Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31786 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 116 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 13:19 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:29 -1000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-24 13:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-06-24 22:47 +0200
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 15:02 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 12:50 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 05:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 13:39 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 17:04 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 14:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 15:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-26 11:47 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 13:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 18:47 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:21 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 04:53 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:56 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:14 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:20 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:43 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 14:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:24 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 17:45 -1000
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 15:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 05:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-26 09:29 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:10 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:15 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:29 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:28 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 10:30 -0500
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 12:32 -0700
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-27 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 15:32 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 13:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 16:14 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 02:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-28 12:22 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 07:34 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 10:26 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 07:18 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 12:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 11:31 -1000
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 03:20 +0300
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:11 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:16 +0000
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 11:00 +0000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-29 05:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 15:46 +0300
Re: There is no standard stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-06-29 14:48 +0000
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 18:43 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 05:58 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-29 06:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 11:03 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-28 12:13 -0500
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:25 -0500
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-29 15:01 +0200
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-29 14:35 -0500
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-30 03:20 +0200
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:27 +0000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:18 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-25 07:47 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 14:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 16:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 03:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 08:06 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:55 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-27 00:00 -0400
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-30 06:38 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 12:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:18 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:23 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 16:01 -0400
Re: There is no standard Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-06-25 05:04 -0500
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:44 -0400
Re: There is no standard googlegroups@mailfilter.33mail.com - 2014-06-25 13:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard barrym95838@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard m II <C@in.the.hat> - 2014-06-26 19:37 -0600
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:35 -0400
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-25 09:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 10:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:16 -0400
Re: There is no standard BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 15:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lop2n7$hs5$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #32012 |
Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:25:54 -0400, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> ASCIIZ sucks, and I explained why, and no language since C has >> used it AFAIAA. No. > > Does "no language since C" include or exclude all of C's derivatives? > (i.e., "weasel" wording) > > How many of the high-use modern languages are derived from C? > Basically, *all* of them ... (See TIOBE index.) Yes, and all of them ditched the ASCIIZ: C++ has string (though string literals for historical reasons are ASCIIZ) Java has string (which have a length, and can contain zeros) Go has addr len arrays ... So yes, this includes all C derivatives. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 14:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Z7edncJLSbYK9y3OnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #32012 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:25:54 -0400, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> ASCIIZ sucks, and I explained why, and no language since C has >> used it AFAIAA. No. > > Does "no language since C" include or exclude all of C's derivatives? > (i.e., "weasel" wording) Any C derivative which is supposed to be compatible with C must continue to support ASCIIZ, of course. Otherwise it wouldn't be compatible. > How many of the high-use modern languages are derived from C? That depends on what you mwan by "high-use". > Basically, *all* of them ... (See TIOBE index.) What is the relevance of this question? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-30 03:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <loqe0j$iv1$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #32056 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 04:25:54 -0400, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> >>> ASCIIZ sucks, and I explained why, and no language since C has >>> used it AFAIAA. No. >> >> Does "no language since C" include or exclude all of C's derivatives? >> (i.e., "weasel" wording) > > Any C derivative which is supposed to be compatible with C must > continue to support ASCIIZ, of course. Otherwise it wouldn't be > compatible. > >> How many of the high-use modern languages are derived from C? > > That depends on what you mwan by "high-use". > >> Basically, *all* of them ... (See TIOBE index.) > > What is the relevance of this question? The top-5 entries of Tiobe contain C, Java, Objective-C, C++, and C#. 3 of them are obvious C derivatives (at least they try to make them look like, though I think C# is better described as Java derivative). Java is close enough to this family that you can include it in the list, but neither Java nor C# is really C compatible - calling unmanaged code or C code through JNI requires wrappers, which need to deal with conversion of strings. However, with the exception of C strings for backward compatibility in C++ and Objective C (these are not the native strings of these languages), *all* these 4 "C derivatives" in that list have strings which can contain zero bytes, and deal with the length of the string in a more sane way. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 21:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b98235ef-f3c1-46c4-9105-d7b37e3ca224@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31818 |
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 11:16:31 AM UTC-4, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > In general, it does not help so much, because I must jump between forth systems trying to find the best one. In addition, potential Forth users generally does not want to obey any strange rules. If you want to force others to use 1.23e, you probably get answer like 'I use other PLs and can write 1.23, without 'e', so please fix it in your Forth, if you can'. I may have missed something: have you ever explained why you think you can't do that? All you have to do that is ... to do it. Why would a vender have to redesign their system to provide a facility which they already provide? Just because its a good start-up RAD technique to use the built in interpreter while working on getting core facilities up and running, the specification of the built in interpreter is for unambiguous interpretation of what people mean by what they've written. DECIMAL 200 200. 200e are all interpreted differently. But I've got an undergrad math degree and a doctorate in what is often a very number intensive profession, and I think you are just imagining all of these people who are used to writing floating point numbers with a trailing decimal point. All you need to do is to write you own F# word to parse the floating point before the interpreter gets to it, and you can interpret it any way you like. In the professional systems, you can point the interpreter to embed that in. If you avoid the cases that Forth94 specifies, and just use it for the 12.34 situation, its still a Forth94 system after you've taken advantage of that built-in opportunity to extend it. > Tell them 'you MUST' and your probably get 'no, we dont MUST, because we have many other programming languages'. But why tell them "you MUST" when its a lie that anyone must? > So you can choose between waiting the pack of followers (how many professionals can be found in hordes of fans?) and acting with real users. But inventing problems that Forth94 doesn't actually have is a distraction from the only way that niche languages (1) survive and (2) on occasion grow, by being used for applications where somebody asks, "oh, how did you do that?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-29 10:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53afea1e$0$15938$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #32032 |
