Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29767 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-22 03:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 03:02 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-22 09:04 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2014-04-23 15:37 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-24 01:20 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-24 17:24 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-25 00:22 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 00:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-25 05:16 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 10:19 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 09:40 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 15:01 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 10:57 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 16:58 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-04-26 07:52 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-25 09:01 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:17 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:16 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-23 22:12 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 11:02 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 19:21 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 21:52 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-25 00:27 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 20:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 19:40 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 21:57 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2014-04-25 21:04 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-25 15:57 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 11:49 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-26 10:30 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-27 17:55 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-28 11:33 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-28 20:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-29 07:46 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-28 21:57 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-01 20:59 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-02 07:46 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-02 20:31 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-03 08:26 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-03 19:33 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 03:35 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-04 11:06 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 01:11 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-05 20:45 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-06 12:53 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-05-07 09:59 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:12 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-08 02:05 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-10 23:01 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-05 20:58 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-06 07:16 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-05 20:52 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:17 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 11:13 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-06 07:12 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 10:57 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-06 17:06 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 07:52 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-06 17:11 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 08:57 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:38 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:56 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 04:10 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... thomas.worthington@london.ac.uk - 2014-05-08 04:42 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 11:17 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:31 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 02:29 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 13:39 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 01:26 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 04:11 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 08:34 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 11:04 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 17:28 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:55 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-09 10:42 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 19:59 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-09 20:25 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 05:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 22:08 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-12 22:11 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-13 22:37 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-14 04:09 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-05-14 04:44 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 05:05 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-14 20:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 01:08 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-18 22:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2014-05-19 09:48 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:50 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-22 00:46 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-19 22:37 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:58 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-22 11:05 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-22 23:19 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-23 11:34 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:44 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 14:20 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-27 10:30 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 19:58 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 07:45 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-28 03:03 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:36 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-28 23:03 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-29 11:01 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-30 16:44 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-29 08:25 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:32 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:15 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 19:42 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 20:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 09:14 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:25 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-29 20:47 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 20:28 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-30 22:24 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-30 21:49 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-29 23:40 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 19:47 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-05-08 14:36 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 10:46 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-24 21:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n_k6v.167070$M93.135511@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #29811 |
