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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #43157 > unrolled thread

Re: Forth at GitHub

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: Forth at GitHub Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-03 08:30 +0100
    Re: Forth at GitHub Unknown <dog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 01:15 +0000
      Re: Forth at GitHub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-20 17:24 +0000
        Re: Forth at GitHub Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-20 17:48 +0000
          Re: Forth at GitHub rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 13:03 -0500
          Re: Forth at GitHub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-20 18:16 +0000
        Re: Forth at GitHub rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 13:02 -0500
          Re: Forth at GitHub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-23 17:41 +0000
            Re: Forth at GitHub rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 13:00 -0500
              Re: Forth at GitHub Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-23 20:29 +0000
              Re: Forth at GitHub Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 00:48 -0800

#43157 — Re: Forth at GitHub

Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> I have tried to locate all GitHub repositories written in Forth.
> The result is this list of starred repos:
>
> http://github.com/stars/ForthStar

Update: There are now 343 repositories with Forth as their primary
language.  I have included 63 more which have a large percentage of
Forth.

Also, 63 people have joined a GitHub organization for Forth enthusiasts:

http://github.com/ForthHub

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#43591

On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:30:37 +0100, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:

> Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
>> I have tried to locate all GitHub repositories written in Forth. The
>> result is this list of starred repos:
>>
>> http://github.com/stars/ForthStar
> 
> Update: There are now 343 repositories with Forth as their primary
> language.  I have included 63 more which have a large percentage of
> Forth.
> 
> Also, 63 people have joined a GitHub organization for Forth enthusiasts:
> 
> http://github.com/ForthHub

? what is this all about ?
No! I won't klik on your URLs ! I'm not a TV-shopper.
I wanted to investigate colorforth, because I *KNOW* that color adds
an extra-dimension -- for me. For a language that you only use
occasionally, and don't build fluency: color is an effective prompt.

Then it seemed that colorforth only runs on M$; so I looked at 
rainbowforth. What a Hollywood presentation, dating back to 2008.
It seems promising, but the 'primitives' need to be loaded first
[i can't see how to load the primitives] because eg.
  2 3 + .
gives < error for tokens "+" , "." or any except integers and
various <rainbow forth system tokens>.

The 1Kb editor is saved to it's own file OK, and the
<color buttons> and other <controls> are nice.

There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
style crap!!   Typically:--

] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or Firefox.

Screw these hollywood clowns !!

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

#43598

On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
> style crap!!   Typically:--
>
> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or Firefox.
>
> Screw these hollywood clowns !!

Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or 
whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the 
bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.

-- 
Gerry

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

#43599

Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

>On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
>> style crap!!   Typically:--
>>
>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or Firefox.
>>
>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!

>Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
>whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
>bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.

That is a ridiculous stand. Web designers must adhere to a standard.
I then can choose any browser that accomodates that standard.
Websites that "support" certain browsers (it used to mean, we have
a shitload of unneccessary graphics and it only looks good on
I.E.) should be banned or at least boycotted.
(As should any site that forces Javascript down my throat for no reason.)

>--
>Gerry
-- 
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]

#43601

On 11/20/2015 12:48 PM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
>>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
>>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
>>> style crap!!   Typically:--
>>>
>>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
>>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or Firefox.
>>>
>>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!
>
>> Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
>> whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
>> bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.
>
> That is a ridiculous stand. Web designers must adhere to a standard.
> I then can choose any browser that accomodates that standard.
> Websites that "support" certain browsers (it used to mean, we have
> a shitload of unneccessary graphics and it only looks good on
> I.E.) should be banned or at least boycotted.
> (As should any site that forces Javascript down my throat for no reason.)

The other side of the coin is that web developers have to code to the 
browsers, not only the standard.  There are numerous bugs in browsers 
and these bugs and the work arounds change with not just each version, 
but each release.

-- 

Rick

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

#43602

On 20/11/2015 17:48, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
>>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
>>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
>>> style crap!!   Typically:--
>>>
>>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
>>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or Firefox.
>>>
>>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!
>
>> Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
>> whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
>> bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.
>
> That is a ridiculous stand.

Nonsense

> Web designers must adhere to a standard.

