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 4 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 17 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 11:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec25.121405@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35192 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> So gforth-fast takes 0.03s for 100k 64-bit ints, three times faster
>> than your Haskell program.
>
>Nice. That's actually quite a bit faster than Python sorting 100k
>pseudo-random floats, and that's in a Python array rather than a linked
>list, using Python's library sorting routine which is written in
>optimized C, but which has to be type-generic with runtime dispatch for
>comparisons.
Having looked at CPython's bytecode interpreter, I am not surprised;
and the type dispatch is not necessarily the most expensive part of
that. The bytecode interpreter goes through a large amount of code
for each bytecode, checking for various conditions; it may skip a
large part of these 50-100 lines, but the amount of checking alone is
appalling to someone interested in efficient interpreters like me.
One might see how much the type dispatch may cost by changing the
Forth version to use boxed values and some form of type dispatch
(maybe from mini-oof.fs, although that does not contain support for
checking the type of the other argument). The source code is
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/programs/sort.fs>.
>Can I ask what the coding time was for the Forth version? The debugging
>time? The amount of time spent testing before you felt confident that
>the code worked? Thanks.
That was 17 months ago, and I don't remember the time needed. I don't
remember if there was a bug; if there was a hard one, I would remeber
it:-). For testing I did testing with pseudo-random inputs, and
ensured that there were equal integers among the tests.
One thing I remember (and actually wrote down in
<2013Jul24.162449@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>) is that I originally
thought that one could be clever on partitioning by having the interface
partition1 ( a1 a3 -- a1 a2 a3 )
for that; but that was a bad idea, because it would have produced the
quadratic behaviour for the all-equals inputs (like the Haskell
version), whereas
partition ( al ah -- a1l a1h a2l a2h )
produces the O(n) behaviour for this case.
- 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 12:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec24.135311@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35169 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> writes:
>Anyway I really don't know why Haskell insists on using
>linked lists when , actually is pretty useless data structure
>for everything but toy examples.
You can build a linked list step-by-step without side effects (which
you must not use in Haskell proper). With an array you have to build
it all at once. I guess building it all at once is pretty common in
Haskell, but can it be used for everything, e.g., the merge step in
mergesort? I don't think so.
In general, linked lists are a nice data structure when you don't know
the size in advance, and you don't need random access.
- 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 09:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xoaqtezpp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35184 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > You can build a linked list step-by-step without side effects (which > you must not use in Haskell proper). With an array you have to build > it all at once. I guess building it all at once is pretty common in > Haskell, but can it be used for everything, e.g., the merge step in > mergesort? I don't think so. Not sure what you mean about the merge step--do you mean could it have used an array? Haskell has mutable arrays, so you can write the same algorithms on them as with any other language. The main difference is that the mutation code is of a special type (in the state transformer or ST monad), so the type system prevents any code other than the mutation action from modifying the array contents. The merge step in the Haskell code I posted is very interesting and I don't have it completely visualized. But basically because of lazy evaluation, you don't actually generate complete intermediate lists. Instead, all the nested merge steps happen simultaneously coroutine-style, so as you read elements off the sorted list one by one, each of the nested merges makes a little more progress.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 12:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec25.130754@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35191 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> You can build a linked list step-by-step without side effects (which
>> you must not use in Haskell proper). With an array you have to build
>> it all at once. I guess building it all at once is pretty common in
>> Haskell, but can it be used for everything, e.g., the merge step in
>> mergesort? I don't think so.
>
>Not sure what you mean about the merge step--do you mean could it have
>used an array? Haskell has mutable arrays, so you can write the same
>algorithms on them as with any other language. The main difference is
>that the mutation code is of a special type (in the state transformer or
>ST monad), so the type system prevents any code other than the mutation
>action from modifying the array contents.
And yet you chose to use a linked list. I don't really program in
Haskell, but is seems to me that the mutation stuff is a second-class
citizen and cannot be used as flexibly as the side-effect free stuff.
Or maybe that was just in the beginning, and that established a
preference towards linked lists that still lives on despite the base
now being equal?
