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 2 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 17 Next page →
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7bpni$tm$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35133 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > 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; 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. Thank you for links, though. I'll check them out. > 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 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. OK, give me some time and I'll try to answer your questions. > 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. The reason for that is lack of good teachers. Assembler is no any more complicated than any other programming language, but many things are done differently in assembly code. >> >> -- >> mix x >> -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 07:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x4msmqry6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35134 |
mix <mix@test.net> writes: > The reason for that is lack of good teachers. Assembler is no any more > complicated than any other programming language, but many things are done > differently in assembly code. Assembly is harder to debug mostly because of its complete lack of memory safety, so it's easy for a buggy program to clobber data belonging to some other part of the program, that doesn't cause observable misbehaviour until the other part of the program runs and you have to diagnose what happened to it. If a program in a safe language has a similar bug, then it crashes with an understandable diagnostic as soon as the buggy code tries writing to the wrong place; or better yet, the error is found at compile time, say through type checking. There is also the far higher amount of code you have to write to do even the simplest things, compared to an HLL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 10:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <A62dnV0I0pVUBQTJnZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35139 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >> The reason for that is lack of good teachers. Assembler is no any more >> complicated than any other programming language, but many things are done >> differently in assembly code. > > Assembly is harder to debug mostly because of its complete lack of > memory safety, so it's easy for a buggy program to clobber data > belonging to some other part of the program, that doesn't cause > observable misbehaviour until the other part of the program runs and you > have to diagnose what happened to it. I don't think that's the reason at all. There are plenty of other languages without memory safety that are much easier to debug. Forth, for one. > If a program in a safe language has a similar bug, then it crashes with > an understandable diagnostic as soon as the buggy code tries writing to > the wrong place; or better yet, the error is found at compile time, say > through type checking. > > There is also the far higher amount of code you have to write to do even > the simplest things, compared to an HLL. Yeah. That one. :-) Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xioh2w1qo.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35142 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > I don't think that's the reason at all. There are plenty of other > languages without memory safety that are much easier to debug. Forth, > for one. Hmm. Forth style tends to avoid writing to memory (using the stack instead) which might help; and the interactive interpreter (test each word carefully before going to the next one) probably makes debugging and bug prevention easier. The stack conventions also create some informal type discipline, that could also be followed in assembler but is more stuff for the programmer to have to stay on top of. Especially for beginners, the complexity gets out of control. I've never written any significant sized asm programs (just some small ones) and don't really have a picture in my mind of how the generation of programmers who wrote complex apps in asm did it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 15:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1OSdnQdBBthSRQTJnZ2dnUU7-LudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35150 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> I don't think that's the reason at all. There are plenty of other >> languages without memory safety that are much easier to debug. Forth, >> for one. > > Hmm. Forth style tends to avoid writing to memory (using the stack > instead) which might help; and the interactive interpreter (test > each word carefully before going to the next one) probably makes > debugging and bug prevention easier. The stack conventions also > create some informal type discipline, that could also be followed in > assembler but is more stuff for the programmer to have to stay on > top of. Especially for beginners, the complexity gets out of > control. Does it, indeed. The thing you've not mentioned, perhaps because you've not tried it, is the ease of extending the compiler to inject monitoring and tracing facilities. That really is the proverbial magic bullet when it comes to finding weird bugs. > I've never written any significant sized asm programs (just some > small ones) and don't really have a picture in my mind of how the > generation of programmers who wrote complex apps in asm did it. I've written a great deal of asm, but never in an app with no HLL at all. But I'm fairly sure I know how it's done: macros, lots of them, and a rigorous set of interface conventions. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 19:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xh9wkwgpy.