On 24-Apr-14 20:21, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > I never heard of a "bug-fix rate" --- I think any respectable > programmer is going to fix bugs for free as part of the warranty, > if he has been paid for the software that he wrote. I hadn't heard of it either -- but it was something I encountered a few companies ago. I generally agree with you on actual bug-fixes *provided* that there were some solid specs. (In the past few employments 'specifications' were pretty much non-extant.) > They would routinely try to scam me with "feature inflation." With > minor changes in the specs, I would just do it, but they would try > to take advantage of this to push through as much as they could. Yeah... it would be nice to have a spec that could have feature inflation. The last project I had was so ill defined that there were serious problems with /anything/ functional, there was virtually no way to set up an underlying architecture. Having a "GUI-first" development 'strategy' only exacerbated the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-25 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xeuunuhh6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #29806 |
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:02:47 -0400, Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23-Apr-14 23:12, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >> It is sleazy salespeople who demand money for every "upgrade," which is >> really just a bug-fix. > > Ah, but it works the other way, too: > Customers can, and do, try to sneak new features into "bug-fixes"... > especially if the bug-fix rate is less than the rate for new development. A coworker at a former compnay claimed he accidentally made a serious, as in really, really, expensive, coding mistake long prior to me working there, for which he was rewarded a nice big raise - since he was also the guy who was asked to fixed the problem ... Apparently, management never learned the truth, i.e., he probably would've been fired. My dad has some phrase about those in management flipping over the table so they can be rewarded for uprighting it. I.e., the flipped table is an artificially created problem which is easily solvable. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-24 20:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b832d4a-5b49-4fce-a82b-d791c73af2a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #29804 |
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:12:19 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > I knew some programmers in Denver who had written a compiler for the 6502 a long time ago. Recently (somewhere around 2000) they got an email from some astronomers in Turkey who were still using a 6502 motion-control board to aim their telescope, and their software was written for this compiler. The Turks complained that they had upgraded their board from 32K to 48K of RAM (the prom was 16K), and they had discovered that the language couldn't make use of the extra 16K of RAM. They wanted the bug fixed. The programmers had sold this software decades ago and had forgotten about it. But they were honorable men, so they dug out the source-code for their compiler and fixed it so that it could make use of the extra memory, and they shipped the fixed software to Turkey (they had to find a floppy disk drive in storage so they could make a disk). This is how real programmers are --- they support their software. It is sleazy salespeople who demand money for every "upgrade," which is really just a bug-fix. I said that wrong. They didn't ship a floppy disk; they shipped a PROM chip. Their compiler was written on the Apple-II though, and its source-code was on a floppy disk. Fortunately the disk still worked and the source-code could be recovered, so they were able to do the upgrade. They have it stored on a CD now, and there are Apple-II emulators for modern computers, so even if all their old hardware fails they will still be able to write Apple-II software. I have some software of my own on a Colorado "streamy tape," but I no longer have a tape driver for it and they aren't manufactured anymore, so I have no way to get at my code. Eventually, a lot of old programs will be lost either because there is no hardware to read the media, or because the media has decayed and is no longer readable. The floppy disk for my UR/Forth copy (that I paid $400 for) was bent and wouldn't read. I put it between two heavy books overnight though, and I was able to read it in the disk drive the next day. If I hadn't been able to though, it would have been lost, as Laboratory Micro-Systems is out of business now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-24 19:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc188460-2ccd-4a00-994e-f1406d036c21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #29781 |
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:04:29 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 4/22/14 12:02 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > > > At the bottom of Chuck Moore's Forth - The Early Years page (http://www.colorforth.com/HOPL.html) is the following interesting line: > > > "The Forth story has the making of a morality play: Persistant young programmer struggles against indifference to discover Truth and save his suffering comrades. It gets better: Watch Forth. Inc go head to head with IBM over a French banking system." > > > Just wandering if Elizabeth (or anyone else in the know) could shed any light on Forth Inc. and French banking system" story? > Happy to. It's a good story. > ... > Subsequently, Datasaab decided that they didn't want to use proprietary > software, and some Swedish programmers attempted to program the Datasaab > devices using a FIG variant. This was unsuccessful (I don't know any of > the details), and Forth was dropped. In what way is this a "good story?" Your customer terminated your contract before the job was done, and they hired some Swedish programmers to complete the job that you had started. Isn't that an epic fail on the part of Forth Inc.? I'm working in the construction business nowadays. Generally speaking, for a subcontractor to get kicked off the job halfway through their work, is pretty damning. If a subcontractor is not very good, they may not get hired by the general contractor for any more projects --- but to actually get kicked off the job-site halfway through a project requires some major screw-ups! Has Forth Inc. ever completed a project, or does the customer always switch over to some other programmers halfway through the project? For you to get on comp.lang.forth and brag about a job that you failed at, seems to imply that failure is commonplace for you, and that you don't have any actual successes to brag about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-24 21:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <23l6v.194374$YO.109750@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #29812 |
On 24-Apr-14 20:40, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > For you to get on comp.lang.forth and brag about a job that > you failed at, seems to imply that failure is commonplace > for you, and that you don't have any actual successes to brag about. I have lots of failed projects -- of course those aren't things I was paid for and were mostly learning-projects... one of which is a Forth interpreter. (Maybe I should dig it out of mothballs.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-25 21:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qN6dnYPpns2pm8bOnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #29812 |
wrote in message
news:fc188460-2ccd-4a00-994e-f1406d036c21@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:04:29 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> ((..omitted..))
>> Happy to. It's a good story.
>
> In what way is this a "good story?" Your customer terminated your
> contract before the job
> was done, and they hired some Swedish programmers to complete the job that
> you had
> started. Isn't that an epic fail on the part of Forth Inc.?
You don't have to win for it to be a good story. It's a good story. Or, at
least, an interesting one.
- Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-25 15:57 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <5qmdnSawAovmj8bOnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29841 |
On 4/25/2014 3:04 PM, Bill Leary wrote: > wrote in message > news:fc188460-2ccd-4a00-994e-f1406d036c21@googlegroups.com... >> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:04:29 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> ((..omitted..)) >>> Happy to. It's a good story. >> >> In what way is this a "good story?" Your customer terminated your >> contract before the job >> was done, and they hired some Swedish programmers to complete the job >> that you had >> started. Isn't that an epic fail on the part of Forth Inc.? > > You don't have to win for it to be a good story. It's a good story. > Or, at least, an interesting one. Our part of the project was successfully completed. Everything worked as it was supposed to, it was accepted and we were paid. Datasaab's concern was about ongoing royalties. These were part of the initial agreement, and they had agreed on the terms, but someone in the organization decided that they would prefer a homemade Forth underneath. That is what did not work satisfactorily. 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 | Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ljgv3h$cod$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #29843 |
Elizabeth D Rather wrote: > On 4/25/2014 3:04 PM, Bill Leary wrote: >> wrote in message >> news:fc188460-2ccd-4a00-994e-f1406d036c21@googlegroups.com... >>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:04:29 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>> ((..omitted..)) >>>> Happy to. It's a good story. >>> >>> In what way is this a "good story?" Your customer terminated your >>> contract before the job >>> was done, and they hired some Swedish programmers to complete the job >>> that you had >>> started. Isn't that an epic fail on the part of Forth Inc.? >> >> You don't have to win for it to be a good story. It's a good story. >> Or, at least, an interesting one. > > Our part of the project was successfully completed. Everything worked as > it was supposed to, it was accepted and we were paid. Datasaab's concern > was about ongoing royalties. These were part of the initial agreement, > and they had agreed on the terms, but someone in the organization > decided that they would prefer a homemade Forth underneath. That is what > did not work satisfactorily. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth > Were the ongoing royalties on the software/system provided by Forth Inc? Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-26 10:30 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <HOudnYDi6ZbLisHOnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29884 |
On 4/26/14 8:49 AM, Steve Graham wrote: > Elizabeth D Rather wrote: >> On 4/25/2014 3:04 PM, Bill Leary wrote: >>> wrote in message >>> news:fc188460-2ccd-4a00-994e-f1406d036c21@googlegroups.com... >>>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:04:29 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather >>>> wrote: >>>>> ((..omitted..)) >>>>> Happy to. It's a good story. >>>> >>>> In what way is this a "good story?" Your customer terminated your >>>> contract before the job >>>> was done, and they hired some Swedish programmers to complete the job >>>> that you had >>>> started. Isn't that an epic fail on the part of Forth Inc.? >>> >>> You don't have to win for it to be a good story. It's a good story. >>> Or, at least, an interesting one. >> >> Our part of the project was successfully completed. Everything worked as >> it was supposed to, it was accepted and we were paid. Datasaab's concern >> was about ongoing royalties. These were part of the initial agreement, >> and they had agreed on the terms, but someone in the organization >> decided that they would prefer a homemade Forth underneath. That is what >> did not work satisfactorily. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth >> > > Were the ongoing royalties on the software/system provided by Forth Inc? The underlying system, yes, which was based on our products modified to run on the Datasaab hardware, with additional drivers, etc. We were not hired to write the application; we provided training for the engineers where were expected to do that (who worked for Pierre Moreton, who was promoting the project). Datasaab attempted to replace our systems with a Forth based on FIG, and it was unsuccessful. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-27 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0815567d-032a-4b19-88e5-3c3079898bf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #29843 |
On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:57:14 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D Rather wrote: > Our part of the project was successfully completed. Everything worked as > it was supposed to, it was accepted and we were paid. Datasaab's concern > was about ongoing royalties. These were part of the initial agreement, > and they had agreed on the terms, but someone in the organization > decided that they would prefer a homemade Forth underneath. That is what > did not work satisfactorily. Obviously, they didn't believe that it "worked as it was supposed to," or they wouldn't have dropped Forth Inc. and hired somebody else to start over from scratch. They hadn't gotten their money's worth. Whenever somebody steals a customer from you, you spend the rest of your life saying that they failed. You did this before in regard to a story about how you made a sales pitch for Forth Inc. to do a job and were rejected, and the job was given to some C programmers. You said that they took many months and then failed. How would you know any of this? Why would the customer keep you informed about their business after rejecting you? You are not in the loop. You are just making this stuff up! You are doing the same thing with me. I stole your customer (they weren't actually your customer as all you did was make a sales pitch, but there was no contract), and now decades later you are telling a lot of lies to the effect that I failed, the