Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #35035 > unrolled thread
| Started by | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 340 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-20 03:40 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-20 13:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-21 21:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-21 16:32 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-22 03:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2014-12-22 00:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 13:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 03:38 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 11:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 07:51 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-22 15:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-23 11:17 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 06:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-23 12:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 13:12 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 07:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 10:31 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:04 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-25 02:43 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:43 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-25 20:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-12-26 11:40 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 21:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 21:33 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-06 10:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:13 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 00:41 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 14:59 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-06 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:16 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 18:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 18:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-25 12:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-27 09:48 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-29 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:13 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 20:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 12:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:16 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 17:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:14 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 12:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 09:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 12:07 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 11:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:26 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-24 05:31 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-24 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-24 11:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 14:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-23 22:58 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 15:38 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 02:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 19:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 06:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 22:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:32 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:39 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 01:21 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-25 09:06 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:39 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 21:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-25 23:34 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 02:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 05:22 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 14:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-26 16:13 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-27 04:41 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:21 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 11:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-12-31 15:02 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-26 03:28 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-26 10:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 14:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-26 16:36 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 21:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-27 10:17 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 12:09 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-01 21:07 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-02 11:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-01-02 12:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-02 23:42 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 14:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-06 03:51 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-05 20:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 19:25 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 14:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 08:04 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:14 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 16:25 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-09 09:10 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:35 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:51 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 11:29 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 03:46 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 15:58 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 16:50 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:53 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 11:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-11 11:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 16:56 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 19:47 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 08:03 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:05 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-31 10:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-09 23:01 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:43 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-01-11 23:45 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 09:09 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 10:52 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:31 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-05 23:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-05 22:22 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 10:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 13:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 13:02 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 15:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-07 01:15 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 15:23 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 19:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 17:52 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 21:15 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-06 19:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 05:07 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 15:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-07 12:41 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-07 11:09 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-07 11:52 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 14:14 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 20:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-10 20:57 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-11 19:59 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 22:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-15 22:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-16 08:56 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 01:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-01-07 12:33 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-07 14:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 06:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 08:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-07 18:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 10:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 16:48 +0300