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35153 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > Does it, indeed. The thing you've not mentioned, perhaps because > you've not tried it, is the ease of extending the compiler to inject > monitoring and tracing facilities. That really is the proverbial > magic bullet when it comes to finding weird bugs. That does sound useful and I'd be interested in hearing examples. It sounds limited though, unless you carefully write in a style where all the memory operations are funnelled through a few words that are aware of the program data structures. By comparison, with today's dynamic scripting languages, there's not much debugging per se. The program crashes and there's a diagnostic dump that tells you immediately what went wrong. So at least for throwaway scripting, you can fling code at the screen, then test and fix it until you get the desired output, without spending much time on design. > I've written a great deal of asm, but never in an app with no HLL at > all. But I'm fairly sure I know how it's done: macros, lots of them, > and a rigorous set of interface conventions. I could see a significant efficiency loss from that. I'm imagining those macros saving and restoring registers much more than necessary, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 02:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Cq2dndVL0quuUwbJnZ2dnUU7-RGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35204 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> Does it, indeed. The thing you've not mentioned, perhaps because >> you've not tried it, is the ease of extending the compiler to inject >> monitoring and tracing facilities. That really is the proverbial >> magic bullet when it comes to finding weird bugs. > > That does sound useful and I'd be interested in hearing examples. It > sounds limited though, unless you carefully write in a style where all > the memory operations are funnelled through a few words that are aware > of the program data structures. All memory operations are already funelled through a few words, so that's easy: you just redefine @ and ! (etc.) to be aware of the program data structures. There are lots of powerful variations on that, such as redefining : . > By comparison, with today's dynamic scripting languages, there's not > much debugging per se. The program crashes and there's a diagnostic > dump that tells you immediately what went wrong. So at least for > throwaway scripting, you can fling code at the screen, then test and fix > it until you get the desired output, without spending much time on design. Heh. Yeah right. :-) I've never had much success with "inspect the entrails" as a way of debugging a program. IME it's usually too late by that: you want to catch the problem when things start to go wrong. >> I've written a great deal of asm, but never in an app with no HLL at >> all. But I'm fairly sure I know how it's done: macros, lots of them, >> and a rigorous set of interface conventions. > > I could see a significant efficiency loss from that. I'm imagining > those macros saving and restoring registers much more than necessary, > etc. Oh, absolutely, yes. But I suspect it's the only way to maintain your sanity. As an aside, here's a real gem: http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/4155/04155D.pdf It's Dijkstra et al's Algol compiler, written in Electrologica X1 assembly language. (It's very low-level: maybe not even assembly language, at least by modern standards.) Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <549c7545$0$6942$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35218 |
In article <Cq2dndVL0quuUwbJnZ2dnUU7-RGdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>> Does it, indeed. The thing you've not mentioned, perhaps because >>> you've not tried it, is the ease of extending the compiler to inject >>> monitoring and tracing facilities. That really is the proverbial >>> magic bullet when it comes to finding weird bugs. >> >> That does sound useful and I'd be interested in hearing examples. It >> sounds limited though, unless you carefully write in a style where all >> the memory operations are funnelled through a few words that are aware >> of the program data structures. > >All memory operations are already funelled through a few words, so >that's easy: you just redefine @ and ! (etc.) to be aware of the >program data structures. There are lots of powerful variations on >that, such as redefining : . > >> By comparison, with today's dynamic scripting languages, there's not >> much debugging per se. The program crashes and there's a diagnostic >> dump that tells you immediately what went wrong. So at least for >> throwaway scripting, you can fling code at the screen, then test and fix >> it until you get the desired output, without spending much time on design. > >Heh. Yeah right. :-) > >I've never had much success with "inspect the entrails" as a way of >debugging a program. IME it's usually too late by that: you want to >catch the problem when things start to go wrong. > >>> I've written a great deal of asm, but never in an app with no HLL at >>> all. But I'm fairly sure I know how it's done: macros, lots of them, >>> and a rigorous set of interface conventions. >> >> I could see a significant efficiency loss from that. I'm imagining >> those macros saving and restoring registers much more than necessary, >> etc. > >Oh, absolutely, yes. But I suspect it's the only way to maintain your >sanity. > >As an aside, here's a real gem: >http://oai.cwi.nl/oai/asset/4155/04155D.pdf > >It's Dijkstra et al's Algol compiler, written in Electrologica X1 >assembly language. (It's very low-level: maybe not even assembly >language, at least by modern standards.) That is an extremely interesting reference. Those photographs... We really looked like that in the 50's. Fortunately I can easily read the comments in Dutch. I saved it. Not sure when I will take time to look at it. > >Andrew. -- 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 | 2014-12-25 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec25.124317@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35204 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>By comparison, with today's dynamic scripting languages, there's not
>much debugging per se. The program crashes and there's a diagnostic
>dump that tells you immediately what went wrong.
Not in my experience. A typical experience is that I use a complex
regexp in awk, and it does not match what I want it to match (and I
doubt that it's any better with other languages). So I have to try
out simpler forms of that regexp to see what's wrong. Or I do some
complex shell pipe, and I get no output, or the wrong output. Then I
leave away parts to see where it went wrong. No diagnostic tells me
what went wrong.
