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 17 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7hpes$msl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35237 |
On 2014-12-25, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >> Development is expensive and time to market is fairly long... It's >> hard to say what an average would be for that but I would think 50 to >> 100KLOC for a new feature that sells as an add-on would be a >> reasonable median value. > > Fair enough. What kind of features? Just system level (add support > for some new hardware device), or also at the application level? Toleration or exploitation of new OS features or hardware is mostly done as ongoing support as in customers expect their stuff works as long as they pay maintenance. New features are usually significant line items that show up in marcom materials so yes, application level. > If application level, how would you compare the development cost and > time, to what it would take for a Java shop to implement comparable > functionality? Oh. We've been talking about systems software so application level features are not something that could normally be done in any language but assembler. In the systems software venue comparable functionality is not possible in any language but assembler so I can't answer your question. But for application code generally there is nothing that ever has to be done to go from one release of the OS to the next or even a bunch of releases. Once in a great while there is something but usually you can go for decades running the same loadmodule (program). That means companies that sell application software very seldom worry about anything but bug fixes and new features, because toleration and exploitation are built into the compilers rather than the product code. Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 11:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec25.120000@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35212 |
Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes:
>Are you really unaware there are platforms where the primary language is
>assembler? Products range from foundation code running about 100 KLOC and a
>complete saleable product usually ranges from 500KLOC to 15MLOC total,
>including comments but not including macro expansion.
I am aware of platforms where the primary language is assembly
language: small embedded systems. I am not aware of any platforms for
new projects where one would write 500KLOC-15MLOC in assembly
language. Could you elaborate on that?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 12:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gu9s$po9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35227 |
On 2014-12-25, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >>Are you really unaware there are platforms where the primary language is >>assembler? Products range from foundation code running about 100 KLOC and a >>complete saleable product usually ranges from 500KLOC to 15MLOC total, >>including comments but not including macro expansion. > > I am aware of platforms where the primary language is assembly > language: small embedded systems. I am not aware of any platforms for > new projects where one would write 500KLOC-15MLOC in assembly > language. Could you elaborate on that? IBM mainframe hardware and OS is designed around an assembler interface. The large majority of system services are simply not available to C or HLL programs. Over 95% of all vendor software is and has always been written in assembler. 10 or 15 years ago that number would have been closer to 99%. The parts that aren't are UI and some algorithmic stuff. For user interface REXX or a scripting language called CLIST and C/C++ are often used. Algorithmic code is sometimes written in C or C++ but that is usually a very small part of a systems software product and their use even for those parts is relatively new. The IBM OS and architecture has been evolving since the early 1960s and it's been thoughtfully and carefully upgraded and refined in all that time so customers don't lose their investment in vendor software or development which are very expensive. Backwards compatibility is extremely important for example application object code and load modules from the 1960s will still run on the newest hardware and OS. Customers stay with the platform because of throughput, security, RAS, and software stability & compatibility. Vendor product lifetimes probably average 20 or more years and 30 year old and older products are not uncommon. Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec25.170300@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35229 |
Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes:
>On 2014-12-25, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes:
>>>Are you really unaware there are platforms where the primary language is
>>>assembler? Products range from foundation code running about 100 KLOC and a
>>>complete saleable product usually ranges from 500KLOC to 15MLOC total,
>>>including comments but not including macro expansion.
>>
>> I am aware of platforms where the primary language is assembly
>> language: small embedded systems. I am not aware of any platforms for
>> new projects where one would write 500KLOC-15MLOC in assembly
>> language. Could you elaborate on that?
>
>IBM mainframe hardware and OS is designed around an assembler interface. The
>large majority of system services are simply not available to C or HLL
>programs. Over 95% of all vendor software is and has always been written in
>assembler. 10 or 15 years ago that number would have been closer to 99%.