>The merge step in the Haskell code I posted is very interesting and I
>don't have it completely visualized. But basically because of lazy
>evaluation, you don't actually generate complete intermediate lists.
>Instead, all the nested merge steps happen simultaneously
>coroutine-style, so as you read elements off the sorted list one by one,
>each of the nested merges makes a little more progress.
Is the result faster than the eager version in, say, Ocaml (or
Haskell, if you can force it to be eager)?
Anyway, my point was about the way it is expressed, and it's expressed
using linked lists. I can imagine a list->array conversion word, and
an implementation that is smart enough about that to turn a list-based
merge-sort or quicksort with that conversion applied at the
appropriate places into an array-based version of the sort, without
needing to resort to monads. You would still express the merging step
with linked lists, because that allows you to express every element
construction separately.
- 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 11:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x1tnnblm5.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35231 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > And yet you chose to use a linked list. I don't really program in > Haskell, but is seems to me that the mutation stuff is a second-class > citizen and cannot be used as flexibly as the side-effect free stuff. That's a reasonable description. Mutation is there if you need it, but it feels dirty, and you have to wear a hazmat suit (run inside the ST monad) while you do it. > Or maybe that was just in the beginning, and that established a > preference towards linked lists that still lives on despite the base > now being equal? Lists are just very natural for Haskell and other lambda-calculus languages. If you want, you can think of Haskell as a stylized Lisp with infix syntax and a fancy type system. >>Instead, all the nested merge steps happen simultaneously > > Is the result faster than the eager version in, say, Ocaml (or > Haskell, if you can force it to be eager)? I'd be interested in a benchmark against Ocaml. Forcing it to be eager in Haskell (by reading out all the values before they're needed) would almost certainly slow it down. Lazy evaluation probably saves memory but I don't know the cpu tradeoff. E.g., if you have a 1000 element list "xs" and ask for the first 500 elements (take 500 xs), a strict language would have to cons up a new 500 element list, since it has to end with nil. Lazy evaluation creates a thunk that delivers the desired elements one by one, until it has counted to 500. > I can imagine a list->array conversion word, and an implementation > that is smart enough about that to turn a list-based merge-sort or > quicksort with that conversion applied at the appropriate places into > an array-based version of the sort, without needing to resort to > monads. In pure Haskell this is impossible, because the mutation stuff only exists in certain monads. It could be done with GHC's "unsafe" operations, which are FFI calls that allow bypassing type safety. Their intended purpose is to pass values between Haskell and C, but they're also useful in certain situations like that. But for this sorting, you can use the ST monad which you can introduce anywhere in your program. It's not like the IO monad which you can only use from other IO actions. (Slight elaboration: "main" is your program's entry point called by the runtime, like in C. "main" is an IO action and as such, it can call other IO actions and it can also call pure functions. But, pure functions can't call IO actions. So your program is written in a style where only the outermost layer can do i/o, and that sometimes means having to refactor if you suddenly want something in an inner layer to open a socket or something.) > You would still express the merging step with linked lists, because > that allows you to express every element construction separately. It might make more sense to convert the list to an array, do an in-place sorting operation, and convert back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 03:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <0q6dnT6NfIpVGwfJnZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35167 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> And it's a terrible implementation of quicksort. > > It's illustrative. > >> it would have the tight inner loop which is what really makes >> quicksort fast. > > It's the O(n log n) asymptotic speed (with non-pathological data) > that makes quicksort fast, compared with the quadratic algorithms > (no matter how optmized) one still finds in programs where the > implementer didn't know better or have a good library routine > available. There are other N(log n) sorting algorithms: what makes quicksort fast is the simplicity of the inner loop and the fact that it can be done (almost) entrely in place. If you're sorting lists it makes more sense to use some kind of merge sort. There is a real quicksort for Haskell at http://augustss.