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:25 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 08:50 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-07 10:37 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 16:32 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 18:28 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-01-07 07:31 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 14:02 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 09:26 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 17:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-07 17:18 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-07 09:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 03:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 15:21 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-07 18:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-08 09:40 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-08 14:49 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 17:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:42 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-06 08:13 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 02:52 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-08 18:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-08 20:29 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-08 21:30 -1000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 11:14 -0800
Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-10 03:15 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 20:56 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-12 03:02 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-12 10:14 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 11:39 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 18:08 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 20:04 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-14 02:43 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-14 13:34 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 02:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-15 12:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 06:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-10 19:15 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 12:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-10 19:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-11 09:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-11 14:45 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 18:28 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-12 17:12 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 20:55 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 03:48 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:05 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 06:34 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 06:51 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:03 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:18 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 08:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-13 09:54 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-13 17:35 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:19 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-14 21:07 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:06 +0000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-15 00:52 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-15 01:17 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-15 17:35 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:38 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-16 20:47 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 14:37 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-16 17:26 -0800
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 03:03 +0100
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-01-13 10:40 -1000
Re: Standards (was FORTH on the ...) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 19:04 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 23:24 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 18:09 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-09 09:31 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-09 11:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-09 22:38 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-16 13:44 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 02:39 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 13:37 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-17 18:44 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-18 12:57 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-18 22:48 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-19 03:10 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 18:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-17 11:45 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-17 17:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-18 14:57 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-01-19 00:49 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-19 15:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 16:24 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-01-20 03:26 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-20 04:23 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 21:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 07:10 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-20 12:04 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-20 16:11 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:40 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-01-20 23:29 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 20:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-21 01:55 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 00:05 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 07:42 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-06 09:50 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2015-01-06 04:38 -0600
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-09 21:34 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-09 23:28 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "hughaguilar96@yahoo.com" <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 11:10 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-11 00:49 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-12 22:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 17:33 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 19:17 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-12 21:06 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 04:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-13 15:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 18:45 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-13 21:12 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 20:41 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-21 20:42 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-21 23:19 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-01-26 20:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-01-05 10:31 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 07:16 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 13:08 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 10:54 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-27 