Interesting. Up to now my impression was that these mainframes are
programmed in Cobol, Fortran, and PL/I, with assembly language in
selected places.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7hh02$2r2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35234 |
On 2014-12-25, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >>On 2014-12-25, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >>>>Are you really unaware there are platforms where the primary language is >>>>assembler? Products range from foundation code running about 100 KLOC and a >>>>complete saleable product usually ranges from 500KLOC to 15MLOC total, >>>>including comments but not including macro expansion. >>> >>> I am aware of platforms where the primary language is assembly >>> language: small embedded systems. I am not aware of any platforms for >>> new projects where one would write 500KLOC-15MLOC in assembly >>> language. Could you elaborate on that? >> >>IBM mainframe hardware and OS is designed around an assembler interface. The >>large majority of system services are simply not available to C or HLL >>programs. Over 95% of all vendor software is and has always been written in >>assembler. 10 or 15 years ago that number would have been closer to 99%. > > Interesting. Up to now my impression was that these mainframes are > programmed in Cobol, Fortran, and PL/I, with assembly language in > selected places. It matters whether we're discussing application programming or systems programming. There are fairly clear lines and not much overlap. COBOL is by far the most popular application programming language but Java and C/C++ have started to make a dent especially in web-enabled apps and UI respectively. PL/I is a great language but is neither fish nor fowl so it has a tough time. It has always been there but is still a tiny percentage of all mainframe code. It was probably too little too late. FORTRAN has a niche and there are big old systems still running but I don't know of any new mainframe FORTRAN written in many years. The compiler hasn't been updated since F77 although it has extensions. It's just easier to code Fortran on UNIX or Windows with a new compiler and if you need supercomputing a mainframe isn't an appropriate platform. I guess COBOL accounts for 99% of all application code written on the mainframe since the dawn of time. I have come across and worked on a fair amount of application code in assembler but there aren't many good reasons to have used assembler for applications and it's usually not pretty. Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 21:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0b71b23-074f-4c2f-b160-a264d3e18e38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35235 |
On Thursday, December 25, 2014 10:20:09 AM UTC-7, Tom O'Donnell wrote: > I guess COBOL accounts for 99% of all application code written on the > mainframe since the dawn of time. I have come across and worked on a fair > amount of application code in assembler but there aren't many good reasons > to have used assembler for applications and it's usually not pretty. I worked for almost 2 years writing IBM360 assembly-language for processing lists of names/addresses for direct mail. We didn't use COBOL at all. I've seen COBOL, and it is truly awful --- there are no redeeming features --- it is a programming language designed by and for non-programmers (business majors). Assembly-language is superior to COBOL because it has macros available. It is also superior to C for the same reason. For an x86 program, I would much prefer FASM or HLA to C --- C is not much better than COBOL. I worked as a C programmer prior to my bout with the mainframe. At that time, I was expected to "get up to speed" in C++ because version-2 of our program was in C++ and version-1 in C was getting phased out. I had serious problems in learning OOP and I was about to despair. Terms such as "inheritance" "polymorphism" "virtual function" etc., completely baffled me. The books weren't helping --- they always used weird analogies (a duck-billed platypus to illustrate multiple-inheritance), and I had no idea what any of this had to do with programming. The OOP proponents seemed to revel in tossing around these multi-syllable words, never defining them, and making grandiose claims about how easy programming became (this was in the early 1990s) --- but it all seemed like hand-waving to me. When I was about to give up, I decided to start reading about how a C++ compiler was implemented. This was a pretty big jump, considering that I had yet to write a single OOP