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/quicksort-in-haskell-quicksort-is.html >> It's like comparing a little toy car that you push along with your >> feet with something you'd drive to work. > > Sure, you have to start somewhere. FWIW, here's a merge sort that I > wrote in less than 10 minutes, that avoids all the quicksort problems > about pivot selection etc. Of particular note is the function > > prop_msort xs = msort xs == sort xs > > This function takes a list of ints, sorts it with both msort and the > library sort routine, and returns True iff the results are the same. > The type signature is inferred from the one on msort. > > Then the "main" function calls quickCheck on prop_msort. quickCheck > generates a bunch (default 100) of test cases that are random lists of > ints, and calls prop_msort to make sure that msort correctly sorts all > these random lists. How does it know to generate random lists of ints > instead of, say, random characters? Again, it figures it out from the > type signature. So you get lightweight automatic generation of random > test suites, that often find stuff that manually written unit tests > miss. > > I think it would be pretty hard to write something that general and > convenient for asm programs, because of the QuichCheck's use of type > inference in figuring out what test values to generate. Although, there > is something like it for Erlang (dynamically typed) that I haven't yet > tried. > > I cheated a little with the [Int]->[Int] type signature since the > more general signature would be > > Ord a => [a] -> [a] > > to sort lists of any type with an ordering relation. That works fine, > but to use QuickCheck I would have had to give it a bit more info about > how to generate arbitrary instances since the concrete type is unknown. > That it can do lists of ints (floats, chars, etc) though is pretty good. > > ================================================================ > > import Data.List > import Test.QuickCheck > > msort :: [Int] -> [Int] > msort xs > | n < 2 = xs > | otherwise = merge (msort x1s) (msort x2s) > where > n = length xs > (x1s,x2s) = splitAt (n`div`2) xs > merge xs ys = case (xs,ys) of > ([], ys') -> ys' > (xs', []) -> xs' > (x:xs',y:ys') | x < y -> x : merge xs' ys > | otherwise -> y : merge xs ys' > > prop_msort xs = msort xs == sort xs > > main = quickCheck prop_msort Yes, I like that. It makes more sense than the notorious Haskell quicksort, which isn't really quicksort at all. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 19:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m7hlvc$aae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #35167 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> And it's a terrible implementation of quicksort. > > It's illustrative. > >> it would have the tight inner loop which is what really makes >> quicksort fast. > > It's the O(n log n) asymptotic speed (with non-pathological data) that > makes quicksort fast, compared with the quadratic algorithms (no matter > how optmized) one still finds in programs where the implementer didn't > know better or have a good library routine available. No, there are quite a number of O(n log n) sorts, and quicksort is fast, because it has a considerably lower constant overhead over the other O(n log n) sorts. First of all, it's in-place, so it uses only half of the memory of those sorts who aren't in-place. Then, it's tight inner loop is doing unit-strides through the data (typical databases used to have fixed-length fields, so no pointers, just the data), which means it takes advantage of caching. Quicksort has the disadvantage of degrading to a O(n²) sort in some pathological cases; especially if you choose the first element as pivot, the pathological case is really easy to construct. IMHO, a "HLL" like Haskell should rather use mergesort, which works quite well on lists, and is always O(n log n), and in Haskell, the costs are the same. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 05:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20141224053154.6bf7528d@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #35154 |
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:16:09 -0600 Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Here is the notorious Quicksort example in Haskell: > > And it's a terrible implementation of quicksort. It's not that it is terrible quicksort, it is data structure used (singly linked list) terrible. > > > 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, and it uses a > > higher-order function (filter) that takes more cognitive overhead > > in assembler. Someone familiar with the algorithm could have > > written the above in about 2 minutes. I don't think even an expert > > could implement something comparable in assembler in less than 10x > > that much time. > > Probably not, but it would be much better. It would be in-place so it > wouldn't generate any garbage, and it would make a more intelligent > choice of pivot, and it would only stack what was necessary, and it > would have the tight inner loop which is what really makes quicksort > fast. It's like comparing a little toy car that you push along with > your feet with something you'd drive to work. Try that on singly linked list and result would be even slower :p Function is also generic so that means you have to call provided function every time comparison is needed, which means much slower :p In Haskell, several lists can contain same node as nothing is mutable so generated garbage would be at minimum. > > Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 03:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <0q6dnTmNfIraGgfJnZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #35168 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 15:16:09 -0600 > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> > Here is the notorious Quicksort example in Haskell: >> >> And it's a terrible implementation of quicksort. > > It's not that it is terrible quicksort, it is data structure > used (singly linked list) terrible. Hmm. That's an implementation detail: even with arrays it would be horrible. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 11:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec24.123644@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #35154 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Here is the notorious Quicksort example in Haskell:
>
>And it's a terrible implementation of quicksort.
