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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #49233 > unrolled thread

Re: Jazelle?

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: Jazelle? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-20 10:31 +0100
    Re: Jazelle? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-20 10:14 +0000
      Re: Jazelle? Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 05:37 -0700
        Re: Jazelle? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-20 13:36 +0000
      Re: Jazelle? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-20 13:06 +0000
      Re: Jazelle? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-20 14:49 +0100
        Re: Jazelle? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 08:48 -0700
        Re: Jazelle? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-20 14:35 +0000
          Re: Jazelle? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 17:39 +0100
          Re: Jazelle? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-20 20:30 +0100
            Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:35 -0400
              Re: Jazelle? mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-20 13:27 -0700
                Re: Jazelle? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 09:41 +0000
              Re: Jazelle? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 17:24 -0700
          Re: Jazelle? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 10:43 +0000
            Re: Jazelle? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-21 12:44 +0000
              Re: Jazelle? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-21 22:59 +0100
                Re: Jazelle? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-22 06:42 +0000
                  Re: Jazelle? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-22 12:03 +0100
                    Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:05 -0400
                      Re: Jazelle? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-22 10:09 -0500
                      Re: Jazelle? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-22 19:20 +0300
                    Re: Jazelle? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:35 -0700
            Re: Jazelle? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 10:43 +0000
              Re: Jazelle? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-26 11:41 +0100
                Re: Jazelle? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 04:26 -0700
                  Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:20 -0400
    Re: Jazelle? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 06:44 -0400
      Re: Jazelle? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-20 14:52 +0100
        Re: Jazelle? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-20 14:33 +0000
        Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 10:52 -0400
          Re: Jazelle? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-20 15:40 +0000
            Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:46 -0400
            Re: Jazelle? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 09:25 -0700
      Re: Jazelle? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 09:22 -0700
        Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:14 -0400
          Re: Jazelle? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 21:44 -0700
            Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 01:32 -0400
              Re: Jazelle? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-21 02:21 -0500
            Re: Jazelle? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 17:13 -0700
              Re: Jazelle? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 17:42 -0700
              Re: Jazelle? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:08 -0700
                Re: Jazelle? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 13:55 -0700
                  Re: Jazelle? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 02:22 -0700
    Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 10:56 -0400
    Re: Jazelle? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 10:54 -0700
      Re: Jazelle? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-20 13:33 -0500
        Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:51 -0400
          Re: Jazelle? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-20 17:09 -0500
            Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:12 -0400
              Re: Jazelle? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-20 18:41 -0500
                Re: Jazelle? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 21:01 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#49327

On 7/22/2016 8:05 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 7/22/2016 7:03 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>> "Anton Ertl" <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote in message
>> news:2016Jul22.084236@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at...
>>>
>>> Programming in Forth has the following advantages over programming in
>>> assembly language:
>>
>>
>> But programming in Forth _IS_ programming in assembly languge, a
>> simulation
>> of the assembly language of the English Electric KDF9 which was
>> published as
>> prior art when Forth was first conceived.
>
> It is clear that you don't know much about Forth.  You are zeroed in on
> the fact that the language appears to emulate a stack machine.  It is
> also odd that you are solely focused on the KDF9 which is a machine that
> Chuck Moore is unlikely to have ever seen while the Burroughs B5500 was
> a machine he specifically talks about.
>
> http://worrydream.com/refs/Moore%20-%20Forth%20-%20The%20Early%20Years.pdf
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems
>
> http://www.forth.org/fd/FD-V01N6.pdf
>
> https://uwaterloo.ca/independent-studies/sites/ca.independent-studies/files/uploads/files/eric_laforest_thesis.pdf
>
Thanks for the links, specially the last one, I see where some of the 
ideas for some of the Forth CPUs I been working on come from such as the 
ep32. I also looked at the B5500 in the very early 70's and was 
impressed by the simplicity of the machine although I failed to use all 
the features of it.
>
> This last one is particularly interesting in that it specifically says
> there is *no* connection between Moore's work on Forth and the KDF9 or
>
>
>> As to the characteristics that you listed, all apply equally well to a
>> number
>> of other interpreted environments such as Python and TCL.
>
> Yes, so you agree Forth is not assembly language?
>


-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#49334

On 22.7.16 16:05, rickman wrote:

> It is clear that you don't know much about Forth.  You are zeroed in on
> the fact that the language appears to emulate a stack machine.  It is
> also odd that you are solely focused on the KDF9 which is a machine that
> Chuck Moore is unlikely to have ever seen while the Burroughs B5500 was
> a machine he specifically talks about.
>
> http://worrydream.com/refs/Moore%20-%20Forth%20-%20The%20Early%20Years.pdf
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems
>
> http://www.forth.org/fd/FD-V01N6.pdf
>
> https://uwaterloo.ca/independent-studies/sites/ca.independent-studies/files/uploads/files/eric_laforest_thesis.pdf

You can add HP 3000 to the pack.