program, and I didn't know what any of the terms meant. When I saw the assembly-code generated however, the OOP concept suddenly made sense. Inheritance was simple! All of it was simple! C++ became easy to learn, but only after I understood what was being generated internally. I don't think it is possible to understand programming without knowing assembly-language --- anybody who claims to be a programmer, but doesn't know assembly-language, is faking it --- they are just hand-waving script-kiddies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8n0dj$t69$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35286 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > I worked as a C programmer prior to my bout > with the mainframe. At that time, I was > expected to "get up to speed" in C++ because > version-2 of our program was in C++ and > version-1 in C was getting phased out. I had > serious problems in learning OOP and I was > about to despair. Terms such as > "inheritance" "polymorphism" "virtual > function" etc., completely baffled me. The > books weren't helping --- they always used > weird analogies (a duck-billed platypus to > illustrate multiple-inheritance), and I had > no idea what any of this had to do with > programming. The OOP proponents seemed to > revel in tossing around these multi-syllable > words, never defining them, and making > grandiose claims about how easy programming > became (this was in the early 1990s) --- but > it all seemed like hand-waving to me. When I > was about to give up, I decided to start > reading about how a C++ compiler was > implemented. This was a pretty big jump, > considering that I had yet to write a single > OOP program, and I didn't know what any of > the terms meant. When I saw the > assembly-code generated however, the OOP > concept suddenly made sense. Inheritance was > simple! All of it was simple! C++ became > easy to learn, but only after I understood > what was being generated internally. > > I don't think it is possible to understand > programming without knowing > assembly-language --- anybody who claims to > be a programmer, but doesn't know > assembly-language, is faking it --- they are > just hand-waving script-kiddies. (I broke his lines for him. Anyone who knows anything about Usenet knows that he must limit the length of his lines. He knows nothing about Usenet in particular and very little about using computers in general.) He found that his primitive, stone-age mine was unable to begin to grasp abstractions. Instead of admitting that his mind was substandard, he found that it was much more pleasant to believe that his mind was superior. Since he calls those who don't know assembly language "hand-waving script-kiddies", it is certainly fair to call him a bit-twiddling monkey who has no ability to write significant data-processing programs. Perhaps, with constant supervision and guidance, he would be able to program an embedded controller that flushes a toilet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m7hms0$dcm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35203 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > OK, here's the first and easiest Euler problem: > > https://projecteuler.net/problem=1 > > How about starting a timer, coding a solution in assembler, and posting > how long it took. It's a very easy problem, just above "hello world". > Takes under 1 minute in Haskell or Python, about 5 minutes in Forth. A > real Forther could do it in Forth quicker than me, of course. Yes, it took me less than a minute. This is really trivial. : 3or5? ( n -- flag ) dup 3 mod 0= swap 5 mod 0= or ; ok : sum3or5 0 swap 1 ?DO i 3or5? IF i + THEN LOOP ; ok 10 sum3or5 . 23 1000 sum3or5 . 233168 ok -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 08:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gib3$meg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35152 |
Paul Rubin wrote:
> I get the impression you've never used an HLL. For this purpose, an HLL
> means something with type safety, garbage collection, and preferably
> first class functions (like Python and Javascript but probably unlike
> VB). Here is the notorious Quicksort example in Haskell:
>
> quicksort [] = []
> quicksort (p:xs) = (quicksort lesser) ++ [p] ++ (quicksort greater)
> where
> lesser = filter (< p) xs
> greater = filter (>= p) xs
Factor:
USING: sequences locals ;
:: quicksort ( seq -- seq )
seq empty?
[ { } ]
[ seq unclip :> hd ! Separate 1st el. from rest of sequence.
[ hd < ] partition [ quicksort ] bi@
hd prefix append ]
if ;
{ 9 8 7 0 2 88 3 4 22 5 1 6 } quicksort .