>So at least for
>throwaway scripting, you can fling code at the screen, then test and fix
>it until you get the desired output, without spending much time on design.
The time needed for design depends mainly on the complexity of the
task, on whether you have experience with a similar task (so you can
reuse the design), and on whether there are different designs for the
that appear similarly viable at first sight; the latter may have to do
with the programming language, and you might do less investigation on
that in a throw-away program.
Anyway, I don't really see a connection between the time needed for
design and the way you debug programs; sure, you also consider testing
and debugging in design, but having certain errors reported by the
language does not have more influence than other language features.
- 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 | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 20:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <549c7651$0$6942$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35230 |
In article <2014Dec25.124317@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes: >>By comparison, with today's dynamic scripting languages, there's not >>much debugging per se. The program crashes and there's a diagnostic >>dump that tells you immediately what went wrong. > >Not in my experience. A typical experience is that I use a complex >regexp in awk, and it does not match what I want it to match (and I >doubt that it's any better with other languages). So I have to try >out simpler forms of that regexp to see what's wrong. Or I do some >complex shell pipe, and I get no output, or the wrong output. Then I >leave away parts to see where it went wrong. No diagnostic tells me >what went wrong. Especially for regexp the rule is: a complicated program is a simple program with some extensions. While I tend (nowadays) to be able to get a regexp right the first time (!), one really should start with a simple expression and make it more complicated. In this way it doesn't cost an inordinate amount of time. <SNIP> >Anyway, I don't really see a connection between the time needed for >design and the way you debug programs; sure, you also consider testing >and debugging in design, but having certain errors reported by the >language does not have more influence than other language features. Well. For really well-designed programs (like Ahem when I designed them), an error often triggers a reaction like "of course ... that is probably ..". > >- anton -- 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 | 2014-12-26 13:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec26.143741@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35248 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>In article <2014Dec25.124317@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>By comparison, with today's dynamic scripting languages, there's not
>>>much debugging per se. The program crashes and there's a diagnostic
>>>dump that tells you immediately what went wrong.
>>
>>Not in my experience. A typical experience is that I use a complex
>>regexp in awk, and it does not match what I want it to match (and I
>>doubt that it's any better with other languages). So I have to try
>>out simpler forms of that regexp to see what's wrong. Or I do some
>>complex shell pipe, and I get no output, or the wrong output. Then I
>>leave away parts to see where it went wrong. No diagnostic tells me
>>what went wrong.
>
>Especially for regexp the rule is: a complicated program is a simple
>program with some extensions. While I tend (nowadays) to be able to
>get a regexp right the first time (!), one really should start with a
>simple expression and make it more complicated. In this way it doesn't
>cost an inordinate amount of time.
Yes. Anyway, the point is that you don't get a diagnostic that tells
you what went wrong.
><SNIP>
>>Anyway, I don't really see a connection between the time needed for
>>design and the way you debug programs; sure, you also consider testing
>>and debugging in design, but having certain errors reported by the
>>language does not have more influence than other language features.
>
>Well. For really well-designed programs (like Ahem when I designed them),
>an error often triggers a reaction like "of course ... that is probably ..".
Yes, that happens in some cases, and in some cases a different design
might have been chosen that does not have the same property. But you
can have that in any language. And you can have bugs that mystify you
in any language. And you can have programs where you don't spend much
time on design in any language. And my guess is, that if the task
fits a well-established design (design pattern is the not-so-new
buzzword for that), that design also has its debugging methodology
established (a debugging pattern?), and if you know it, you get the
"that is probably ..." feeling more often.
So there is a certain connection between the time needed for the
design and the way you debug programs, contrary to what I wrote above.
The connection to the language is slim, though. Sure, a design and
debugging methodology that relies on array bounds checking won't work
on a language without array bounds checking, but OTOH, a language
with, say address arithmetics may lead to other designs that one would
not use in checked languages; I remember the horrible contortions a
student of mine went through when implementing Postscript in C#.