project failed, and that I'm can't program in Forth at all. How would you know any of this? My employer told me that they wanted nothing to do with you and were not talking to you. You are not in the loop. You are just making this stuff up! SwiftForth version-2 had show-stopping bugs in it. You refuse to support your product though, and you demand that your customers pay another $300 for version-3, that supposedly has the bugs fixed. This is dishonorable jew-like behavior --- you are giving the entire Forth community a bad reputation. If software has bugs in it, and it was sold for money, then the programmer has an ethical responsibility to fix the bugs (unless the programmer was getting paid an hourly wage, in which case all of the source-code is proprietary to the customer not the programmer). Demanding yet more money for an "upgrade" is unethical. Software is actually warrantied forever against bugs; the programmer can demand more money for adding new features, but has an obligation to fix any bugs that are found. Most likely, bug-ridden software is why Forth Inc. got dropped in the story that you told above --- most likely, Forth Inc. does this on *every* job, and eventually gets dropped by the customer, and somebody else gets hired to start over from scratch (and you spend the rest of your life denouncing those programmers as failures).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <535e3b1f.418841281@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #29922 |
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 17:55:12 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: rant, rant, rant deleted Your constant ranting against Elizabeth is now despicable. I could argue that it reveals more about your character and politics than about other people. Please stop it and behave like an adult. You occasionally have interesting technical things to say. While these are accompanied by filth, I and many others will continue to ignore you. My flame-proof suit is in good order. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <335e094a-9b36-42ae-b92e-08b16bbb0b9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #29935 |
On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:33:56 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > My flame-proof suit is in good order. I'm not going to flame you. I'm just going to ask you if you agree with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data-structures in my novice package in this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/OSGAn7bsDU0 On Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:09:59 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/26/13 2:27 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > > In article <043a32ac-c009-4aff-beda-aa4041daadcb@googlegroups.com>, > > <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:44:35 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >>> But my point is that you can define data objects to behave *exactly* the > >>> way you want them to, to solve the problem at hand. > > >> I totally disagree with this. It is foolish to custom-implement basic > >> data structures such as arrays for every application. It is easy to > >> write a general-purpose array or linked-list or whatever, that works > >> exactly the way that you want it to for *every* application. > Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data > arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it > often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or > modify your "general-purpose" structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-29 07:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <535f57a1.491675324@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #29947 |
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:53:00 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >I'm not going to flame you. I'm just going to ask you if you agree >with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data-structures in my novice >package in this thread: >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/OSGAn7bsDU0 > >On Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:09:59 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 9/26/13 2:27 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> > In article <043a32ac-c009-4aff-beda-aa4041daadcb@googlegroups.com>, >> > <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:44:35 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> >>> But my point is that you can define data objects to behave *exactly* the >> >>> way you want them to, to solve the problem at hand. >> >> >> I totally disagree with this. It is foolish to custom-implement basic >> >> data structures such as arrays for every application. It is easy to >> >> write a general-purpose array or linked-list or whatever, that works >> >> exactly the way that you want it to for *every* application. > >> Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data >> arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it >> often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or >> modify your "general-purpose" structure. I'm only responding to the text above, not to the complete thread. I believe that a data structure tool is part of the basic tool set required for most applications. The point that Forth is flexible enough to build whatever definer you want is still valid. Having a standard data structure definer is not a contradiction of the supposed positions above. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-28 21:57 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <dImdnaw5UZ7OxsLOnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #29953 |