===>
{ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22 88 }
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 19:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m7hlfd$827$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35152 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >> That's not exactly true. The amount of constructs is limited in Assembler >> same as in HLL. It's true that code will be longer in terms of bytes, but >> it's not mean you'll spend more time typing it. > > I get the impression you've never used an HLL. For this purpose, an HLL > means something with type safety, garbage collection, and preferably > first class functions (like Python and Javascript but probably unlike > VB). Here is the notorious Quicksort example in Haskell: > > quicksort [] = [] > quicksort (p:xs) = (quicksort lesser) ++ [p] ++ (quicksort greater) > where > lesser = filter (< p) xs > greater = filter (>= p) xs > > Like any small program this doesn't rely much on types, but it relies on > GC to clean up intermediate results, Ouch. This is acutally not Quicksort, as Hoare's Quicksort is an in-place array sort, and has the advantage (compared to other O(n log n) sorts) that you don't have intermediate results to clean up later. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8enh2$hnd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35134 |
on 23/12/2014 13:12:17, mix wrote: <much snippage> > > If I remember correctly, IBM lately was in favor of virtualization, > i.e. the old code written for S/360 would be translated to > pseudo-code, and that pseudo-code would be translated to actual > machine code. > No, that's not how it works. The instruction set hasn't changed. >> DO FROM(R1,1),TO(R3,10),BY(R2,2) >> Code for F >> ENDDO > > I would never write something like that. That's not Assembler. I would > write Forth first and then do high level language things if needed. It is assembler -- or rather, it's an assembler macro.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec23.163556@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35133 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>Learning assembler as a first programming language makes it difficult to
>grasp a whole host of important programming concepts
Like what?
I don't see the problem there, I see it in the feedback you get when
you make a mistake; it's not very enlightening to the novice.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8enu2$jjp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35138 |
on 23/12/2014 15:36:00, wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: >>Learning assembler as a first programming language makes it difficult to >>grasp a whole host of important programming concepts > > Like what? > > I don't see the problem there, I see it in the feedback you get when > you make a mistake; it's not very enlightening to the novice. > > - anton Like anything beyond basic CS concepts. OOP, currying, boxing, call by value/reference/name and so on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-08 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Jan8.165150@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35486 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>on 23/12/2014 15:36:00, wrote:
>> "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>>>Learning assembler as a first programming language makes it difficult to
>>>grasp a whole host of important programming concepts
>>
>> Like what?
...
>Like anything beyond basic CS concepts. OOP, currying, boxing, call by
>value/reference/name and so on.
OOP and call by value/reference: Possible; they get a rather
implementation-oriented view of these concepts from that, but that's
not necessarily bad.
Boxing is an implementation artifact that is easier to understand from
the low-level (implementation) view than when coming from the abstract
side.
Currying can also be understood when starting from a low level, as
demonstrated by the nice paper below. It could not be expressed in
Java until recently (can it now?), so if that is an important concept,
starting with assembly language has an advantage here over the lots of
courses that use Java.
@Article{belinfante87,
author = "Johan G.F. Belinfante",
title = "S/K/ID: Combinators in Forth",
journal = jfar,
year = "1987",
volume = "4",
number = "4",
pages = "555--580"
}
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-21 16:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <be3d9f6f-105e-4abf-9f37-1a64b98fa940@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35079 |
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 1:38:17 PM UTC-8, mix wrote: > > Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? > > -- > mix x When I started college in the mid-80s, we had the lower-division choices of Pascal and Assembler, both of which were hosted on NOS, the CDC Cyber time-sharing system. The Assembler was IBM 360 assembler, and was run on a simulator on the Cyber! C and 68k assembler showed up in the course catalog within a couple of years, and they were hosted by the time-sharing VAX (C was anyway, I can't remember the 68k one, because I took that class elsewhere). Good times fighting over time-share terminals during crunch time, and waiting for the wide fan-fold line printer listings to show up in the output bins! Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 10:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <708dea31-1d37-4376-b74f-a9e0319583dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35085 |