- 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 | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-26 11:40 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <fM-dnYFH9cx-SADJnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35269 |
On 12/26/14 3:37 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >> In article <2014Dec25.124317@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, ... >> <SNIP> >>> Anyway, I don't really see a connection between the time needed for >>> design and the way you debug programs; sure, you also consider testing >>> and debugging in design, but having certain errors reported by the >>> language does not have more influence than other language features. >> >> Well. For really well-designed programs (like Ahem when I designed them), >> an error often triggers a reaction like "of course ... that is probably ..". > > Yes, that happens in some cases, and in some cases a different design > might have been chosen that does not have the same property. But you > can have that in any language. And you can have bugs that mystify you > in any language. And you can have programs where you don't spend much > time on design in any language. And my guess is, that if the task > fits a well-established design (design pattern is the not-so-new > buzzword for that), that design also has its debugging methodology > established (a debugging pattern?), and if you know it, you get the > "that is probably ..." feeling more often. > > So there is a certain connection between the time needed for the > design and the way you debug programs, contrary to what I wrote above. > The connection to the language is slim, though. Sure, a design and > debugging methodology that relies on array bounds checking won't work > on a language without array bounds checking, but OTOH, a language > with, say address arithmetics may lead to other designs that one would > not use in checked languages; I remember the horrible contortions a > student of mine went through when implementing Postscript in C#. Fortunately, with Forth you can have your choice: arrays with bounds checking if you want it, with a response that's appropriate for your application, or none if you want to avoid the overhead and know that your parameters are coming from a sufficiently safe source that you don't need it. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 19:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8eosv$o0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35153 |
on 23/12/2014 21:04:19, Andrew Haley wrote: > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>> I don't think that's the reason at all. There are plenty of other >>> languages without memory safety that are much easier to debug. Forth, >>> for one. >> >> Hmm. Forth style tends to avoid writing to memory (using the stack >> instead) which might help; and the interactive interpreter (test >> each word carefully before going to the next one) probably makes >> debugging and bug prevention easier. The stack conventions also >> create some informal type discipline, that could also be followed in >> assembler but is more stuff for the programmer to have to stay on >> top of. Especially for beginners, the complexity gets out of >> control. > > Does it, indeed. The thing you've not mentioned, perhaps because > you've not tried it, is the ease of extending the compiler to inject > monitoring and tracing facilities. That really is the proverbial > magic bullet when it comes to finding weird bugs. > >> I've never written any significant sized asm programs (just some >> small ones) and don't really have a picture in my mind of how the >> generation of programmers who wrote complex apps in asm did it. > > I've written a great deal of asm, but never in an app with no HLL at > all. But I'm fairly sure I know how it's done: macros, lots of them, > and a rigorous set of interface conventions. IMHO but based on getting the T shirt, it's the same as coding in other langauges, but different, and the mental bookeeping requirement is much higher than with HLLs. Lots of small testable subroutines. (That should remind you of Forth.) Documentation & comments on every line of code; comments may (should) be measured in the MB for KB of generated machine code. An ability to hold tens to hundreds of small unresolved things to be done in your head as you code. Along with a well developed sense of code geography; that is, a map of how the code is laid out and what bits are where and do what. A strong dislike of side effects, such as global variables that are modified while not formal parameters to functions. Dealing with and naming symbolic names when scope is global. Alignment. And so on. > > Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 21:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87oaqcwk47.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #35487 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: > IMHO but based on getting the T shirt, [asm is] the same as coding in > other langauges, but different, and the mental bookeeping requirement > is much higher than with HLLs.... An ability to hold tens to hundreds > of small unresolved things to be done in your head as you code. Along > with a well developed sense of code geography; that is, a map of how > the code is laid out and what bits are where and do what. That's a really great explanation that's now saved in my quotes file. The thing about HLL's and type systems is they automatically track those obligations for you. There's a quote in Real World Haskell (contributed partly by me) that says programming with static types is like putting pieces into a jigsaw puzzle, so if a piece has the wrong shape, it simply won't fit. Without types, it's like a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces are 1x1 squares and always fit, so you have to keep looking at the picture (i.e. testing) to see whether things are going wrong. Not that long ago I was a Lisper with almost as much disdain for types as Bernd's, but Haskell changed my perspective. I even almost like C++ now, though that feels like confessing a perversity. > comments may (should) be measured in the MB for KB of generated > machine code. That's unlike Forth, which seems to have a tradition of rather sparse commenting :(.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 21:33 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <HNidnfEwsqNHEjbJnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35494 |