In article <b98235ef-f3c1-46c4-9105-d7b37e3ca224@googlegroups.com>, <bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 11:16:31 AM UTC-4, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >> In general, it does not help so much, because I must jump between >forth systems trying to find the best one. In addition, potential Forth >users generally does not want to obey any strange rules. If you want to >force others to use 1.23e, you probably get answer like 'I use other PLs >and can write 1.23, without 'e', so please fix it in your Forth, if you >can'. > >I may have missed something: have you ever explained why you think you >can't do that? All you have to do that is ... to do it. > >Why would a vender have to redesign their system to provide a facility >which they already provide? > >Just because its a good start-up RAD technique to use the built in >interpreter while working on getting core facilities up and running, the >specification of the built in interpreter is for unambiguous >interpretation of what people mean by what they've written. DECIMAL 200 >200. 200e are all interpreted differently. > >But I've got an undergrad math degree and a doctorate in what is often a >very number intensive profession, and I think you are just imagining all >of these people who are used to writing floating point numbers with a >trailing decimal point. > >All you need to do is to write you own F# word to parse the floating >point before the interpreter gets to it, and you can interpret it any >way you like. > >In the professional systems, you can point the interpreter to embed that >in. If you avoid the cases that Forth94 specifies, and just use it for >the 12.34 situation, its still a Forth94 system after you've taken >advantage of that built-in opportunity to extend it. > > >> Tell them 'you MUST' and your probably get 'no, we dont MUST, because >we have many other programming languages'. > >But why tell them "you MUST" when its a lie that anyone must? > >> So you can choose between waiting the pack of followers (how many >professionals can be found in hordes of fans?) and acting with real >users. > >But inventing problems that Forth94 doesn't actually have is a >distraction from the only way that niche languages (1) survive and (2) >on occasion grow, by being used for applications where somebody asks, >"oh, how did you do that?" > If he really want to have a different notation for floats, the new concept of recognizers (what I call denotations) help out. I can tell how it would work out for ciforth. Look at the recognizers for words starting with 0..9. They all use (NUMBER). : 7 -1 PP +! (NUMBER) POSTPONE SDLITERAL ; IMMEDIATE PREFIX Revector (NUMBER) and ... ready. In most environments this would be a small task during the setup of a largish project. It would be dwarfed by all the hours to train staff and get awareness of the fact that their Forth has become non-standard. So I'd say it is a non-problem. Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <199d1f53-cfb5-4cd3-9f3c-071a2f8d9163@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31815 |
> Apparently the Forth-94 committee was more accomodating of this view > than (most? all?) Forth system implementors are even to this day. > 1.23 is not specified in Forth-94, so the Forth system is free to > interpret it as a floating-point number (or in any other way, e.g., > also in the traditional way as a double integer). However, trying a > few Forth systems (iForth-2.1, SwiftForth, VFX, Gforth), they all > interpret it as double integer. And if you don't need double ints, no one is stopping you from overriding it. My system interprets 1.23 as a fixed point number. (And one could make them be interpreted as floats if they wanted.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 07:47 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <i6-dnWrNLcKlljbOnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31813 |
On 6/25/14 2:22 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> committee of vendors, users, and supporters who met 4x/year for 6 years > Do you want to repeat all of these are not 'sacral items'? :) Do you want to claim 24 meetings is enough to prepare an irrevocably perfect standard? No. It is not possible for any number of meetings to produce an "irrevocably perfect standard." But that many meetings, plus time invested in experimental implementations and feedback from outside observers can produce a "pretty good" standard, which is far better than no standard at all (or a very seriously flawed one, like Forth83). > Anyway, there are many changes in IT area since 1994, that simply cannot be predicted by any committee. The PC world going to 32-bit OSes in the middle of 90s and going to 64 bit now. The personal computers itself are splitted to smartphones, pads and notebooks/desktops in the terms of performance, functions, size and power. How can you ever claim that 20-years old document is good enough to be actual today? No one makes such a claim. That is why the Forth 200x committee has been working for some years now to update things. > Simplest case - 1.23 is recognizes by most of programmers as a floating-point number. Not double-size integer number. So you must be very convincing to force them to use 1.23E0 everywhere. I dont want to focus at particular cases, but pay attention to reaction of almost all of committee-related peoples. 'Use ANS, it's perfect. Otherwise you are not a real forther'. I think, such position can attract only a weak-character hobbysts instead of professional programmers, which can provide a good-quality feedback from a real world applications. At least, take a look on any PL ratings - Forth is falling down continuously. This cannot be repaired by any standard. Depends on circumstances. A great many embedded systems do not use FP at all. Since that is an area in which Forth has flourished and continues to be a main target area for Forth, it's important to recognize that. > This does not mean Forth is bad or every people from committee is bad. Just focus to right things, not to a new iteration of 'personal administrative satisfaction' ;) I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. 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 | 2014-06-25 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b96e7ffe-350d-4041-986d-17704b3f44b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31831 |
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:47:35 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 6/25/14 2:22 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > How can you ever claim that 20-years old document is good enough to be actual today? > > No one makes such a claim. That is why the Forth 200x committee has been > working for some years now to update things. Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- there is no "update" being made. Also, ANS-Forth was mandated to be 100% compatible with SwiftForth --- essentially, SwiftForth is the boat anchor that holds down the entire Forth community, while the rest of the programming world sails away over the horizon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 15:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1d20dac-a646-4f82-a180-1f17edb7ed82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31831 |
