Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #30067 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-02 20:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 87 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-30 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b4b7d5d-bb94-416b-956b-4cd4d0134b74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31051 |
On Friday, May 30, 2014 2:24:01 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 30/05/2014 04:28, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > If you give me your word that you will keep it to yourself, I will tell you > > in private correspondence how lambda functions can be implemented efficiently. > > Thanks for the offer but I don't think I'll accept it, I wouldn't like > to inadvertently give your ideas away. I prefer to work and communicate > in an open way without having to worry about what I can and can't say. That is understandable. Forth-200x committee members, including Pelc, consider you to be a Forth programmer --- so you can write Forth code and be considered to be the Forth programmer who wrote the Forth code. All of them have said that I am not a Forth programmer and never will be a Forth programmer --- so I can't really publicize Forth code because they would steal it and say that they are the first Forth programmers to have written the code. > Anyway I'm not planning to implement closures in the immediate future - > plenty of other things to do. You would only be interested in what I'm doing if you were going to get involved. What I'm doing can't be pasted on top of ANS-Forth as a library extension due to problems with the ANS-Forth design. > Presumably you received the sequence diagram I emailed. I got it --- thanks. I will delve into your code again this weekend --- I don't really have much time during the week due to my job. > > I have already seen code of mine, and my invented algorithm, posted on C.L.F. > > with my name removed from the copyright notice: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.forth/LC53%7Csort:relevance/comp.lang.forth/wP5nw1ClzsM/E-TV9v2y9RoJ > > I would be annoyed too. You are the first person to have ever said anything supportive of my position on the LC53 issue. My position being that I invented it and wrote it. Nobody else credits me with having written any of that code, on the basis that I'm not a Forth programmer, which would make it impossible for me to have written Forth code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lm8kgg$pth$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30318 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Indeed, that was the case. All technical decisions were made by a > Technical Subcommittee or TSC (which included all TC members plus > visitors and operated much less formally). It was chaired by Greg Bailey > who, for those who don't know him, is no tool of anybody. All proposals > passed by the TSC had to be formally ratified by the membership of the > TC itself, and ANSI rules required "consensus" (which we interpreted to > be a 75% majority). There were typically 16-18 voting members at a > meeting, including vendors (FORTH, Inc., Creative Solutions, MPE later > on, several others), users (companies ranging fron Ford Motor Co., > Western Union, NASA, and others to many small businesses), and > organizations (FIG, several FIG subgroups). FORTH, Inc. had one vote. > > When we started publishing drafts for public review, all public comments > and our responses were reviewed by ANSI. The Standard became final only > when there were no more technical changes as a result of a last 4-mo. > public review. The Forth200x follows loosely the ANSI rules. We don't have a separation between TC and TSC. Anton Ertl is the chair, Peter Knaggs the editor. All members are individuals, i.e. one man, one vote. There's one man from Forth Inc, and one from MPE. The Gforth team has three votes (Anton, Gerald and me), and the German Forth Gesellschaft two (Ullrich and me, but then, I have only one vote in total). We follow a rough consensus principle, as well, but it is somewhat different. Usually, we discuss until we reach a good consensus. If you look at the minutes, you see that there is rarely (if ever) more than one abstain or dissenting vote; most of the votes are 100% consensus. The idea here is that standard codifies common practice, so when people couldn't agree on something, it is not standard. So there is noone who has a veto right, but the Gforth team and the Forth Gesellschaft by those implicit rules could veto as group. But so would any other informal group, like the Windows/commercial software group against the Linux/free software group (we had such a division in Exeter, where for some reason all the free software guys were on one side of the table, and the commercial software guys were all on the other side of the table - this made several discussions harder than necessary ;-). BTW: There's a mistake in the list of meeting places on www.forth200x.org: The two meetings in Haus Rissen, Hamburg, are announced to habe been in "Essen". That needs to be fixed. The actual meeting notes correctly identify the location as "Hamburg". -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15efdbe2-370d-4d8c-b5dd-8dc8548e167a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30974 |
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:40:38 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: >If you look at the minutes, you see that there is rarely (if > ever) more than one abstain or dissenting vote; most of the votes are 100% > consensus. Sheep!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 14:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bt1fjoF1858U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #30167 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:29:19 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: >> >> A language is interesting if it changes the way you think about >> programming. By that standard, Forth is definitely interesting. > > That's totally true! Forth changed not only my thinking about programming, > but my programming habits, too. It's a great feature of Forth that, once a > word is properly defined and tested, it can be trusted always. It always > will work. Don't forget the proviso's to that statement Dirk. This assumes that the words on which you have built your new word do not change intrinsic behaviour underneath the word you so defined and tested. There may be a problem relying on this facet if you have DEFERed words in the mix that can have behaviour changes during operation. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 10:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30975083-6310-405a-b4c4-3bdf417b95c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30190 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 9:36:56 AM UTC-4, Paul E Bennett wrote: > visualforth.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:29:19 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > >> A language is interesting if it changes the way you think about > >> programming. By that standard, Forth is definitely interesting. > > > That's totally true! Forth changed not only my thinking about programming, > > but my programming habits, too. It's a great feature of Forth that, once a > > word is properly defined and tested, it can be trusted always. It always > > will work. > > Don't forget the proviso's to that statement Dirk. This assumes that the > words on which you have built your new word do not change intrinsic > behaviour underneath the word you so defined and tested. There may be a > problem relying on this facet if you have DEFERed words in the mix that can > have behaviour changes during operation. Thanks for reminding me of DEFERed words. Of course DEFERed words have to be properly tested, too, to maintain integrity - and of course DEFERed words have to have the same stack interface and an equivalent habit. Up to now I am only using DEFERed word inside the 4E4th-IDE, which is a huge program, and sometimes definitions can only be made at a later time. Then DEFER comes in handy - and functionality is guaranteed. Another use of DEFERed words is for the vectorization of links, as to change the I/O of KEY, EMIT, and the like, to communicate with other channels than the console. In these cases the behavior at the stack interface is the same, but the used word's behavior may be totally different. It even may consist of a DROP only to remove the calling word's stack values.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7781be71-1ee0-416a-8b2b-ce4b9632d2e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30138 |
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 12:23:12 AM UTC-7, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote: > On Monday, May 5, 2014 11:58:34 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > > > The whole philosophy of Forth revolves around using minimal hardware > > resources, including machinery and culture that gets people to "redefine > > the problem" to suppress unnecessary features. Targeting minimal hardware was an issue in the past, but it isn't anymore --- a processor such as the MSP430 is pretty minimal hardware by modern standards, yet it is vastly more powerful than the "big" micro-controllers of only a few years ago --- the MSP430 actually has twice as many registers as the PDP-11, that was considered a "mini-computer" in its day. A lot of cool features, such as quotations, require that the processor have 16 registers for an efficient implementation --- most of this stuff would be very difficult to implement efficiently on a processor with 8 registers, such as the PDP-11 or 32-bit x86. > The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. > > I have another philosophy of Forth: > > For me Forth is a disruptive programming language, a different approach on programming - it is not a variation of other programming languages. I agree with what Dirk says about Forth being different in a good way. I have stuck with Forth since 1984 --- I wouldn't have done that if Forth was just Pascal-with-RPN --- Forth really has some good ideas in it, that are largely absent from other languages (although interactive testing is now appearing in a lot of scripting languages, whereas that was originally only found in Forth and Lisp). On the other hand though, I think that we can learn from other languages. I was really amazed by what quotations can do --- if I hadn't ventured into Factor however, I would never have know about the concept --- now I want to have quotations in Forth. I said before that I see a need for a new Forth standard that makes a clean break from ANS-Forth. My #1 priority with this new standard is to support quotations. I suggest the name "Lambda Forth" for this standard. Quotations aren't just a new feature, but they are a new philosophy (a philosophy of supporting general-purpose data-structures) --- this is why it is important for the new standard to break from ANS-Forth, rather than to try to tack quotations onto ANS-Forth (as Payson did with his fake quotations that fail to have access to the creator function's local variables). There are a lot of languages available that have closures (Scheme/Lisp leading the way), but I don't think that is a good idea. A closure requires that the local variable frame be on the heap, and that it be GC'd, all of which is grossly inefficient. This allows the closure to out-live its creator function, but that is a solution to a non-problem, as we already have anonymous functions (:NONAME in Forth) to do that. What I want from Lambda Forth is efficiency (never a strong-point for Scheme/Lisp), while yet having the lambda functions that I found so useful in Factor. Also, most (maybe all) of the languages that implement lambda functions are also dynamic-OOP, which is grossly inefficient --- but there is no reason why quotations have to be in a dynamic-OOP language --- there is a real need for a language with with static typing (or implied typing as in Forth), while yet having lambda functions. I know how to implement this; I have already got this implemented in my own language --- the full ready-to-use language won't be available for a while though, as there is quite a lot of work involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405041340410.67644@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #30076 |
On Sat, 3 May 2014, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 19:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: hughaguilar96@yahoo.com
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
> Subject: Re: One for Elizabeth...
>
> 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.
Hugh, Stephen has a very good point.
I have for some time totally ignored *ALL* of your posts owing to your
continued harrassment of Elizabeth. It is inappropriate, uncalled for,
and most of all rude. I could care less how intelligent you think you
are, and who might have slighted you ... when your posts amount to simple
minded rants. Put a sock in it and stick to the subject matter.
Rob Sciuk
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web