So should browser developers. I never said anything about not adhering 
to a standard, read what I wrote. I was making the point (or at least 
trying to) that catering for old versions of IE, for example, which are 
highly non-standard means extra work for a web-site developer and users 
who stick with old versions of IE are potentially wasting a 
web-developer's time. If I'm doing it as an unpaid volunteer why should 
I waste my time like that when a user can easily update to a version of 
IE that does obey standards. Too bad if I lose a few people like the OP. 
Of course if I was selling things I might take a different view.

> I then can choose any browser that accomodates that standard.
> Websites that "support" certain browsers (it used to mean, we have
> a shitload of unneccessary graphics and it only looks good on
> I.E.) should be banned or at least boycotted.
> (As should any site that forces Javascript down my throat for no reason.)
>

Well you limit yourself if you boycott all web-sites using Javascript, 
and if you tolerate some that do why not tolerate them all?

-- 
Gerry

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

#43600

On 11/20/2015 12:24 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
> On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
>> style crap!!   Typically:--
>>
>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or Firefox.
>>
>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!
>
> Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
> whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
> bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.

Continually updating browsers is the single biggest consumer of memory 
on my PCs.  I have old desktops that are essentially no longer usable 
because I can no longer have more than a handful of tabs open.  When I 
keep a machine update free the browser continues to operate just fine 
without needing multiple GB of RAM.

-- 

Rick

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

#43677

On 20/11/2015 18:02, rickman wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 12:24 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
>> On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
>>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
>>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
>>> style crap!!   Typically:--
>>>
>>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
>>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or
>>> Firefox.
>>>
>>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!
>>
>> Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
>> whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
>> bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.
>
> Continually updating browsers is the single biggest consumer of memory
> on my PCs.  I have old desktops that are essentially no longer usable
> because I can no longer have more than a handful of tabs open.  When I
> keep a machine update free the browser continues to operate just fine
> without needing multiple GB of RAM.
>

So you're using obsolete (probably) hardware with an outdated and 
therefore unsupported (probably) OS running an outdated and therefore 
unsupported (probably) browser that doesn't handle standard HTML and may 
not even know what CSS is and you expect web-sites to cater for you?

-- 
Gerry

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

#43678

On 11/23/2015 12:41 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
> On 20/11/2015 18:02, rickman wrote:
>> On 11/20/2015 12:24 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
>>> On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
>>>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
>>>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
>>>> style crap!!   Typically:--
>>>>
>>>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
>>>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or
>>>> Firefox.
>>>>
>>>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!
>>>
>>> Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
>>> whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
>>> bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.
>>
>> Continually updating browsers is the single biggest consumer of memory
>> on my PCs.  I have old desktops that are essentially no longer usable
>> because I can no longer have more than a handful of tabs open.  When I
>> keep a machine update free the browser continues to operate just fine
>> without needing multiple GB of RAM.
>>
>
> So you're using obsolete (probably) hardware

I'm not sure what value there is in labeling older hardware "obsolete". 
  If you wish to define it as such then this conversation is at an end 
by definition.  But the fact remains I have computers that are faster 
than the processor in a cell phone or tablet and yet get straddled with 
browsers that can't work effectively in 1 GB of memory on the machine.

Are all the processors in phones and tablet obsolete as well?


> with an outdated and
> therefore unsupported (probably) OS

Again, who cares if how many years has passed since the OS was made?


> running an outdated and therefore
> unsupported (probably) browser that doesn't handle standard HTML and may
> not even know what CSS is and you expect web-sites to cater for you?

None of the browsers handle "standard" HTML.  They correctly interpret a 
subset.  Everyone who writes HTML knows they have to test on all of the 
browsers they support since testing against the HTML standard does not 
assure your page will be properly presented.

Again, at the time the machine was new it worked and worked well.  If I 
don't update the browser it continues to work well.  When I update to 
the current version of the browsers memory disappears in a puff of smoke 
on opening more than a handful of tabs.  I think the cause is obvious.

-- 

Rick

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

#43681

On 23/11/2015 18:00, rickman wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 12:41 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
>> On 20/11/2015 18:02, rickman wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2015 12:24 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
>>>> On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
>>>>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
>>>>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
>>>>> style crap!!   Typically:--
>>>>>
>>>>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
>>>>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or
>>>>> Firefox.
>>>>>
>>>>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!
>>>>
>>>> Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
>>>> whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
>>>> bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not
>>>> worse.
>>>
>>> Continually updating browsers is the single biggest consumer of memory
>>> on my PCs.  I have old desktops that are essentially no longer usable
>>> because I can no longer have more than a handful of tabs open.  When I
>>> keep a machine update free the browser continues to operate just fine
>>> without needing multiple GB of RAM.
>>>
>>
>> So you're using obsolete (probably) hardware
>
> I'm not sure what value there is in labeling older hardware "obsolete".
>   If you wish to define it as such then this conversation is at an end
> by definition.  But the fact remains I have computers that are faster
> than the processor in a cell phone or tablet and yet get straddled with
> browsers that can't work effectively in 1 GB of memory on the machine.
>
> Are all the processors in phones and tablet obsolete as well?