> > Do you want to repeat all of these are not 'sacral items'? :) Do you want to claim 24 meetings is enough to prepare an irrevocably perfect standard? > No. It is not possible for any number of meetings to produce an > "irrevocably perfect standard." But that many meetings, plus time > invested in experimental implementations and feedback from outside > observers can produce a "pretty good" standard, which is far better than > no standard at all (or a very seriously flawed one, like Forth83). Ok, from 'this is a standard' we switch to 'pretty good'. The next question is, how good this standard to be helpful after 20 years? Can you provide any information about Forth popularity, or market share, or something else to proof the 1994-2014 years was better for the Forth than 1983-1994? > No one makes such a claim. That is why the Forth 200x committee has been > working for some years now to update things. They should rearchitect the standard, not just update... > Depends on circumstances. A great many embedded systems do not use FP at > all. Since that is an area in which Forth has flourished and continues > to be a main target area for Forth, it's important to recognize that. I use primarly my own Forth processors in FPGAs for 10+ past years. There are many reasons to implement a special word set... or maybe committee also predict an FPGA architecture evolution? I think no. So, if embedded area requires a different set of features, it is really important to changes something. > > This does not mean Forth is bad or every people from committee is bad. Just focus to right things, not to a new iteration of 'personal administrative satisfaction' ;) > I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. What exactly? 'Right things'? This is a point to 'Make right things instead of make things right'. One can spend a lot of time to provide a good standard for 16-bit Forth and found this work obsolete. As a straight and non-civilized Russian I can also explain the 'personal administrative satisfaction' :) If you want to say some programmers very desire to write their own Forth just for personal satisfaction, I can also presume some peoples very desire to see their names in some committee memberlist... for personal satisfaction :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-25 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c28b8710-cad7-42c8-be75-f7130112c2c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31849 |
> Ok, from 'this is a standard' we switch to 'pretty good'. What? Is it that big a jump? Oh my god! Such vacillation. So flip-flop. Wow. Just kidding - this makes no sense. > They should rearchitect the standard, not just update... Umm... personally, I'd rather if they didn't rewrite it from scratch. I have a lot of code now that I don't want to have to spend hours updating. > I use primarly my own Forth processors in FPGAs for 10+ past years. There are many reasons to implement a special word set... or maybe committee also predict an FPGA architecture evolution? I think no. So, if embedded area requires a different set of features, it is really important to changes something. So what? > > What exactly? 'Right things'? This is a point to 'Make right things instead of make things right'. One can spend a lot of time to provide a good standard for 16-bit Forth and found this work obsolete. As a straight and non-civilized Russian I can also explain the 'personal administrative satisfaction' :) If you want to say some programmers very desire to write their own Forth just for personal satisfaction, I can also presume some peoples very desire to see their names in some committee memberlist... for personal satisfaction :) I think you're casting someone in the role of corrupt power-crazy "administrator" for reasons that have little to do with the actual context of things here. There are actual problems in Forth programming that standardization seeks to address and help with. If what you care about is embedded applications and custom Forths, and you are fine doing that, the standard can't stop you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 03:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2995160-c09c-413c-9b9e-9b545f60b91a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31854 |
четверг, 26 июня 2014 г., 2:51:06 UTC+3 пользователь Roger Levy написал: > > Ok, from 'this is a standard' we switch to 'pretty good'. > What? Is it that big a jump? Oh my god! Such vacillation. So flip-flop. Wow. Just kidding - this makes no sense. Step by step... this is the best I can provide :) > > They should rearchitect the standard, not just update... > > Umm... personally, I'd rather if they didn't rewrite it from scratch. I have a lot of code now that I don't want to have to spend hours updating. I'm sure it is better to move standard closer to real Forth application rather than aligh every program to the old document. > > I use primarly my own Forth processors in FPGAs for 10+ past years. There are many reasons to implement a special word set... or maybe committee also predict an FPGA architecture evolution? I think no. So, if embedded area requires a different set of features, it is really important to changes something. > > So what? The question was about embedded applications. I noted I have a real expirience with pure Forth embedded systems and cannot agreed ANS94 is a complete and effective guide to embedded Forth. I don't want to break standard at all,.. but, it seems, someone wants to stop everyone who has non-standard opinion? > I think you're casting someone in the role of corrupt power-crazy "administrator" for reasons that have little to do with the actual context of things here. There are actual problems in Forth programming that standardization seeks to address and help with. Yes, I can observe such kind of 'administrators' from time to time. > If what you care about is embedded applications and custom Forths, and you are fine doing that, the standard can't stop you. Of course not :) There are their problems, not mine. But I feel it is right to contunie dialog and attempt to make a next generation of Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 08:06 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Gs2dnWp9hbKq_DHOnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31870 |