On 4/28/14 9:46 PM, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:53:00 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com > wrote: > >> I'm not going to flame you. I'm just going to ask you if you agree >> with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data-structures in my novice >> package in this thread: >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/OSGAn7bsDU0 >> >> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:09:59 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> On 9/26/13 2:27 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: >>>> In article <043a32ac-c009-4aff-beda-aa4041daadcb@googlegroups.com>, >>>> <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:44:35 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>>>> But my point is that you can define data objects to behave *exactly* the >>>>>> way you want them to, to solve the problem at hand. >>> >>>>> I totally disagree with this. It is foolish to custom-implement basic >>>>> data structures such as arrays for every application. It is easy to >>>>> write a general-purpose array or linked-list or whatever, that works >>>>> exactly the way that you want it to for *every* application. >> >>> Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data >>> arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it >>> often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or >>> modify your "general-purpose" structure. > > I'm only responding to the text above, not to the complete thread. > I believe that a data structure tool is part of the basic tool set > required for most applications. > > The point that Forth is flexible enough to build whatever definer > you want is still valid. > > Having a standard data structure definer is not a contradiction of the > supposed positions above. Sure. Basic tools for the most common structures are convient. But since it is uniquely easy in Forth to make custom data structures, really only the most common needs have to be met off-the-shelf. Even my intro class students can get a 2-dimensional array with bounds checking done from scratch in about an hour using just CREATE ... DOES>. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-01 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <752b4950-8453-4eeb-8dc8-5b55264fd215@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #29954 |
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:57:06 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Sure. Well, Elizabeth Rather interprets your response to be 100% agreement with her critique of my data-structures in my novice package. This was your response: > On 4/28/14 9:46 PM, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > I'm only responding to the text above, not to the complete thread. > > I believe that a data structure tool is part of the basic tool set > > required for most applications. > > > The point that Forth is flexible enough to build whatever definer > > you want is still valid. > > > Having a standard data structure definer is not a contradiction of the > > supposed positions above. I'm not such a quick study though. I read your response three times and was completely baffled as to what you were saying. Were you agreeing with her, or not agreeing? I gave you a yes/no question, and your response did not include either "yes" or "no." Be an adult: stop waffling and answer the question! (note: Because you're British, I'm using the word "waffle" in the British sense.) Lets focus our laser-like minds on the question: > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:53:00 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com > > wrote: > >> I'm not going to flame you. I'm just going to ask you if you agree > >> with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data-structures in my novice > >> package... > >> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:09:59 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >>> Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data > >>> arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it > >>> often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or > >>> modify your "general-purpose" structure. Stephen Pelc, the time has come for you to drink the Kool-Aid --- if you are going to be a member of Elizabeth Rather's cult, you have to be willing to lie for her. Everybody else finds this to be easy. They would say "yes" without a moment's hesitation. It would be a no-brainer! But you waffle and strive to avoid saying either yes or no, while appearing to have answered the question. Why can't you just say "yes" and get it over with? Do you think that you are better than the other members? I'll give you big enticement. If you unequivocally state that you agree with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data structures in my novice package, I will promise to never post any messages on comp.lang.forth ever again. How easy is that? It is just one little word: "yes." Spit it out!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-02 07:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53634c06.750848583@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #30052 |
On Thu, 1 May 2014 20:59:40 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >Stephen Pelc, the time has come for you to drink the Kool-Aid --- if you ar= >e going to be a member of Elizabeth Rather's cult, you have to be willing t= >o lie for her.=20 Have you stopped beating your wife? Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-02 20:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <027cdcfc-bdbd-48ff-a1db-0d42b23ef4d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #29953 |
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:46:14 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:53:00 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com > wrote: > > >I'm not going to flame you. I'm just going to ask you if you agree > >with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data-structures in my novice > >package in this thread: > >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/OSGAn7bsDU0 > > >On Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:09:59 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 9/26/13 2:27 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > >> > In article <043a32ac-c009-4aff-beda-aa4041daadcb@googlegroups.com>, > >> > <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:44:35 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> >>> But my point is that you can define data objects to behave *exactly* the > >> >>> way you want them to, to solve the problem at hand. > > >> >> I totally disagree with