On 1/5/15 7:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: ... >> comments may (should) be measured in the MB for KB of generated >> machine code. > > That's unlike Forth, which seems to have a tradition of rather sparse > commenting :(. Mb per Kb, may be probably appropriate for ASM, but I don't necessarily go along with a "tradition" of sparse commenting for Forth. Our standards at FORTH, Inc. for many years has been that stack comments are required, and each logical section of code (often a file, on a few occasion several regions within a file) requires a section of commentary describing the use of each word to be presented in the following code. In the 80's, we had roughly one block of comments for each block of code. We came to like having them spatially somewhat seregated (one keystroke alternated between the block of comments and the block of code), because when you're reading code it "flows" better with the comments segregated but easily accessible. When we moved to files in the '90's, we decided to retain a similar organization, as described above. It's worked well. So, the ratio we advocate is nearly 1:1. Whereas comments for ASM have to explain what the code is doing, the principal purpose of our comments is to provide usage info (inputs, outputs, description of the process as a logical level). Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54abb7e2$0$15869$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35495 |
In article <HNidnfEwsqNHEjbJnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@supernews.com>, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >On 1/5/15 7:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: >... >>> comments may (should) be measured in the MB for KB of generated >>> machine code. >> >> That's unlike Forth, which seems to have a tradition of rather sparse >> commenting :(. > >Mb per Kb, may be probably appropriate for ASM, but I don't necessarily >go along with a "tradition" of sparse commenting for Forth. Our >standards at FORTH, Inc. for many years has been that stack comments are >required, and each logical section of code (often a file, on a few >occasion several regions within a file) requires a section of commentary >describing the use of each word to be presented in the following code. That is what I would call sparse. > >In the 80's, we had roughly one block of comments for each block of >code. We came to like having them spatially somewhat seregated (one >keystroke alternated between the block of comments and the block of >code), because when you're reading code it "flows" better with the >comments segregated but easily accessible. When we moved to files in the >'90's, we decided to retain a similar organization, as described above. >It's worked well. So, the ratio we advocate is nearly 1:1. > >Whereas comments for ASM have to explain what the code is doing, the >principal purpose of our comments is to provide usage info (inputs, >outputs, description of the process as a logical level). If I compare two medium size projects of mine (ssort in C++) prime twin counting (transputer assembler) the comment and style of comment is not all that different. Certainly not principally different. The programming experience wasn't either. Certainly programming in assembler is more tedious, but Forth, assembler and C++ are all tedious in different ways. > >Cheers, >Elizabeth 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 | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 10:13 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <38WdnYm5jI1E3DHJnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35499 |
On 1/6/15 12:24 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <HNidnfEwsqNHEjbJnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@supernews.com>, > Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/15 7:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >>> "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: >> ... >>>> comments may (should) be measured in the MB for KB of generated >>>> machine code. >>> >>> That's unlike Forth, which seems to have a tradition of rather sparse >>> commenting :(. >> >> Mb per Kb, may be probably appropriate for ASM, but I don't necessarily >> go along with a "tradition" of sparse commenting for Forth. Our >> standards at FORTH, Inc. for many years has been that stack comments are >> required, and each logical section of code (often a file, on a few >> occasion several regions within a file) requires a section of commentary >> describing the use of each word to be presented in the following code. > > That is what I would call sparse. What is your style of commenting? >> In the 80's, we had roughly one block of comments for each block of >> code. We came to like having them spatially somewhat seregated (one >> keystroke alternated between the block of comments and the block of >> code), because when you're reading code it "flows" better with the >> comments segregated but easily accessible. When we moved to files in the >> '90's, we decided to retain a similar organization, as described above. >> It's worked well. So, the ratio we advocate is nearly 1:1. >> >> Whereas comments for ASM have to explain what the code is doing, the >> principal purpose of our comments is to provide usage info (inputs, >> outputs, description of the process as a logical level). > > If I compare two medium size projects of mine (ssort in C++) > prime twin counting (transputer assembler) the comment and style of > comment is not all that different. Certainly not principally different. Really? A line of commentary for every instruction (which is what is recommended for ASM)? No HLL should require that! Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-07 00:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54ac80d1$0$15820$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #35513 |