On 6/26/14 12:54 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > четверг, 26 июня 2014 г., 2:51:06 UTC+3 пользователь Roger Levy написал: >>> Ok, from 'this is a standard' we switch to 'pretty good'. > >> What? Is it that big a jump? Oh my god! Such vacillation. So flip-flop. Wow. Just kidding - this makes no sense. > > Step by step... this is the best I can provide :) Which is how the Forth200x team is proceeding. >>> They should rearchitect the standard, not just update... >> >> Umm... personally, I'd rather if they didn't rewrite it from scratch. I have a lot of code now that I don't want to have to spend hours updating. > > I'm sure it is better to move standard closer to real Forth application rather than aligh every program to the old document. As Forth200x is trying to do. >>> I use primarly my own Forth processors in FPGAs for 10+ past years. There are many reasons to implement a special word set... or maybe committee also predict an FPGA architecture evolution? I think no. So, if embedded area requires a different set of features, it is really important to changes something. >> >> So what? > > The question was about embedded applications. I noted I have a real expirience with pure Forth embedded systems and cannot agreed ANS94 is a complete and effective guide to embedded Forth. I don't want to break standard at all,.. but, it seems, someone wants to stop everyone who has non-standard opinion? There exists a proposed extension of ANS Forth for embedded system, written in the late 90's by people from FORTH, Inc. and MPE who had been working jointly on such systems. It is my understanding that they want to update it and move it forward, but have not done so yet. >> I think you're casting someone in the role of corrupt power-crazy "administrator" for reasons that have little to do with the actual context of things here. There are actual problems in Forth programming that standardization seeks to address and help with. > > Yes, I can observe such kind of 'administrators' from time to time. That's too bad. >> If what you care about is embedded applications and custom Forths, and you are fine doing that, the standard can't stop you. > > Of course not :) There are their problems, not mine. But I feel it is right to contunie dialog and attempt to make a next generation of Forth. Perhaps you should consider joining the Forth200x effort. 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 | 2014-06-26 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbc7ac61-46b6-4a04-a0c7-d8233f25fc1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31880 |
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:06:46 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 6/26/14 12:54 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > четверг, 26 июня 2014 г., 2:51:06 UTC+3 пользователь Roger Levy написал: > >> If what you care about is embedded applications and custom Forths, and you are fine doing that, the standard can't stop you. > > > Of course not :) There are their problems, not mine. But I feel it is right to contunie dialog and attempt to make a next generation of Forth. > > Perhaps you should consider joining the Forth200x effort. There is no dialog in the Forth-200x effort --- the only contribution that you will be allowed to make, is to tell the committee members that they are brilliant. You are only being recruited because the committee wants to have a lot of members listed in order to further the illusion of Forth-200x being a community effort. As I said before, ANS-Forth was mandated to be 100% compliant with SwiftForth, and Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compliant with ANS-Forth --- so, what role do you expect to play in this? When I submitted the ALLOCATION RfD, I had a lot of support. Then Leon Wagner killed it by saying that he wouldn't provide ALLOCATION in SwiftForth. I am sure that he didn't bother to read the RfD, because he said that it had nothing to do with linked lists, although cloning nodes in a linked list containing nodes of multiple data types (all in the same parent/child chain) was the only example that I gave in the RfD. After this, everybody began scrambling to say that they had actually been opposed to it from the very beginning (like in the book "1984" where history gets rewritten to support every flip-flop in policy as if it had always been that way). After ALLOCATION was killed, the Forth-200x group moved on to discussing N>R and NR> --- these are useless --- I think Leon allows stuff like this so the members can feel like they are contributors, although they are not allowed to contribute anything that would take more than 5 minutes to implement in ANS-Forth. Jeff Fox told me that Charles Moore had made the statement that ANS-Forth was 100 times more complicated than necessary. Shortly thereafter, the Forth-200x effort began. Moore and Fox both thought the name meant that the new standard would be 200 times more complicated than necessary (the obvious next step up). This seems to be where it is going. We get a lot of new words that are useless and largely redundant with existing words, and that can already be implemented in ANS-Forth by a user (such as BUFFER: that Elizabeth Rather keeps promoting as being a general-purpose array). All of this redundant bloat makes learning the language unduly difficult for no benefit. Although ANS-Forth was the worst language standard in the history of programming, I predict that Forth-200x will be yet worse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70229473-420c-4a6b-9926-5f16b63968ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31888 |