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:02:32 PM UTC-5, Michael Barry wrote: > On Sunday, December 21, 2014 1:38:17 PM UTC-8, mix wrote: > > > > Didn't you notice that I mention Assembler have to be learned first? > > > > -- > > mix x > > When I started college in the mid-80s, we had the lower-division > choices of Pascal and Assembler, both of which were hosted on NOS, > the CDC Cyber time-sharing system. The Assembler was IBM 360 > assembler, and was run on a simulator on the Cyber! C and 68k > assembler showed up in the course catalog within a couple of years, > and they were hosted by the time-sharing VAX (C was anyway, I can't > remember the 68k one, because I took that class elsewhere). Good > times fighting over time-share terminals during crunch time, and > waiting for the wide fan-fold line printer listings to show up in > the output bins! > > Mike I started in 1975 with the MOS-TECHNOLOGY 6502 KIM (Keyboard Input Monitor). Only knowing - but never having programmed with - BASIC at that time, the 6502 machine language was really easy to use for me: easy to remember Mnemonics, and an orthogonal command table with approx. 60 commands, ten have been enough to start with, using the command table and pencil and paper for writing programs, including a VM and a database. In 1984 I got RSC-Forth for the 65xx family, as easy to use, but much more effective than machine language - and the RSC-Forth allowed to write on floppy disks. That was a great improvement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 05:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c8b9c528-cd7b-42cc-8260-18b8123c0773@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #35035 |
On Friday, December 19, 2014 11:59:34 PM UTC, visua...@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. > > 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 Rick, have you looked at a NISC - no microcode - just control of registers, so you have only registers, buses, memory, register control, so Forth would drive the hardware directly. CISC - RISC - NISC
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 09:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m798p5$33d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35102 |
On 12/22/2014 8:47 AM, JUERGEN wrote: > On Friday, December 19, 2014 11:59:34 PM UTC, visua...@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. >> >> 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 > > Rick, have you looked at a NISC - no microcode - just control of registers, so you have only registers, buses, memory, register control, so Forth would drive the hardware directly. CISC - RISC - NISC I believe what you are describing would be a micro coded computer with no assembly language. In other words, VLIW in its purest form. That is exactly the sort of machine I worked on many years ago. It was a floating point processor before they had floating point on a chip. The control word was over a hundred bits wide. There was no instruction, just lots of control points, a few of them encoded. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-22 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54983767$0$15938$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35103 |
In article <m798p5$33d$1@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On 12/22/2014 8:47 AM, JUERGEN wrote: >> On Friday, December 19, 2014 11:59:34 PM UTC, visua...@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. >>> >>> 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 >> >> Rick, have you looked at a NISC - no microcode - just control of >registers, so you have only registers, buses, memory, register control, >so Forth would drive the hardware directly. CISC - RISC - NISC > >I believe what you are describing would be a micro coded computer with >no assembly language. In other words, VLIW in its purest form. That is >exactly the sort of machine I worked on many years ago. It was a >floating point processor before they had floating point on a chip. The >control word was over a hundred bits wide. There was no instruction, >just lots of control points, a few of them encoded. This reminds of the DEC Alpha. There were a lot of spare words that did special things, via the PAL instruction. It could be interesting to play with, but I never had enough decumentation for that. It is not even clear to me whether those instructions were chip or system dependant. My Dec Alpha is an NT work station that I abuse for Linux. Does anyone know more about this PAL stuff? > >-- > >Rick -- 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 15:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec23.161612@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35105 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>This reminds of the DEC Alpha. There were a lot of spare words that did
>special things, via the PAL instruction. It could be interesting to
>play with, but I never had enough decumentation for that.
>It is not even clear to me whether those instructions were chip or
>system dependant. My Dec Alpha is an NT work station that I abuse for
>Linux. Does anyone know more about this PAL stuff?
PAL instructions invoke machine code routines that can access some
hardware resources that normal code is not allowed to access. So they
were somewhat similar to system calls. But sometimes it is just
ordinary code. I looked at the IMB (instruction memory barrier) code
for IIRC the 21064a, and it just tramples through the whole cache in
order to flush it. Some PAL instructions are guaranteed to be
available everywhere (e.g., IMB), others are OS-specific (or maybe
rather console-specific: the SRM console for Digital Unix and VMS, and
ARC/Alphabios for WNT; Linux worked with either).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web