvFwLnEUKrMnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20364 |
On 3/6/13 12:51 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message ... > Forth apparently is "a way", "a path", "a faith", "a religion", a > "set of beliefs accepted as truth without basis". Right? ... Forth is a programming language that has enabled significant projects to be done significantly faster than estimates by C experts; we have the estimates and the actual billings to prove it. Many people have found it useful in their careers. Nobody is forcing you to use it. 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 | 2013-03-05 18:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d_ednbZaSa3yFqvMnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20293 |
Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Michael L Gassanenko wrote: > >> From: Michael L Gassanenko <m_l_g3@yahoo.com> >> >> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:35:32 PM UTC+4, Rob Sciuk wrote: >>> How might one describe a standardized language similar to Forth in such a >>> way as to avoid the run-time/compile-time semantics, but still allow >>> create/does type extensibility? Am I missing something obvious? >> >> You can get rid of the variable STATE , but you will introduce something >> that 1) will not be less complex 2) will be incompatible with the language >> the other people use. (I mean, unless you invent something completely new, >> in which case you probably will have only '2'). > > State, as indicated by a state variable is the simplest approach to the > problem, and in that regard, was the first solution hit upon. It's not the simplest by any means. STATEless Forth is cleaner and simpler, but it's not a big deal. > Interpretation is a boon, IMHO, and ridding Forth proper of > interpretation is retrograde, Indeed. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 08:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32c420b5-5e71-47d8-849f-34ce820b9f20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20329 |
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:18:55 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > > It's not the simplest by any means. STATEless Forth is cleaner and > simpler, but it's not a big deal. > Like the cross compilers. The state is in the search order instead of a variable, which makes it easier to build on top of an ANS Forth. But then if you want manipulate the search order it gets complicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 17:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kh8h24$tqu$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20293 |
"Rob Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com> wrote in message news:alpine.BSF.2.00.1303051030270.69374@yoko.controlq.com... > My question was intended to open a discussion (which seems to > have worked) to question some long held truths, and in hopes of > improving Forth rather than to damage it. I believe that the > approach above is exactly the kind of thing I'd hoped to > avoid -- confuscation is never good. > Q: non-word "confuscation" --> obfuscation + confiscate ... ? RP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 17:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1303061755420.91819@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #20363 |
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Rod Pemberton wrote: > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 17:49:39 -0500 > From: Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > Subject: Re: State and the standard ... > > "Rob Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com> wrote in message > news:alpine.BSF.2.00.1303051030270.69374@yoko.controlq.com... > >> My question was intended to open a discussion (which seems to >> have worked) to question some long held truths, and in hopes of >> improving Forth rather than to damage it. I believe that the >> approach above is exactly the kind of thing I'd hoped to >> avoid -- confuscation is never good. >> > > Q: non-word "confuscation" --> obfuscation + confiscate ... ? > > > RP YUP! Noticed after I launched, but didn't want to clutter up the thread. Simple brain-fart ... R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 18:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1303061813041.91819@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #20363 |
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Rod Pemberton wrote: > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 17:49:39 -0500 > From: Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > Subject: Re: State and the standard ... > > "Rob Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com> wrote in message > news:alpine.BSF.2.00.1303051030270.69374@yoko.controlq.com... > >> My question was intended to open a discussion (which seems to >> have worked) to question some long held truths, and in hopes of >> improving Forth rather than to damage it. I believe that the >> approach above is exactly the kind of thing I'd hoped to >> avoid -- confuscation is never good. >> > > Q: non-word "confuscation" --> obfuscation + confiscate ... ? > > > RP On further reflection, I declare this to be a new word. Henceforth, the following will have meaning: CONFUSCATION: A political act. Verb: to CONFUSCATE You may use it without royalties. Rob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-08 04:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <khcagb$28n$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #20371 |
"Rob Sciuk" <rob@controlq.com> wrote in message news:alpine.BSF.2.00.1303061813041.91819@yoko.controlq.com... > On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> My question was intended to open a discussion (which seems to > >> have worked) to question some long held truths, and in hopes > >> of improving Forth rather than to damage it. I believe that > >> the approach above is exactly the kind of thing I'd hoped to > >> avoid -- confuscation is never good. > >> > > > > Q: non-word "confuscation" --> obfuscation + confiscate ... ? > > > On further reflection, I declare this to be a new word. > Henceforth, the following will have meaning: > > CONFUSCATION: A political act. > Verb: to CONFUSCATE > > You may use it without royalties. > You're too late: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=confuscate http://s1ngularity.blogspot.com/2004/01/confuscation.html :-) RP
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web