> You are only being recruited because the committee wants to have a lot of members listed in order to further the illusion of Forth-200x being a community effort. > As I said before, ANS-Forth was mandated to be 100% compliant with SwiftForth, and Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compliant with ANS-Forth --- so, what role do you expect to play in this? Of course, no 'role' for me :) In this narrow and risky area I prefer to look at results of potential partners, not at their 'authority in Forth'. The fact that I use Forth, does not mean that I accept 'Forth-authority'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eba6670c-28b4-4fd5-a265-2c46453da3b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31904 |
> Of course, no 'role' for me :) In this narrow and risky area I prefer to look at results of potential partners, not at their 'authority in Forth'. The fact that I use Forth, does not mean that I accept 'Forth-authority'. Ooh, big punk rocker. You a Virgo, or maybe an Aquarius? This "authority" is in your head man. Grow up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0abcf48d-363d-45d9-bdf6-8e72a8c2c8f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31888 |
> All of this redundant bloat makes learning the language unduly difficult for no benefit. Then why don't you just accept the fact that the standard exists and it sucks and move on? I don't think Forth94 is horrible. It works, and is still Forth, and is good enough for now. You can implement anything you want on top of it, and make that portable. Hooray!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 00:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xh3he4r26zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #31907 |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:55:43 -0400, Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> wrote: >> All of this redundant bloat makes learning the language unduly >> difficult for no benefit. > > Then why don't you just accept the fact that the standard exists > and it sucks and move on? > Now. now, just wait a minute... Clearly, I should be the last one here defending Forth, just behind Hugh. Really, Bernd is the asshole who should be defending this here. He hasn't spammed us with warped perspectives on ancient history, distorted legal theories, or how Germany should've won WWII etc, in quite a while now. So, there are at least three Forth standards, another three lost to time apparently, and finally one non-standard "de-facto" Forth document according Ms. Rather's perspective. I.e., if you mean ANS a.k.a. Forth 94 "sucks", say that one sucks without tainting the rest. Rod Pemberton P.S. I'd swear a couple guys in this conversation are figments of Passaniti's imagination ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b109bc4-44d8-4dd9-8b9c-02112f33f5f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31922 |
> Now. now, just wait a minute... > Clearly, I should be the last one here defending Forth, just behind Hugh. > Really, Bernd is the asshole who should be defending this here. He hasn't > spammed us with warped perspectives on ancient history, distorted legal > theories, or how Germany should've won WWII etc, in quite a while now. > So, there are at least three Forth standards, another three lost to time > apparently, and finally one non-standard "de-facto" Forth document > according Ms. Rather's perspective. I.e., if you mean ANS a.k.a. > Forth 94 "sucks", say that one sucks without tainting the rest. Haha, Forth94 doesn't suck. Well, from certain perspectives, it does, but I've learned to live with it, and love it. The problem with comparisons with Chuck Moore's philosophy of perfection is that we're trying to do things he has no interest in. We're trying to live in the real world. There are certain things I think we could accomplish that could be brought over after The Fall ;), to the low power computers that are going to be a necessity, and programming resembles Moore and Fox's ideals more closely, but for the time being the rest of the world isn't content to tinker tiny programs into perfection in a cabin in the woods, barely able to articulate their value in a universally cogent way. Not to downplay Moore at all, I think he's a great man, I just realized a few years ago that a lot of what he says doesn't apply to the average person, and has a pretext rooted in his goals, which are different than mine. He's demonstrating simplicity for the rest of us. I think I was able to absorb a lot of that. I don't care that Forth94 is outdated, maybe bloated, and in no way innovative. The most important thing is that it's a standard and it's Forth and it has potential for interesting things to be made with it. Now, I like Hugh, but I'm tired of people trolling, even if unintentionally (which seems to be the case). People need to realize that bringing Forth out of obscurity and into modern programming is a process and a lot of making up for lost years is needed. Forth94 and 200x is our best chance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13453037-ecca-4b66-aa92-97489fa7e9ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31940 |
Oh, almost forgot ... I didn't know about the other standards - links?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <812eebf1-bba9-41ee-8974-5479698cf6a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31941 |
On Friday, 27 June 2014 15:06:31 UTC+1, Roger Levy wrote: > Oh, almost forgot ... I didn't know about the other standards - links? I always go here: http://www.forthworks.com/forth-resources/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web