this. It is foolish to custom-implement basic > >> >> data structures such as arrays for every application. It is easy to > >> >> write a general-purpose array or linked-list or whatever, that works > >> >> exactly the way that you want it to for *every* application. > >> Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data > >> arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it > >> often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or > >> modify your "general-purpose" structure. Do you understand how offensive I find this statement to be? She really doesn't have the slightest idea how to write a general-purpose data-structure (one that can work with records containing any data arranged in any manner). She is dragging the entire Forth community as well as myself down to her own level of incompetence. Because she is the "leading expert on Forth" (her self-description, but apparently accepted by yourself and everybody else on the Forth-200x committee), the general public is going to believe her --- I really can't accept this. Why did you jump into this thread and offer your support for Elizabeth Rather? I said on the Forth-200x mailing list that I have respect for anybody who has the courage of their convictions. But you don't! Now that you are here, you lack the courage to answer a simple yes/no question. If you are going to associate with a liar, then you will eventually have to lie too --- this is what I meant by "drink the Kool-Aid" --- you wanted to support her, but then you balked at agreeing with her gross lie about how the data-structures in my novice package work. Your moral outrage fizzled out, and you descended into waffling and equivocation. > I'm only responding to the text above, not to the complete thread. > I believe that a data structure tool is part of the basic tool set > required for most applications. The term "data structure tool" is completely meaningless, making your whole statement meaningless. This is called "waffling." You are just dodging the question, and not very artfully. > The point that Forth is flexible enough to build whatever definer > you want is still valid. You have no right to use the word "Forth" as a synonym for ANS-Forth!!! This is grossly offensive!!! ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are just screwed up versions of Forth --- you don't own Forth --- you have no right to imply that you do. Your use of the word "Forth" as if you define the term is just as offensive as when Elizabeth Rather describes herself as the "leading expert on Forth." Both of you are tied to ANS-Forth, not to Forth. ANS-Forth lacks quotations. There is no good way for the quotation to communicate with the creator function. In my novice package I work around this failure of ANS-Forth by using the data-stack for communication, but this requires that the pseudo-quotation (what I called a "toucher" in the novice package documentation, or what Payson fakes up as as "quotation" although it isn't a quotation) has to hold all of its internal data on the return stack or in local variables, which is cumbersome and inefficient. Also, the creator function has to call the pseudo-quotation directly, without any intermediate layers of functions in there. The whole business is just a clumsy work-around for a major failing in the ANS-Forth standard. ANS-Forth is not flexible enough to build whatever definer you want. There is no reason that Forth can't have quotations though. There is a big difference between ANS-Forth, which is a document telling us what we can't do, and Forth which is a concept telling us what we can do. > Having a standard data structure definer is not a contradiction of the > supposed positions above. The term "standard data structure definer" is also meaningless, making this statement meaningless too. Just more waffling. Stop waffling and give me a serious answer! Is this the way that you respond to questions from your customers? If you waffle and blow hot air at them, they are going to dump you in the same way that Forth Inc.'s customers dumped Forth Inc. in Elizabeth Rather's "good story" given at the beginning of this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-03 08:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5364a7a4.839838714@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #30067 |
On Fri, 2 May 2014 20:31:07 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: rant, rant, rant I'll talk to you when you are polite *and* interesting. I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. (George Bernard Shaw) Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-03 19:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4806c4fd-09f0-45d4-b8a0-b14dabe6fcd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30070 |
On Saturday, May 3, 2014 1:26:08 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> I'll talk to you when you are polite *and* interesting.
In like a lion, out like a lamb.
You jumped in because you wanted to support your leader Elizabeth Rather, but then you balked at agreeing with her critique of my data-structures in my novice package, despite the fact that I promised you an instawin and said that I would never visit comp.lang.forth again if you agreed with her critique. I made winning so easy for you, but still you failed to defeat me!
Forth-200x is a cult. It is all about loyalty to the leader, but none of the members want to discuss the leader's philosophy publicly ("my point is that you can define data objects to behave *exactly* the way you want them to, to solve the problem at hand") because they know that it is nonsense and that a public discussion with anybody above the ultra-novice level (even a cab-driver) will make them look like blooming idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-04 03:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <586bd91c-4fd5-40cb-9785-9d267dabf5a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30076 |
Does every thread end up like this ? I guess the godwin point apply here too. So : Hitler Now keep calm and eat chocolate. Because who care if someone is wrong on the Intertube ? -- Ker2x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web