What's that got to do with it?
>
>
>> with an outdated and
>> therefore unsupported (probably) OS
>
> Again, who cares if how many years has passed since the OS was made?

Possibly people running Windows XP and older no longer supported by MS

>
>
>> running an outdated and therefore
>> unsupported (probably) browser that doesn't handle standard HTML and may
>> not even know what CSS is and you expect web-sites to cater for you?

Given the rest of your post that's a "yes" then.
>
> None of the browsers handle "standard" HTML.  They correctly interpret a
> subset.

I don't think so, to display all web-sites they interpret several 
standards for backward compatibility, ranging from early non-standards 
to HTML4, XHTMl and HTML5, as well as versions of CSS & Javascript as 
well as interpreting badly structured written HTML. Perhaps that 
explains the bloat you experience. It's HTML writers who have to use a 
subset of HTML.

> Everyone who writes HTML knows they have to test on all of the
> browsers they support

True and blindingly obvious.

> since testing against the HTML standard does not
> assure your page will be properly presented.

Modern HTML doesn't address presentation, only content, presentation is 
the job of CSS.

>
> Again, at the time the machine was new it worked and worked well.  If I
> don't update the browser it continues to work well.  When I update to
> the current version of the browsers memory disappears in a puff of smoke
> on opening more than a handful of tabs.  I think the cause is obvious.
>

Well you're just a victim of the ever-onward march of technology.

-- 
Gerry

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

#43702

On Monday, 23 November 2015 18:00:30 UTC, rickman  wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 12:41 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
> > On 20/11/2015 18:02, rickman wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2015 12:24 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
> >>> On 20/11/2015 01:15, Unknown wrote:
> >>>> There seems to have been no activity recently and it's moved
> >>>> from sourceforge to github. Which is another load of hollywood
> >>>> style crap!!   Typically:--
> >>>>
> >>>> ] Please note that GitHub no longer supports old versions of Firefox.
> >>>> ] We recommend upgrading to the latest Safari, Google Chrome, or
> >>>> Firefox.
> >>>>
> >>>> Screw these hollywood clowns !!
> >>>
> >>> Why this anger? It's easy enough to update an old version of Firefox or
> >>> whatever browser you use. People who stick with old versions are the
> >>> bane of a web developer's life and deserve such a message, if not worse.
> >>
> >> Continually updating browsers is the single biggest consumer of memory
> >> on my PCs.  I have old desktops that are essentially no longer usable
> >> because I can no longer have more than a handful of tabs open.  When I
> >> keep a machine update free the browser continues to operate just fine
> >> without needing multiple GB of RAM.
> >>
> >
> > So you're using obsolete (probably) hardware
> 
> I'm not sure what value there is in labeling older hardware "obsolete". 
>   If you wish to define it as such then this conversation is at an end 
> by definition.  But the fact remains I have computers that are faster 
> than the processor in a cell phone or tablet and yet get straddled with 
> browsers that can't work effectively in 1 GB of memory on the machine.
> 
> Are all the processors in phones and tablet obsolete as well?
> 
> 
> > with an outdated and
> > therefore unsupported (probably) OS
> 
> Again, who cares if how many years has passed since the OS was made?
> 
> 
> > running an outdated and therefore
> > unsupported (probably) browser that doesn't handle standard HTML and may
> > not even know what CSS is and you expect web-sites to cater for you?
> 
> None of the browsers handle "standard" HTML.  They correctly interpret a 
> subset.  Everyone who writes HTML knows they have to test on all of the 
> browsers they support since testing against the HTML standard does not 
> assure your page will be properly presented.
> 
> Again, at the time the machine was new it worked and worked well.  If I 
> don't update the browser it continues to work well.  When I update to 
> the current version of the browsers memory disappears in a puff of smoke 
> on opening more than a handful of tabs.  I think the cause is obvious.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick

Try Sea Monkey. It's good.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web