11:01 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-27 21:25 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2014-12-29 05:20 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-04 11:53 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! mhx@iae.nl - 2015-01-04 05:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-01-04 08:00 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-12-26 15:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-26 13:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 10:55 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 07:08 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 23:27 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 10:34 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 09:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 19:44 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 11:00 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 12:01 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-25 16:03 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> - 2014-12-25 17:20 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2014-12-26 21:53 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-08 22:30 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 20:00 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-25 08:36 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-25 19:36 +0100
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:09 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:35 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-01-08 15:51 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-21 16:02 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-12-22 10:51 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-22 05:47 -0800
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-12-22 09:10 -0500
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-12-22 15:23 +0000
Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000
Page 1 of 17 [1] 2 3 … 17 Next page →
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-19 15:59 -0800 |
| Subject | FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! |
| Message-ID | <67e78e28-e415-46f4-b3b1-d3072e74f392@googlegroups.com> |
You may know that there are rules which programming language has to be taught in the United States. It is called Advanced Placement Computer Science. It's interesting to read about the decisions of the board which programming language is the one to be taught: "In the early 1990s it became clear that colleges were moving away from Pascal toward languages that allowed the creation of abstract data types that could be written in separate modules and incorporated into any program." Hear, hear! Could this been a decision to approve Forth? Where did it go? "So, the AP Computer Science Development Committee chose C++ as the language that would best keep the AP courses comparable to their college counterparts, and teachers learned a new syntax as well as how to design and implement classes... Between the time that the decision was made to switch to C++ and the first AP Exam in C++ in 1999, Java came onto the scene. Java is a safer language than C++ and has a clean way of implementing inheritance. At the 1999 AP Reading, we were already hearing speculation that Java was on the way -- and indeed, Java became the new language for AP Computer Science in 2004. It was chosen because it was judged to be one of the best available languages to teach the fundamental concepts that colleges require beginning computer science students to know, and because a significant percentage of colleges are currently using it as their introductory language, increasing the likelihood that AP students will receive college credit for their work." One of the best available languages - but certainly not the best! "Look back at the definition of computer science. With all three languages, Pascal, C++, and Java, AP CS instructors have taught and are teaching the concepts listed in this definition. The design methodology has changed, and so has the knowledge representation and implementation, but we are still teaching these essential principles. What will happen in the future? Is there a new language on the horizon? I don't know. I do know that computer science is a dynamic field. As it changes and grows, so will AP Computer Science." We all know that there is a new language on the horizon, since nearly five decades. This programming language is called "FORTH" - in 2018 it will be the AP Computer Science programming language. Sources: AP Computer Science Teacher's Guide, Chapter 1: About AP Computer Science http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/repository/ap07_compsci_teachersguide.pdf http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-computer-science-course-description.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/08/celebrating-computer-science-education-week-kids-code-white-house
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-20 08:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m73ceo$i96$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35035 |
<visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: > You may know that there are rules which programming language has to be > taught in the United States. It is called Advanced Placement Computer Science. > > It's interesting to read about the decisions of the board which > programming language is the one to be taught: > > "In the early 1990s it became clear that colleges were moving away from > Pascal toward languages that allowed the creation of abstract data types > that could be written in separate modules and incorporated into any program." > > Hear, hear! Could this been a decision to approve Forth? > Where did it go? > > "So, the AP Computer Science Development Committee chose C++ as the > language that would best keep the AP courses comparable to their college > counterparts, and teachers learned a new syntax as well as how to design > and implement classes... > Between the time that the decision was made to switch to C++ and the > first AP Exam in C++ in 1999, Java came onto the scene. Java is a safer > language than C++ and has a clean way of implementing inheritance. At the > 1999 AP Reading, we were already hearing speculation that Java was on the way -- and > indeed, Java became the new language for AP Computer Science in 2004. > > It was chosen because it was judged to be one of the best available > languages to teach the fundamental concepts that colleges require > beginning computer science students to know, and because a significant > percentage of colleges are currently using it as their introductory > language, increasing the likelihood that AP students will receive college > credit for their work." > > One of the best available languages - but certainly not the best! > > "Look back at the definition of computer science. With all three > languages, Pascal, C++, and Java, AP CS instructors have taught and are > teaching the concepts listed in this definition. The design methodology > has changed, and so has the knowledge representation and implementation, > but we are still teaching these essential principles. > What will happen in the future? Is there a new language on the horizon? I > don't know. I do know that computer science is a dynamic field. As it > changes and grows, so will AP Computer Science." > > We all know that there is a new language on the horizon, since nearly > five decades. This programming language is called "FORTH" - in 2018 it > will be the AP Computer Science programming language. Is it clearly stated somewhere? I didn't follow links you gave us because I already know that C++ and Java are used in education. I don't see how Forth could be "safer" than C++ or Java. ANS Forth and many specific translators lacks many features of popular high level languages, especially safety features. Many translators will crash when trying to get value out of empty stack, and it's completely normal. I think