-- 

-TV

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

#49335

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 4:03:14 AM UTC-7, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> 
> As to the characteristics that you listed, all apply equally well to a 
> number of other interpreted environments such as Python and TCL.

Python and TCL are interpreted at run time. Forth can be compiled or interpreted so it's not much of a comparison. MPE's Forths have an analytical compiler that generates code that's as good as if you coded in assembly. Not so clever native code generators have used subroutine threading for 3 decades. Various threading methods have been used to support inner interpreters, which are tailored to various tradeoffs.

But whatever the implementation, ANS Forth achieves portability using an abstract two-stack virtual machine. This is basically what C does too. Compile for the C abstract virtual machine.

All of this can get a little confusing when so many languages run on real virtual machines that simulate the abstract virtual machine.

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

#49467

WJ wrote:

> Julia:
> 
> quad(a,b,c) = (t = -b/2a; q = sqrt(b^2 - 4a*c)/2a; [t+q, t-q])
> 
> julia> quad(3,-10,5)
> 2-element Array{Float64,1}:
>  2.72076
>  0.612574
> 
> julia> quad(1,2,-8)
> 2-element Array{Float64,1}:
>   2.0
>  -4.0

OCaml:

let quad a b c =
  let t = -.b /. (a +. a) and
      q = sqrt(b *. b -. 4. *. a *. c) /. (a +. a) in
      [t +. q; t -. q] ;;

(* OCaml has trouble deciding whether "-" is a sign or an operator. *)
quad 3. (-10.) 5. ;;

[2.7207592200561264; 0.6125741132772069]

-- 
Jewish drug dealers, child porn pushers, and slave traders are free
from prosecution in Israel.  Israel does not consider these to be
crimes ... so long as the victims are non-Jews.
www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/08/the-culture-of-deceit/

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

#49527

"WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:nn4qg9$r8f$1@dont-email.me...
>
> OCaml:
>
> let quad a b c =
>  let t = -.b /. (a +. a) and
>      q = sqrt(b *. b -. 4. *. a *. c) /. (a +. a) in
>      [t +. q; t -. q] ;;
>
> (* OCaml has trouble deciding whether "-" is a sign or an operator. *)
> quad 3. (-10.) 5. ;;
>
> [2.7207592200561264; 0.6125741132772069]

Not encountered OCaml before; interesting the idea to enforce different
operators for integer and floating point arithmetic.

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

#49528

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:41:37 AM UTC-5, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:nn4qg9$r8f$1@dont-email.me...
> >
> > OCaml:
> >
> > let quad a b c =
> >  let t = -.b /. (a +. a) and
> >      q = sqrt(b *. b -. 4. *. a *. c) /. (a +. a) in
> >      [t +. q; t -. q] ;;
> >
> > (* OCaml has trouble deciding whether "-" is a sign or an operator. *)
> > quad 3. (-10.) 5. ;;
> >
> > [2.7207592200561264; 0.6125741132772069]
> 
> Not encountered OCaml before; interesting the idea to enforce different
> operators for integer and floating point arithmetic.

That idea at least is already in Forth.

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

#49531

On 7/26/2016 7:26 AM, Julian Fondren wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:41:37 AM UTC-5, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>> "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:nn4qg9$r8f$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> OCaml:
>>>
>>> let quad a b c =
>>>  let t = -.b /. (a +. a) and
>>>      q = sqrt(b *. b -. 4. *. a *. c) /. (a +. a) in
>>>      [t +. q; t -. q] ;;
>>>
>>> (* OCaml has trouble deciding whether "-" is a sign or an operator. *)
>>> quad 3. (-10.) 5. ;;
>>>
>>> [2.7207592200561264; 0.6125741132772069]
>>
>> Not encountered OCaml before; interesting the idea to enforce different
>> operators for integer and floating point arithmetic.
>
> That idea at least is already in Forth.

You replied only to the forth group.  Gareth won't see your reply since 
he is posting in the rPi group.

-- 

Rick C

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

#49236

On 7/20/16 5:31 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> Consider the solution of the quadratic equation expressed in a HLL
> ...
>
> X = (-B + SQRT ( B**2 - 4*A*C))?2*A
>
> ... then consider what you have to do in Forth to achieve the same
> end. of pushing variables onto the stack and manipulating that stack
> to realise that Forth is, indeed, assembly language!