>
>> 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, and it uses a higher-order function
>> (filter) that takes more cognitive overhead in assembler. Someone
>> familiar with the algorithm could have written the above in about 2
>> minutes. I don't think even an expert could implement something
>> comparable in assembler in less than 10x that much time.
>
>Probably not, but it would be much better. It would be in-place so it
>wouldn't generate any garbage, and it would make a more intelligent
>choice of pivot
Paul Rubin's choice of pivot is not just not intelligent, it's about
as bad as possible: It brings out the worst-case (quadratic) behaviour
in the pre-sorted case, which tends to be much a more likely input
than any random sequence.
- 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 | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7cp3v$vn0$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35152 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> 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, and it uses a higher-order function > (filter) that takes more cognitive overhead in assembler. Someone > familiar with the algorithm could have written the above in about 2 > minutes. I don't think even an expert could implement something > comparable in assembler in less than 10x that much time. I'm not sure if you understand what are you trying to compare with what. In your example, you're calling some routines written by someone else for you. Assembly programmer will also call some routines, probably written by someone else. Why should it take 10x more times to place data in memory and write call instruction? -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 14:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x8uhy0zon.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35155 |
mix <mix@test.net> writes:
>> lesser = filter (< p) xs
>> greater = filter (>= p) xs
> I'm not sure if you understand what are you trying to compare with
> what. In your example, you're calling some routines written by someone
> else for you.
You mean the filter function? It happens there's also syntactic support
in the language to do that without calling a function:
lesser = [x | x <- xs, x < p]
greater = [x | x <- xs, x > p]
> Assembly programmer will also call some routines, probably written by
> someone else. Why should it take 10x more times to place data in
> memory and write call instruction?
What routine would you call (other than a sorting routine), that's
likely to be available in an asm subroutine library, that would let you
write a sorting routine in 2 minutes?
The example came from here, fwiw:
https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7cs1v$5mv$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35157 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >>> lesser = filter (< p) xs >>> greater = filter (>= p) xs > >> I'm not sure if you understand what are you trying to compare with >> what. In your example, you're calling some routines written by someone >> else for you. > > You mean the filter function? It happens there's also syntactic support > in the language to do that without calling a function: > > lesser = [x | x <- xs, x < p] > greater = [x | x <- xs, x > p] > >> Assembly programmer will also call some routines, probably written by >> someone else. Why should it take 10x more times to place data in >> memory and write call instruction? > > What routine would you call (other than a sorting routine), that's > likely to be available in an asm subroutine library, that would let you > write a sorting routine in 2 minutes? > > The example came from here, fwiw: > > https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Introduction I guess you should google something like "asm sorting" or "asm sorting subroutine". "Part of language" makes really no difference here. It's still clearly defined subroutine, not some kind of magic which some language will magically do for you. For some reason you think you are free to use years of other people work, but Assembler programmer have to start from zero having nothing but registers and empty memory. I'm sorry, that's not the case. -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 15:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x4msm0wf9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35162 |
mix <mix@test.net> writes: > I guess you should google something like "asm sorting" or "asm sorting > subroutine". Of course there are sorting routines for just about any language. The question is writing a sorting routine from available building blocks instead of calling a sorting routine. The building blocks available in a library will be shaped by the language itself, including if you count the list comprehensions in that example as library calls. So what asm libraries out there give building blocks that let you sort so easily? How would you even design one? The same idea applies to stuff other than sorting. > For some reason you think you are free to use years of other people work, > but Assembler programmer have to start from zero having nothing but > registers and empty memory. I'm sorry, that's not the case. Of course you can use existing work from assembler, such as subroutine libraries that make things easier. But why stop there? Compilers also make things easier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7ft8k$eup$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35163 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >> I guess you should google something like "asm sorting" or "asm sorting >> subroutine". > > Of course there are sorting routines for