Forth could be really useful in education field, but not because it's the "best" language over there (even thought I like Forth and Assembler better then any other language). I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to start with Assembler, then let students write high level language on it, and Forth would be the best choice here because of its simplicity. It seems in many cases people think that programming is a part of math, and first things students have to learn are math and algorithms. However, math is pure abstraction, but in real life we have to work with real machines and write algorithms for real processors. When student is writing something like a tree or another data structure implementation, he already should understand how it would look in RAM, and what price will be paid for speed or lesser memory consumption. Well, that's just my opinion. > Sources: > AP Computer Science Teacher's Guide, Chapter 1: About AP Computer Science > http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/members/repository/ap07_compsci_teachersguide.pdf > http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-computer-science-course-description.pdf > http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/08/celebrating-computer-science-education-week-kids-code-white-house -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-20 03:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <AMednTSjdpqH2QjJnZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35043 |
mix <mix@test.net> wrote: > > I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to start with > Assembler, then let students write high level language on it, and Forth > would be the best choice here because of its simplicity. I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is frustrating. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-20 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m73v90$mo4$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35045 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >> >> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to start with >> Assembler, then let students write high level language on it, and Forth >> would be the best choice here because of its simplicity. > > I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give > people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is > frustrating. > > Andrew. Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know exactly why is it crashing. -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-21 04:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <75OdnQZOi_GsPgvJnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35052 |
mix <mix@test.net> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>> >>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to start with >>> Assembler, then let students write high level language on it, and Forth >>> would be the best choice here because of its simplicity. >> >> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give >> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is >> frustrating. > > Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and > just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know > exactly why is it crashing. Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-21 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m77ek8$ggl$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35072 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to start with >>>> Assembler, then let students write high level language on it, and Forth >>>> would be the best choice here because of its simplicity. >>> >>> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give >>> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is >>> frustrating. >> >> Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and >> just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know >> exactly why is it crashing. > > Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway. > > Andrew. Disagree. Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-21 16:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <JbKdnRMTTu3g1wrJnZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35079 |
mix <mix@test.net> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to >>>>> start with Assembler, then let students write high level >>>>> language on it, and Forth would be the best choice here because >>>>> of its simplicity. >>>> >>>> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give >>>> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is >>>> frustrating. >>> >>> Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and >>> just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know >>> exactly why is it crashing. >> >> Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway. > > Disagree. > > Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? Sure; it's right up there, about twenty lines above this one. I don't quite know why you believe that a beginner knows exactly why their assembly language program is crashing. Assembly language isn't all that easy to understand. Debugging assembly language is difficult. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 03:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m784pf$ngd$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35083 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to >>>>>> start with Assembler, then let students write high level >>>>>> language on it, and Forth would be the best choice here because >>>>>> of its simplicity. >>>>> >>>>> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give >>>>> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is >>>>> frustrating. >>>> >>>> Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and >>>> just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know >>>> exactly why is it crashing. >>> >>> Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway. >> >> Disagree. >> >> Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? > > Sure; it's right up there, about twenty lines above this one. I don't > quite know why you believe that a beginner knows exactly why their > assembly language program is crashing. Assembly language isn't all > that easy to understand. Debugging assembly language is difficult. Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 00:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a026689d-c89f-46e8-b855-1f2c4ebf11b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35093 |
On Monday, December 22, 2014 4:56:33 AM UTC+1, mix wrote: [..] > Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. [..] I made an error here ... FORTH> see ud/mod Flags: $01131438 pop r8 $0113143A pop rcx $0113143B pop rbx $0113143C pop rdx $0113143D pop rax $0113143E test rcx, rcx $01131441 jne $01131462 offset SHORT $01131443 cmp rdx, rbx $01131446 jb $01131457 offset SHORT $01131448 mov rcx, rax $0113144B mov rax, rdx $0113144E xor rdx, rdx $01131451 div rbx $01131454 xchg rcx, rax $01131457 div rbx $0113145A push rdx $0113145B push 0 b# $0113145D push rax $0113145E push rcx $0113145F jmp r8 $01131462 push rsi $01131463 mov r9, rdx $01131466 mov r10, rax $01131469 mov rsi, rbx $0113146C mov rdi, rcx $0113146F shr rdx, 1 b# $01131473 rcr rax, 1 b# $01131477 ror rdi, 1 b# $0113147B rcr rbx, 1 b# $0113147F bsr rcx, rcx $01131483 shrd rbx, rdi, cl $01131487 shrd rax, rdx, cl $0113148B shr rdx, cl $0113148E rol rdi, 1 b# $01131492 div rbx $01131495 mov rbx, r10 $01131498 mov rcx, rax $0113149B imul rdi, rax $0113149F mul rsi $011314A2 add rdx, rdi $011314A5 sub rbx, rax $011314A8 mov rax, rcx $011314AB mov rcx, r9 $011314AE sbb rcx, rdx $011314B1 sbb rdx, rdx $011314B4 and rsi, rdx $011314B7 and rdi, rdx $011314BA add rbx, rsi $011314BD adc rcx, rdi $011314C0 add rax, rdx $011314C3 xor rdx, rdx $011314C6 pop rsi $011314C7 push rbx $011314C8 push rcx $011314C9 push rax $011314CA push rdx $011314CB jmp r8 -marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 13:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5498200e$0$6847$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35097 |
