Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #34852 > unrolled thread

Re: Simple Forth problem

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Simple Forth problem "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-09 05:13 +0000
    Re: Simple Forth problem mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-13 08:58 +0000
    Re: Simple Forth problem mix <mix@test.net> - 2014-12-13 09:00 +0000

#34852 — Re: Simple Forth problem

WJ wrote:

> Make a list of the elements that are found in both lists
> at the same index.
> 
> OCaml:
> 
> 
> open List;;
> map fst
>   (filter (fun (x,y) -> x=y)
>           (combine [3;5;7;8;12] [2;5;8;10;12]));;
> 
> [5; 12]
> 
> 
> Using the piping operator (|>):
> 
> 
> combine [3;5;7;8;12] [2;5;8;10;12] |>
> filter (fun (x,y) -> x=y) |>
> map fst ;;
> 
> 
> Since every gavino "knows" that Forth amplifies programmer productivity,
> let's see several Forth solutions that are more concise than the
> OCaml ones.

Gauche Scheme:

(use srfi-42)
(list-ec
  (:parallel (: x '(3 5 7 8 12)) (: y '(2 5 8 10 12)))
  (if (= x y))
  x)

 ===>
(5 12)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#34894

"WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote:
> WJ wrote:
> 
>> Make a list of the elements that are found in both lists
>> at the same index.
>> 
>> OCaml:
>> 
>> 
>> open List;;
>> map fst
>>   (filter (fun (x,y) -> x=y)
>>           (combine [3;5;7;8;12] [2;5;8;10;12]));;
>> 
>> [5; 12]
>> 
>> 
>> Using the piping operator (|>):
>> 
>> 
>> combine [3;5;7;8;12] [2;5;8;10;12] |>
>> filter (fun (x,y) -> x=y) |>
>> map fst ;;
>> 
>> 
>> Since every gavino "knows" that Forth amplifies programmer productivity,
>> let's see several Forth solutions that are more concise than the
>> OCaml ones.

Not sure if your request makes any sense. ANSI Forth have no such thing as
"lists", but it provides you with the ways to create them.

You seem to have no problems with using libraries in OCaml or Scheme. I
assume you won't mind using one in Forth. I've never tried OCaml or Scheme
before, but I know that in Forth language can be changed dramatically
because of previously included source code files.

It probably would be more fair to compare source code of translator
(compiler or interpreter in case of other languages), then code of specific
libraries, then the actual source code.

Long time ago I wrote Forth translator for OS X using x86_64 assembler (GNU
as). After I added some words, here is how your code looks like:

;[ ;[ 16 12 8 7 5 3 ]list ;[ 12 10 8 5 2 ]list combine-lists( x y = )
]named-list resultingList
resultingList print-list

Output:

12 5  ok

Not sure if I know what are lists in OCaml. This code is using arrays of
cells preceding with a cell containing size of an array.

With Forth, you can make your code look as concise as you want, if you keep
ugly parts in other files (just like you did with your SP-Forth code).

> Gauche Scheme:
> 
> (use srfi-42)
> (list-ec
>   (:parallel (: x '(3 5 7 8 12)) (: y '(2 5 8 10 12)))
>   (if (= x y))
>   x)
> 
>  ===>
> (5 12)


-- 
mix x

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34895

"WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote:
> WJ wrote:
> 
>> Make a list of the elements that are found in both lists
>> at the same index.
>> 
>> OCaml:
>> 
>> 
>> open List;;
>> map fst
>>   (filter (fun (x,y) -> x=y)
>>           (combine [3;5;7;8;12] [2;5;8;10;12]));;
>> 
>> [5; 12]
>> 
>> 
>> Using the piping operator (|>):
>> 
>> 
>> combine [3;5;7;8;12] [2;5;8;10;12] |>
>> filter (fun (x,y) -> x=y) |>
>> map fst ;;
>> 
>> 
>> Since every gavino "knows" that Forth amplifies programmer productivity,
>> let's see several Forth solutions that are more concise than the
>> OCaml ones.

Not sure if your request makes any sense. ANSI Forth have no such thing as
"lists", but it provides you with the ways to create them.

You seem to have no problems with using libraries in OCaml or Scheme. I
assume you won't mind using one in Forth. I've never tried OCaml or Scheme
before, but I know that in Forth language can be changed dramatically
because of previously included source code files.

It probably would be more fair to compare source code of translator
(compiler or interpreter in case of other languages), then code of specific
libraries, then the actual source code.

Long time ago I wrote Forth translator for OS X using x86_64 assembler (GNU
as). After I added some words, here is how your code looks like:

;[ ;[ 16 12 8 7 5 3 ]list ;[ 12 10 8 5 2 ]list combine-lists( x y = )
]named-list resultingList
resultingList print-list

Output:

12 5  ok

Not sure if I know what are lists in OCaml. This code is using arrays of
cells preceding with a cell containing size of an array.

With Forth, you can make your code look as concise as you want, if you keep
ugly parts in other files (just like you did with your SP-Forth code).

> Gauche Scheme:
> 
> (use srfi-42)
> (list-ec
>   (:parallel (: x '(3 5 7 8 12)) (: y '(2 5 8 10 12)))
>   (if (= x y))
>   x)
> 
>  ===>
> (5 12)


-- 
mix x

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web