just about any language. The > question is writing a sorting routine from available building blocks > instead of calling a sorting routine. The building blocks available in > a library will be shaped by the language itself, including if you count > the list comprehensions in that example as library calls. I assume you never have to do any actual programming using Assembler, right? > So what asm > libraries out there give building blocks that let you sort so easily? > How would you even design one? The same idea applies to stuff other > than sorting. You design one any way you want, any way that eventually let you meet your goals. >> For some reason you think you are free to use years of other people work, >> but Assembler programmer have to start from zero having nothing but >> registers and empty memory. I'm sorry, that's not the case. > > Of course you can use existing work from assembler, such as subroutine > libraries that make things easier. But why stop there? Compilers also > make things easier. Even easier would be to pay someone so he would write the code for you. If you remember the beginning of the conversation, I proposed to teach students how to write HLL (Forth) on Assembler. "Easier" is a matter of habit and knowledge. If you know Haskell and know no Assembler, of course it would be easier for you to write "Hello World" in Haskell. There are many people out there who had to use Assembler for big projects, but have no knowledge of Haskell, and they will probably choose Assembler for the same task. When you are planning to write a program, you do a little research first. You already know what are you planning to write, you know the algorithms you're going to use. There is no "easier" there, it's just different. -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 19:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xlhlwwha1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35201 |
mix <mix@test.net> writes: > I assume you never have to do any actual programming using Assembler, > right? Never any large apps. Some small stuff. >> Compilers also make things easier. > Even easier would be to pay someone so he would write the code for you. But (some) compilers are free, so if they make things easier than assembler... > If you remember the beginning of the conversation, I proposed to teach > students how to write HLL (Forth) on Assembler. That's a bit much for a beginner, and anyway I don't think of Forth as an HLL, though it's higher level than assembler. > There are many people out there who had to use Assembler for big > projects, but have no knowledge of Haskell, and they will probably > choose Assembler for the same task. Has anyone done a big project in assembler in the current century for reasons other than amusement? And what's "big"? These days I'd say a big project starts around 100 KLOC. 20 years ago "big" might have meant 10 KLOC. There have hardly even been any big C projects done since the 1900's. We had that discussion here a while back. Criterion for "done in the current century" is "the first release of the program was on or after January 1, 2000". I give you the extra year instead of the technical definition of the century as starting in 2001, and possibly extra years for development that happened before the first release. But, 1990's and earlier programs (anything first released before 2000) don't count even if they're still being maintained. Using assembler as a small bootstrap layer for an HLL implementation doesn't count as a big assembler project either. > When you are planning to write a program, you do a little research first. > You already know what are you planning to write, you know the algorithms > you're going to use. There is no "easier" there, it's just different. 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. You might try a few of the other Euler problems too, or (less math oriented) some of the less Ruby-specific rubyquiz.com problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mix <mix@test.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 06:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gaua$c28$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #35203 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >> I assume you never have to do any actual programming using Assembler, >> right? > > Never any large apps. Some small stuff. > > >>> Compilers also make things easier. >> Even easier would be to pay someone so he would write the code for you. > > But (some) compilers are free, so if they make things easier than > assembler... Easier for you, don't forget that. >> If you remember the beginning of the conversation, I proposed to teach >> students how to write HLL (Forth) on Assembler. > > That's a bit much for a beginner, and anyway I don't think of Forth as > an HLL, though it's higher level than assembler. You didn't prove your point on that. >> There are many people out there who had to use Assembler for big >> projects, but have no knowledge of Haskell, and they will probably >> choose Assembler for the same task. > > Has anyone done a big project in assembler in the current century for > reasons other than amusement? And what's "big"? These days I'd say a > big project starts around 100 KLOC. 20 years ago "big" might have meant > 10 KLOC. What if I'll give you a link to the project which is bigger than anything you wrote before, but still written using Assembler as primary programming language? You'll do some bullshit like trying to show it's not what you meant or you'll agree with my point? > There have hardly even been any big C projects done since the 1900's. > We had that