In article <a026689d-c89f-46e8-b855-1f2c4ebf11b4@googlegroups.com>, <mhx@iae.nl> wrote: >On Monday, December 22, 2014 4:56:33 AM UTC+1, mix wrote: >[..] >> Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. >[..] > >I made an error here ... > >FORTH> see ud/mod >Flags: >$01131438 pop r8 >$0113143A pop rcx >$0113143B pop rbx >$0113143C pop rdx >$0113143D pop rax >$0113143E test rcx, rcx >$01131441 jne $01131462 offset SHORT >$01131443 cmp rdx, rbx >$01131446 jb $01131457 offset SHORT >$01131448 mov rcx, rax >$0113144B mov rax, rdx >$0113144E xor rdx, rdx >$01131451 div rbx >$01131454 xchg rcx, rax >$01131457 div rbx >$0113145A push rdx >$0113145B push 0 b# >$0113145D push rax >$0113145E push rcx >$0113145F jmp r8 >$01131462 push rsi >$01131463 mov r9, rdx >$01131466 mov r10, rax >$01131469 mov rsi, rbx >$0113146C mov rdi, rcx >$0113146F shr rdx, 1 b# >$01131473 rcr rax, 1 b# >$01131477 ror rdi, 1 b# >$0113147B rcr rbx, 1 b# >$0113147F bsr rcx, rcx >$01131483 shrd rbx, rdi, cl >$01131487 shrd rax, rdx, cl >$0113148B shr rdx, cl >$0113148E rol rdi, 1 b# >$01131492 div rbx >$01131495 mov rbx, r10 >$01131498 mov rcx, rax >$0113149B imul rdi, rax >$0113149F mul rsi >$011314A2 add rdx, rdi >$011314A5 sub rbx, rax >$011314A8 mov rax, rcx >$011314AB mov rcx, r9 >$011314AE sbb rcx, rdx >$011314B1 sbb rdx, rdx >$011314B4 and rsi, rdx >$011314B7 and rdi, rdx >$011314BA add rbx, rsi >$011314BD adc rcx, rdi >$011314C0 add rax, rdx >$011314C3 xor rdx, rdx >$011314C6 pop rsi >$011314C7 push rbx >$011314C8 push rcx >$011314C9 push rax >$011314CA push rdx >$011314CB jmp r8 Although I agree with your point, you didn't prove your point, This is unfair. This isn't assembler source, this is a disassembly. A reasonable assembler source would have symbolic names indicating the purpose of registers, named labels, and possibly some helpful macro's. > >-marcel Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7alna$r81$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35101 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <a026689d-c89f-46e8-b855-1f2c4ebf11b4@googlegroups.com>, > <mhx@iae.nl> wrote: >> On Monday, December 22, 2014 4:56:33 AM UTC+1, mix wrote: >> [..] >>> Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. >> [..] >> >> I made an error here ... >> >> FORTH> see ud/mod >> Flags: >> $01131438 pop r8 >> $0113143A pop rcx >> $0113143B pop rbx >> $0113143C pop rdx >> $0113143D pop rax >> $0113143E test rcx, rcx >> $01131441 jne $01131462 offset SHORT >> $01131443 cmp rdx, rbx >> $01131446 jb $01131457 offset SHORT >> $01131448 mov rcx, rax >> $0113144B mov rax, rdx >> $0113144E xor rdx, rdx >> $01131451 div rbx >> $01131454 xchg rcx, rax >> $01131457 div rbx >> $0113145A push rdx >> $0113145B push 0 b# >> $0113145D push rax >> $0113145E push rcx >> $0113145F jmp r8 >> $01131462 push rsi >> $01131463 mov r9, rdx >> $01131466 mov r10, rax >> $01131469 mov rsi, rbx >> $0113146C mov rdi, rcx >> $0113146F shr rdx, 1 b# >> $01131473 rcr rax, 1 b# >> $01131477 ror rdi, 1 b# >> $0113147B rcr rbx, 1 b# >> $0113147F bsr rcx, rcx >> $01131483 shrd rbx, rdi, cl >> $01131487 shrd rax, rdx, cl >> $0113148B shr rdx, cl >> $0113148E rol rdi, 1 b# >> $01131492 div rbx >> $01131495 mov rbx, r10 >> $01131498 mov rcx, rax >> $0113149B imul rdi, rax >> $0113149F mul rsi >> $011314A2 add rdx, rdi >> $011314A5 sub rbx, rax >> $011314A8 mov rax, rcx >> $011314AB mov rcx, r9 >> $011314AE sbb rcx, rdx >> $011314B1 sbb rdx, rdx >> $011314B4 and rsi, rdx >> $011314B7 and rdi, rdx >> $011314BA add rbx, rsi >> $011314BD adc rcx, rdi >> $011314C0 add rax, rdx >> $011314C3 xor rdx, rdx >> $011314C6 pop rsi >> $011314C7 push rbx >> $011314C8 push rcx >> $011314C9 push rax >> $011314CA push rdx >> $011314CB jmp r8 > > Although I agree with your point, you didn't prove your point, > > This is unfair. This isn't assembler source, this is a > disassembly. A reasonable assembler source would > have symbolic names indicating the purpose of registers, > named labels, and possibly some helpful macro's. > >> >> -marcel > > Groetjes Albert This is a very well know routine named _ulldiv written many years ago for 32-bit x86 assembly language. Marcel just changed 32-bit registers to 64-bit ones. Such routines in assembly language are similar to AWK, sed, or Perl one-liners: you don't even have to understand what's going on inside them since you know which registers are used for input and output. To find commented assembly source code, google "_ulldiv Norbert Juffa". -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 03:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7ao3t$dd$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35120 |
mix <mix@test.net> wrote: > Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> In article <a026689d-c89f-46e8-b855-1f2c4ebf11b4@googlegroups.com>, >> <mhx@iae.nl> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 22, 2014 4:56:33 AM UTC+1, mix wrote: >>> [..] >>>> Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. >>> [..] >>> >>> I made an error here ... >>> >>> FORTH> see ud/mod >>> Flags: >>> $01131438 pop r8 >>> $0113143A pop rcx >>> $0113143B pop rbx >>> $0113143C pop rdx >>> $0113143D pop rax >>> $0113143E test rcx, rcx >>> $01131441 jne $01131462 offset SHORT >>> $01131443 cmp rdx, rbx >>> $01131446 jb $01131457 offset SHORT >>> $01131448 mov rcx, rax >>> $0113144B mov rax, rdx >>> $0113144E xor rdx, rdx >>> $01131451 div rbx >>> $01131454 xchg rcx, rax >>> $01131457 div rbx >>> $0113145A push rdx >>> $0113145B push 0 b# >>> $0113145D push rax >>> $0113145E push rcx >>> $0113145F jmp r8 >>> $01131462 push rsi >>> $01131463 mov r9, rdx >>> $01131466 mov r10, rax >>> $01131469 mov rsi, rbx >>> $0113146C mov rdi, rcx >>> $0113146F shr rdx, 1 b# >>> $01131473 rcr rax, 1 b# >>> $01131477 ror rdi, 1 b# >>> $0113147B rcr rbx, 1 b# >>> $0113147F bsr rcx, rcx >>> $01131483 shrd rbx, rdi, cl >>> $01131487 shrd rax, rdx, cl >>> $0113148B shr rdx, cl >>> $0113148E rol rdi, 1 b# >>> $01131492 div rbx >>> $01131495 mov rbx, r10 >>> $01131498 mov rcx, rax >>> $0113149B imul rdi, rax >>> $0113149F mul rsi >>> $011314A2 add rdx, rdi >>> $011314A5 sub rbx, rax >>> $011314A8 mov rax, rcx >>> $011314AB mov rcx, r9 >>> $011314AE sbb rcx, rdx >>> $011314B1 sbb rdx, rdx >>> $011314B4 and rsi, rdx >>> $011314B7 and rdi, rdx >>> $011314BA add rbx, rsi >>> $011314BD adc rcx, rdi >>> $011314C0 add rax, rdx >>> $011314C3 xor rdx, rdx >>> $011314C6 pop rsi >>> $011314C7 push rbx >>> $011314C8 push rcx >>> $011314C9 push rax >>> $011314CA push rdx >>> $011314CB jmp r8 >> >> Although I agree with your point, you didn't prove your point, >> >> This is unfair. This isn't assembler source, this is a >> disassembly. A reasonable assembler source would >> have symbolic names indicating the purpose of registers, >> named labels, and possibly some helpful macro's. >> >>> >>> -marcel >> >> Groetjes Albert > > This is a very well know routine named _ulldiv written many years ago for "Very well known", of course. I apologize for being sloppy. > 32-bit x86 assembly language. Marcel just changed 32-bit registers to > 64-bit ones. > > Such routines in assembly language are similar to AWK, sed, or Perl > one-liners: you don't even have to understand what's going on inside them > since you know which registers are used for input and output. > > To find commented assembly source code, google "_ulldiv Norbert Juffa". Actually, here is direct link: http://www.df.lth.se/~john_e/gems/gem002a.html -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7akqr$plh$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35097 |