In article <38WdnYm5jI1E3DHJnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@supernews.com>, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >On 1/6/15 12:24 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> In article <HNidnfEwsqNHEjbJnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@supernews.com>, >> Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >>> On 1/5/15 7:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>> "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: >>> ... >>>>> comments may (should) be measured in the MB for KB of generated >>>>> machine code. >>>> >>>> That's unlike Forth, which seems to have a tradition of rather sparse >>>> commenting :(. >>> >>> Mb per Kb, may be probably appropriate for ASM, but I don't necessarily >>> go along with a "tradition" of sparse commenting for Forth. Our >>> standards at FORTH, Inc. for many years has been that stack comments are >>> required, and each logical section of code (often a file, on a few >>> occasion several regions within a file) requires a section of commentary >>> describing the use of each word to be presented in the following code. >> >> That is what I would call sparse. > >What is your style of commenting? We have been over that a couple of times. I know you don't like it. Basically I require at least a syntactically correct and meaningful English (or Dutch) sentence to describe a Forth word from the point of using it. So the innocent bystander has the impression he's reading a story (that he doesn't understand.) Of course if you do understand the sentence, you also know the stack effect. In my opinion if you don't know what a word is supposed to do, knowing the stack effect is worthless. > >>> In the 80's, we had roughly one block of comments for each block of >>> code. We came to like having them spatially somewhat seregated (one >>> keystroke alternated between the block of comments and the block of >>> code), because when you're reading code it "flows" better with the >>> comments segregated but easily accessible. When we moved to files in the >>> '90's, we decided to retain a similar organization, as described above. >>> It's worked well. So, the ratio we advocate is nearly 1:1. >>> >>> Whereas comments for ASM have to explain what the code is doing, the >>> principal purpose of our comments is to provide usage info (inputs, >>> outputs, description of the process as a logical level). >> >> If I compare two medium size projects of mine (ssort in C++) >> prime twin counting (transputer assembler) the comment and style of >> comment is not all that different. Certainly not principally different. > >Really? A line of commentary for every instruction (which is what is >recommended for ASM)? No HLL should require that! There are no loose instruction in my twin prime project, except for the very lowest macro's. Almost all higher level macro's are build exclusively of lower level macro's in the style of Forth words. At times I forgot that I was not programming in Forth. Most comment handles about things like how 420 numbers are packed in a 32 bit word, and the priority of communication in parallel processes that must prevent lock ups. > >Cheers, >Elizabeth -- 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 | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 14:59 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <75mdnepxlNtBGTHJnZ2dnUU7-YWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35519 |
On 1/6/15 2:41 PM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <38WdnYm5jI1E3DHJnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@supernews.com>, > Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> On 1/6/15 12:24 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: >>> In article <HNidnfEwsqNHEjbJnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@supernews.com>, >>> Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/15 7:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>>> "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: >>>> ... >>>>>> comments may (should) be measured in the MB for KB of generated >>>>>> machine code. >>>>> >>>>> That's unlike Forth, which seems to have a tradition of rather sparse >>>>> commenting :(. >>>> >>>> Mb per Kb, may be probably appropriate for ASM, but I don't necessarily >>>> go along with a "tradition" of sparse commenting for Forth. Our >>>> standards at FORTH, Inc. for many years has been that stack comments are >>>> required, and each logical section of code (often a file, on a few >>>> occasion several regions within a file) requires a section of commentary >>>> describing the use of each word to be presented in the following code. >>> >>> That is what I would call sparse. >> >> What is your style of commenting? > > We have been over that a couple of times. I know you don't like it. > Basically I require at least a syntactically correct and meaningful > English (or Dutch) sentence to describe a Forth word from the point > of using it. So the innocent bystander has the impression he's > reading a story (that he doesn't understand.) Of course if you do > understand the sentence, you also know the stack effect. > In my opinion if you don't know what a word is supposed to do, > knowing the stack effect is worthless. Ok. We require the stack comment *plus* a description of usage. I'm not sure how you consider that sparse. We gather the usage info at the beginning of each section of code, so you can see how the definitions relate to each other. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 11:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m8giad$d75$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35495 |
on 06/01/2015 07:33:44, "Elizabeth D. Rather" wrote:
>
> Whereas comments for ASM have to explain what the code is doing, the
> principal purpose of our comments is to provide usage info (inputs,
> outputs, description of the process as a logical level).
>
My all time favourite is
LA R6,1 Load R6 with 1
Which is accurate, but fails to explain why register 6 needs to be set to
the value 1. Answering the question why is what makes good vs poor or
simply pointless commentary. The same is true of comments at the
functional level. Knowing what a word or function does may be inadequate;
knowing why it is needed is of more value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web