discussion here a while back. Criterion for "done in the > current century" is "the first release of the program was on or after > January 1, 2000". I give you the extra year instead of the technical > definition of the century as starting in 2001, and possibly extra years > for development that happened before the first release. But, 1990's and > earlier programs (anything first released before 2000) don't count even > if they're still being maintained. Using assembler as a small bootstrap > layer for an HLL implementation doesn't count as a big assembler project > either. > >> When you are planning to write a program, you do a little research first. >> You already know what are you planning to write, you know the algorithms >> you're going to use. There is no "easier" there, it's just different. > > 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. > > You might try a few of the other Euler problems too, or (less math > oriented) some of the less Ruby-specific rubyquiz.com problems. -- mix x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 22:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xvbl0z0jl.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35208 |
mix <mix@test.net> writes: > What if I'll give you a link to the project which is bigger than anything > you wrote before, but still written using Assembler as primary programming > language? You'll do some bullshit like trying to show it's not what you > meant or you'll agree with my point? Sure, I'll be happy to look at the link. Once the link is up, we can discuss the specifics. I'd like to see a project that is: 1) 10 KLOC or more of assembly code (I won't hold out for 100KLOC) 2) Written in the 21st century, 3) an actual application whose goal is the end result rather than as an exercise in asm programming, 4) Written in assembler as a choice among reasonable alternatives. I can imagine some scenarios (special purpose processor etc) where asm is the only possible choice so you have to bite the bullet and use it. So I'm looking for an example of where someone used assembler by preference and got a sane technical outcome. The 64-bit Picolisp implementation might qualify (picolisp.de) since it was originally written in C, then rewritten in asm to get around some C limitations, and this might have happened after 2000. The assembler part of it (actually appears to be a Lisp-based macroassembler) is around 30 KLOC. There was also a Scheme interpreter in ARM assembler that I've been wanting to look at. But, the reasons for writing those interpreters in asm was to implement stuff like coroutines and continuations that are difficult in C. I'm not sure why they didn't use C with some low level asm support though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-25 07:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m7gdii$mf2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #35210 |
On 2014-12-25, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > mix <mix@test.net> writes: >> What if I'll give you a link to the project which is bigger than anything >> you wrote before, but still written using Assembler as primary programming >> language? You'll do some bullshit like trying to show it's not what you >> meant or you'll agree with my point? > > Sure, I'll be happy to look at the link. Once the link is up, we can > discuss the specifics. > > I'd like to see a project that is: > > 1) 10 KLOC or more of assembly code (I won't hold out for 100KLOC) > 2) Written in the 21st century, > 3) an actual application whose goal is the end result rather than > as an exercise in asm programming, We do this every day for products that are currently sold and supported. However the code is all proprietary and unless you work for one of the vendors you won't ever see any of it. If you ask for examples on the Hercules mailing lists somebody might be able to point you to some code. > 4) Written in assembler as a choice among reasonable alternatives. For systems programming on z/OS there really is not any reasonable alternative. For the past few years it has been technically possible to use C to do that but in practice it is not. C/C++ can be used for several things including most commonly UI but it is not viable as a systems programming language on z. Tom O'Donnell > I can imagine some scenarios (special purpose processor etc) where asm > is the only possible choice so you have to bite the bullet and use it. > So I'm looking for an example of where someone used assembler by > preference and got a sane technical outcome. A lot depends on the tools, too. Most of the assemblers I have seen for other systems haven't provided the functionality to work on large software projects so it is probably self-limiting most of the time. I don't think it's necessarily a problem of language. Tom O'Donnell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 23:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xmw6cyyjn.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #35213 |
Tom O'Donnell <tod@nospam.com> writes: >> 1) 10 KLOC or more of assembly code (I won't hold out for 100KLOC) >> 2) Written in the 21st century,.... > We do this every day for products that are currently sold and > supported. However the code is all proprietary That's ok, I'll take your word for it without seeing the code. What I want to know is whether any of those products was first released in 2000 or later (and repackaging/rebranding of older products or codebases doesn't count for this purpose). Continuing to sell and support older products is great, but this question is about new development.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web