<mhx@iae.nl> wrote: > On Monday, December 22, 2014 4:56:33 AM UTC+1, mix wrote: > [..] >> Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. > [..] > > I made an error here ... > > FORTH> see ud/mod > Flags: > $01131438 pop r8 > $0113143A pop rcx > $0113143B pop rbx > $0113143C pop rdx > $0113143D pop rax > $0113143E test rcx, rcx > $01131441 jne $01131462 offset SHORT > $01131443 cmp rdx, rbx > $01131446 jb $01131457 offset SHORT > $01131448 mov rcx, rax > $0113144B mov rax, rdx > $0113144E xor rdx, rdx > $01131451 div rbx > $01131454 xchg rcx, rax > $01131457 div rbx > $0113145A push rdx > $0113145B push 0 b# > $0113145D push rax > $0113145E push rcx > $0113145F jmp r8 > $01131462 push rsi > $01131463 mov r9, rdx > $01131466 mov r10, rax > $01131469 mov rsi, rbx > $0113146C mov rdi, rcx > $0113146F shr rdx, 1 b# > $01131473 rcr rax, 1 b# > $01131477 ror rdi, 1 b# > $0113147B rcr rbx, 1 b# > $0113147F bsr rcx, rcx > $01131483 shrd rbx, rdi, cl > $01131487 shrd rax, rdx, cl > $0113148B shr rdx, cl > $0113148E rol rdi, 1 b# > $01131492 div rbx > $01131495 mov rbx, r10 > $01131498 mov rcx, rax > $0113149B imul rdi, rax > $0113149F mul rsi > $011314A2 add rdx, rdi > $011314A5 sub rbx, rax > $011314A8 mov rax, rcx > $011314AB mov rcx, r9 > $011314AE sbb rcx, rdx > $011314B1 sbb rdx, rdx > $011314B4 and rsi, rdx > $011314B7 and rdi, rdx > $011314BA add rbx, rsi > $011314BD adc rcx, rdi > $011314C0 add rax, rdx > $011314C3 xor rdx, rdx > $011314C6 pop rsi > $011314C7 push rbx > $011314C8 push rcx > $011314C9 push rax > $011314CA push rdx > $011314CB jmp r8 > > -marcel Original _ulldiv routine was written by Norbert Juffa for 32-bit x86 assembly language. I don't see a mistake in your code, unless it's some typo which I overlooked. I would rewrite this routine in pretty much the same way you did, with couple of exceptions: I wouldn't use push and pop, and I wouldn't use test instruction to check content of rcx. # (d1 d2 -- d3 d4 ) word "ud/mod",6,NONE,ud_slash_mod,d_min,ud_slash_mod movq CELL*3(%rsp), %rax movq CELL*2(%rsp), %rdx movq CELL(%rsp), %rbx movq (%rsp), %rcx jrcxz ud_mod__no_big_divisor ud_mod__big_divisor: movq %rdx, %r9 movq %rax, %r10 movq %rbx, %rsi movq %rcx, %rdi shrq $1, %rdx rcrq $1, %rax rorq $1, %rdi rcrq $1, %rbx bsrq %rcx, %rcx shrdq %cl, %rdi, %rbx shrdq %cl, %rdx, %rax shrq %cl, %rdx rolq $1, %rdi divq %rbx movq %r10, %rbx movq %rax, %rcx imulq %rax, %rdi mulq %rsi addq %rdi, %rdx subq %rax, %rdx movq %rcx, %rax movq %r9, %rcx sbbq %rdx, %rcx sbbq %rdx, %rdx andq %rdx, %rsi andq %rdx, %rdi addq %rsi, %rbx adcq %rdi, %rcx addq %rdx, %rax movq $0, (%rsp) movq %rax, CELL(%rsp) movq %rcx, CELL*2(%rsp) movq %rbx, CELL*3(%rsp) NEXT ud_mod__no_big_divisor: cmpq %rbx, %rdx jb ud_mod__one_div movq %rax, %rcx movq %rdx, %rax xorq %rdx, %rdx divq %rbx xchgq %rcx, %rax ud_mod__one_div: divq %rbx movq %rdx, CELL*3(%rsp) movq $0, CELL*2(%rsp) movq %rax, CELL(%rsp) movq %rcx, (%rsp) NEXT drow -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 11:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m79034$2g2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35093 |
on 22/12/2014 03:56:35, mix wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to >>>>>>> start with Assembler, then let students write high level >>>>>>> language on it, and Forth would be the best choice here because >>>>>>> of its simplicity. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give >>>>>> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is >>>>>> frustrating. >>>>> >>>>> Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and >>>>> just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know >>>>> exactly why is it crashing. >>>> >>>> Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway. >>> >>> Disagree. >>> >>> Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? >> >> Sure; it's right up there, about twenty lines above this one. I don't >> quite know why you believe that a beginner knows exactly why their >> assembly language program is crashing. Assembly language isn't all >> that easy to understand. Debugging assembly language is difficult. > > Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. > As a commercial assembly programmer in IBM BAL for several years I disagree. I started programming with assembler, and it was tough to learn and tougher to debug. Branch on indeX Low or Equal BXLE Ri,Rn,D(B) D(B) is an address made from the sum of an offset & base register. The offset is a maxiumum of signed 4K where Rn is an even register, R(n+1) is paired odd Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri <= R(n+1) where Rn is an odd register Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri <= Rn Let me know how how you might use this instruction, and the value of the odd register form in particular. Then we can talk about how to use it for registers where i=n. And how to debug it. This might seem an artificial instruction used once in a blue moon by sadistic programmers. It isn't. Any IBM mainframe assembler programmer will have come across it and used it, since it's an incredibly expressive instruction. Now add in a complete algorithm based on its use, and debugging requires experience and knowledge not only of the machine code, the disassemby, and the source (if you have it), but also of the person or compiler that wrote the code too. It's not just the place where the code crashes either, since often the problem starts a long, long way away (both in time and space). Writing assembler and debugging it is (for me at least) a holistic experience. That experience doesn't come cheap. While teaching students assembler is a fine and noble goal, and IMHO does make for a better programmer in any language, it really isn't a great starting point. > -- > mix x >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 07:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m7943u$g8v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35099 |
On 12/22/2014 6:42 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > > Writing assembler and debugging it is (for me at least) a holistic > experience. That experience doesn't come cheap. While teaching students > assembler is a fine and noble goal, and IMHO does make for a better > programmer in any language, it really isn't a great starting point. You picked a very complex example of a rather complex machine. But learning the assembly language of the 8 bit AVR processor or the 16 bit MSP430 would be *much* easier. I won't argue that assembler is the right starting point for learning to program computers, but I think it should be taught early on next to a higher level language. I remember the first time I learned to program in a chemistry class where the professor felt the computer was a mysterious thing and had no idea of the insides. Then when I did learn how it all worked, it was a bit of a letdown... so primitive. That in turn led me to programming in microcode and designing hardware for microcoded functions. Can't get much more primitive than that. Knowing that the hardware is running to do 3 billion things per second gives a perspective that I don't think is so easy to get when only doing high level programming. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m79f4g$tbt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35100 |
on 22/12/2014 12:51:15, rickman wrote: > On 12/22/2014 6:42 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: >> >> Writing assembler and debugging it is (for me at least) a holistic >> experience. That experience doesn't come cheap. While teaching students >> assembler is a fine and noble goal, and IMHO does make for a better >> programmer in any language, it really isn't a great starting point. > > You picked a very complex example of a rather complex machine. But > learning the assembly language of the 8 bit AVR processor or the 16 > bit MSP430 would be *much* easier. Knuth had MIX; and it was horribly complex and a mistake due to its wierd & whacky decimal number system, not to the architecture of the instruction set. MMIX didn't fix it; it made it much worse. The books (TAOCP) were successful despite that mistake, mainly due to Knuth's fine analysis in pseudo-code or words. > > I won't argue that assembler is the right starting point for learning > to program computers, but I think it should be taught early on next to > a higher level language. I remember the first time I learned to > program in a chemistry class where the professor felt the computer was > a mysterious thing and had no idea of the insides. Then when I did > learn how it all worked, it was a bit of a letdown... so primitive. That for me was the "aha!" moment. All that emergent power from simple instructions, wrapped in a high level language. The same with chemistry; with a handful of elements you can constuct two brains and a damn fine argument on Usenet. > That in turn led me to programming in microcode and designing hardware > for microcoded functions. Can't get much more primitive than that. That's a desire for primitive, which is not what assembler is about, and for students interested in programming is very definitely headed in the wrong direction. > > Knowing that the hardware is running to do 3 billion things per second > gives a perspective that I don't think is so easy to get when only > doing high level programming. > High level languages get translated to code which is executed; or to some intermediate that is interpreted. Or assembler gets translated to code in a more 1 to 1 fashion. Speed is about clock frequency, and assembler vs high level has nothing to do with that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 11:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m7c4i2$u46$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35106 |
On 12/22/2014 10:59 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 22/12/2014 12:51:15, rickman wrote: >> On 12/22/2014 6:42 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: >>> >>> Writing assembler and debugging it is (for me at least) a holistic >>> experience. That experience doesn't come cheap. While teaching students >>> assembler is a fine and noble goal, and IMHO does make for a better >>> programmer in any language, it really isn't a great starting point. >> >> You picked a very complex example of a rather complex machine. But >> learning the assembly language of the 8 bit AVR processor or the 16 >> bit MSP430 would be *much* easier. > > Knuth had MIX; and it was horribly complex and a mistake due to its wierd > & whacky decimal number system, not to the architecture of the > instruction set. MMIX didn't fix it; it made it much worse. The books > (TAOCP) were successful despite that mistake, mainly due to Knuth's fine > analysis in pseudo-code or words. > >> >> I won't argue that assembler is the right starting point for learning >> to program computers, but I think it should be taught early on next to >> a higher level language. I remember the first time I learned to >> program in a chemistry class where the professor felt the computer was >> a mysterious thing and had no idea of the insides. Then when I did >> learn how it all worked, it was a bit of a letdown... so primitive. > > That for me was the "aha!" moment. All that emergent power from simple > instructions, wrapped in a high level language. The same with chemistry; > with a handful of elements you can constuct two brains and a damn fine > argument on Usenet. > >> That in turn led me to programming in microcode and designing hardware >> for microcoded functions. Can't get much more primitive than that. > > That's a desire for primitive, which is not what assembler is about, and > for students interested in programming is very definitely headed in the > wrong direction. > >> >> Knowing that the hardware is running to do 3 billion things per second >> gives a perspective that I don't think is so easy to get when only >> doing high level programming. >> > > High level languages get translated to code which is executed; or to some > intermediate that is interpreted. Or assembler gets translated to code in > a more 1 to 1 fashion. Speed is about clock frequency, and assembler vs > high level has nothing to do with that. I think you missed my point. I see a computer accept a command and spend seconds doing something that should happen in the blink of an eye. I ask the programmer what the computer is doing and they don't even understand the question. Many people find it mind boggling that computers do what they do so quickly while I find it mind boggling that that computers are so slow. That is because the programmer only sees high level constructs and has no idea how it is implemented. Programming in assembly gives him a better perspective to understand how his ideas are implemented. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7alnb$r81$2@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35099 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 22/12/2014 03:56:35, mix wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to >>>>>>>> start with Assembler, then let students write high level >>>>>>>> language on it, and Forth would be the best choice here because >>>>>>>> of its simplicity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give >>>>>>> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is >>>>>>> frustrating. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and >>>>>> just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know >>>>>> exactly why is it crashing. >>>>> >>>>> Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway. >>>> >>>> Disagree. >>>> >>>> Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? >>> >>> Sure; it's right up there, about twenty lines above this one. I don't >>> quite know why you believe that a beginner knows exactly why their >>> assembly language program is crashing. Assembly language isn't all >>> that easy to understand. Debugging assembly language is difficult. >> >> Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. >> > > As a commercial assembly programmer in IBM BAL for several years I > disagree. I started programming with assembler, and it was tough to learn > and tougher to debug. That's not the best example of machine with easy-to-understand and easy-to-debug assembly language. > Branch on indeX Low or Equal > BXLE Ri,Rn,D(B) > > D(B) is an address made from the sum of an offset & base register. The > offset is a maxiumum of signed 4K > > where Rn is an even register, R(n+1) is paired odd > Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri <= R(n+1) > > where Rn is an odd register > Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri <= Rn > > Let me know how how you might use this instruction, and the value of the > odd register form in particular. Then we can talk about how to use it for > registers where i=n. And how to debug it. This might seem an artificial > instruction used once in a blue moon by sadistic programmers. It isn't. > Any IBM mainframe assembler programmer will have come across it and used > it, since it's an incredibly expressive instruction. > > Now add in a complete algorithm based on its use, and debugging requires > experience and knowledge not only of the machine code, the disassemby, > and the source (if you have it), but also of the person or compiler that > wrote the code too. It's not just the place where the code crashes > either, since often the problem starts a long, long way away (both in > time and space). > > Writing assembler and debugging it is (for me at least) a holistic > experience. That experience doesn't come cheap. While teaching students > assembler is a fine and noble goal, and IMHO does make for a better > programmer in any language, it really isn't a great starting point. > >> -- >> mix x >> -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 06:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7b0v3$hk4$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35099 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 22/12/2014 03:56:35, mix wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to >>>>>>>> start with Assembler, then let students write high level >>>>>>>> language on it, and Forth would be the best choice here because >>>>>>>> of its simplicity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give >>>>>>> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is >>>>>>> frustrating. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and >>>>>> just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know >>>>>> exactly why is it crashing. >>>>> >>>>> Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway. >>>> >>>> Disagree. >>>> >>>> Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? >>> >>> Sure; it's right up there, about twenty lines above this one. I don't >>> quite know why you believe that a beginner knows exactly why their >>> assembly language program is crashing. Assembly language isn't all >>> that easy to understand. Debugging assembly language is difficult. >> >> Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug. >> > > As a commercial assembly programmer in IBM BAL for several years I > disagree. I started programming with assembler, and it was tough to learn > and tougher to debug. > > Branch on indeX Low or Equal > BXLE Ri,Rn,D(B) > > D(B) is an address made from the sum of an offset & base register. The > offset is a maxiumum of signed 4K > > where Rn is an even register, R(n+1) is paired odd > Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri <= R(n+1) > > where Rn is an odd register > Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri <= Rn > > Let me know how how you might use this instruction, and the value of the > odd register form in particular. Then we can talk about how to use it for > registers where i=n. And how to debug it. This might seem an artificial > instruction used once in a blue moon by sadistic programmers. It isn't. > Any IBM mainframe assembler programmer will have come across it and used > it, since it's an incredibly expressive instruction. > > Now add in a complete algorithm based on its use, and debugging requires > experience and knowledge not only of the machine code, the disassemby, > and the source (if you have it), but also of the person or compiler that > wrote the code too. It's not just the place where the code crashes > either, since often the problem starts a long, long way away (both in > time and space). > > Writing assembler and debugging it is (for me at least) a holistic > experience. That experience doesn't come cheap. While teaching students > assembler is a fine and noble goal, and IMHO does make for a better > programmer in any language, it really isn't a great starting point. OK, I've read your message and I still disagree. I have access to IBM z mainframe, however, I've never tried to write assembly code for it. Moreover, I'm not sure that particular mainframe have same instruction set you used to use, and I'm not familiar with developer tools provided there. Can I see the opcode of this instruction? I would like to see if such opcode can be generated and executed in run-time. -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 12:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7bo39$b8t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35126 |
on 23/12/2014 06:09:38, mix wrote:
> "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> on 22/12/2014 03:56:35, mix wrote:
>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> mix <mix@test.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think to really teach concepts of programming teachers have to
>>>>>>>>> start with Assembler, then let students write high level
>>>>>>>>> language on it, and Forth would be the best choice here because
>>>>>>>>> of its simplicity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think many students would be demotivated by this. You have to give
>>>>>>>> people a way to get feedback and enjoy themselves; just crashing is
>>>>>>>> frustrating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just crashing of program written by Intel or Microsoft is one thing, and
>>>>>>> just crashing of program written by you is another thing, because you know
>>>>>>> exactly why is it crashing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Err, no you don't: not at this stage of learning to program, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first?
>>>>
>>>> Sure; it's right up there, about twenty lines above this one. I don't
>>>> quite know why you believe that a beginner knows exactly why their
>>>> assembly language program is crashing. Assembly language isn't all
>>>> that easy to understand. Debugging assembly language is difficult.
>>>
>>> Assembly language is easy to understand and easy to debug.
>>>
>>
>> As a commercial assembly programmer in IBM BAL for several years I
>> disagree. I started programming with assembler, and it was tough to learn
>> and tougher to debug.
>>
>> Branch on indeX Low or Equal
>> BXLE Ri,Rn,D(B)
>>
>> D(B) is an address made from the sum of an offset & base register. The
>> offset is a maxiumum of signed 4K
>>
>> where Rn is an even register, R(n+1) is paired odd
>> Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri < R(n+1)
>>
>> where Rn is an odd register
>> Ri <-- Ri+Rn; branch to D2(B2) if Ri < Rn
>>
>> Let me know how how you might use this instruction, and the value of the
>> odd register form in particular. Then we can talk about how to use it for
>> registers where in. And how to debug it. This might seem an artificial
>> instruction used once in a blue moon by sadistic programmers. It isn't.
>> Any IBM mainframe assembler programmer will have come across it and used
>> it, since it's an incredibly expressive instruction.
>>
>> Now add in a complete algorithm based on its use, and debugging requires
>> experience and knowledge not only of the machine code, the disassemby,
>> and the source (if you have it), but also of the person or compiler that
>> wrote the code too. It's not just the place where the code crashes
>> either, since often the problem starts a long, long way away (both in
>> time and space).
>>
>> Writing assembler and debugging it is (for me at least) a holistic
>> experience. That experience doesn't come cheap. While teaching students
>> assembler is a fine and noble goal, and IMHO does make for a better
>> programmer in any language, it really isn't a great starting point.
>
> OK, I've read your message and I still disagree.
>
> I have access to IBM z mainframe, however, I've never tried to write
> assembly code for it. Moreover, I'm not sure that particular mainframe
> have same instruction set you used to use, and I'm not familiar with
> developer tools provided there.
The instruction set has been added to over the years, but hasn't changed
since 1964; all the way from S/360 through to Z series. BXLE (and all the
others) are still there and 50 year old programs will run with no to
little change. The toolset doc is here;
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.12.0/com.ibm.zos.r12.asmk200/asmtug20.htm
>
> Can I see the opcode of this instruction? I would like to see if such
> opcode can be generated and executed in run-time.
I'm not quite sure why that would help. The opcode mnemonic is BXLE, it's
an RS 4 byte (two registers and an unindexed base-displacement address)
and the assembler (HLASM) works the rest out. I'm sure you'll find the
hex encoding in a Principle of Operations manual. HLASM is very high
level, and there are macros like DO and ENDDO. An example might help.
DO FROM=(R1,1),TO=(R3,10),BY=(R2,2)
Code for F
ENDDO
which generates and then assembles
LA R1,1
LA R3,10
LA R2,2
#@LB2 DC 0H
* code for F
#@LB3 DC 0H
BXLE R1,R2,#@LB2
The assembled code is what you debug. The DO/ENDDO aren't the source
that's assembled; they are macros that generate the source that's
assembled, and the debugger has no knowledge of those statements. HLASM
isn't a compiler.
Learning assembler as a first programming language makes it difficult to
grasp a whole host of important programming concepts, far less be able to
implement them. Although it may be instructive to understand what goes on
at a lower level, it's a poor first introduction to programming.
I still contend that assembler, regardless of architecture, is much
harder to write well and debug effectively that high level programs.
>
> --
> mix x
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 17 [1] 2 3 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web