The above reminds me of the debates we used to have (mid 1970s) about
RPN vs algebraic pocket calculators.

With algebraic one had to use and keep track of parentheses and remember
operator precedence rules. Yes, RPN at first feels unnatural, but with a
little practice it became the preferred method for many of us.

The reality is that neither algebraic or RPN matches the way we would
express the equation in class using pencil and paper.
(view the following in a monospaced font)
                ______________
x =  -b +-   /  b2 - 4ac
            \/  -----------
                     2a

-Doug

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

#49241

"Doug Hoffman" <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:578f5616$0$297$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> On 7/20/16 5:31 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>> Consider the solution of the quadratic equation expressed in a HLL
>>
>> X = (-B + SQRT ( B**2 - 4*A*C))?2*A
>>
>> ... then consider what you have to do in Forth to achieve the same
>> end. of pushing variables onto the stack and manipulating that stack
>> to realise that Forth is, indeed, assembly language!
>
> The above reminds me of the debates we used to have (mid 1970s) about
> RPN vs algebraic pocket calculators.
>
> With algebraic one had to use and keep track of parentheses and remember
> operator precedence rules. Yes, RPN at first feels unnatural, but with a
> little practice it became the preferred method for many of us.

But this is not aboput a calculator; it is about a computer program laid out 
on paper,
and one in which the syntax checking of the HLL compiler will root out 
mismatched
parentheses in a way that no sytax checking in Forth would root out, for 
example,
an extra DUP inserted into the assembly-like code.

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

#49243

gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> "Doug Hoffman" <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote in message news:578f5616$0$297$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> > On 7/20/16 5:31 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> > > Consider the solution of the quadratic equation expressed in a HLL
> > > 
> > > X = (-B + SQRT ( B**2 - 4*A*C))?2*A
> > > 
> > > ... then consider what you have to do in Forth to achieve the same
> > > end. of pushing variables onto the stack and manipulating that stack
> > > to realise that Forth is, indeed, assembly language!
> > 
> > The above reminds me of the debates we used to have (mid 1970s) about
> > RPN vs algebraic pocket calculators.
> > 
> > With algebraic one had to use and keep track of parentheses and remember
> > operator precedence rules. Yes, RPN at first feels unnatural, but with a
> > little practice it became the preferred method for many of us.
> 
> But this is not aboput a calculator; it is about a computer program laid out on paper,
> and one in which the syntax checking of the HLL compiler will root out mismatched
> parentheses in a way that no sytax checking in Forth would root out, for example,
> an extra DUP inserted into the assembly-like code.

A good editor will help with matching parentheses.

It is probable that most Forth fanatics belong in one of these
categories:

1. Those who cannot see the truth.
2. Those who refuse to see the truth.

They don't appreciate ease of programming and the reduction of bugs.

-- 
The report card by the American Society of Civil Engineers showed the national
infrastructure a single grade above failure, a step from declining to the point
where everyday things simply stop working the way people expect them to. ---
washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/us-infrastructure-gets-d-in-annual-report/2013/03/19/c48cb010-900b-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html

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

#49244

On 7/20/2016 9:52 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> "Doug Hoffman" <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:578f5616$0$297$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> On 7/20/16 5:31 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>> Consider the solution of the quadratic equation expressed in a HLL
>>>
>>> X = (-B + SQRT ( B**2 - 4*A*C))?2*A
>>>
>>> ... then consider what you have to do in Forth to achieve the same
>>> end. of pushing variables onto the stack and manipulating that stack
>>> to realise that Forth is, indeed, assembly language!
>>
>> The above reminds me of the debates we used to have (mid 1970s) about
>> RPN vs algebraic pocket calculators.
>>
>> With algebraic one had to use and keep track of parentheses and remember
>> operator precedence rules. Yes, RPN at first feels unnatural, but with a
>> little practice it became the preferred method for many of us.
>
> But this is not aboput a calculator; it is about a computer program laid out
> on paper,
> and one in which the syntax checking of the HLL compiler will root out
> mismatched
> parentheses in a way that no sytax checking in Forth would root out, for
> example,
> an extra DUP inserted into the assembly-like code.

HLL can't find faulty use of parentheses unless you simply don't balance 
them.

-- 

Rick C

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

#49248

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:52:40 -0400, rickman wrote:

> On 7/20/2016 9:52 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>> "Doug Hoffman" <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:578f5616$0$297$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>> On 7/20/16 5:31 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>>> Consider the solution of the quadratic equation expressed in a HLL
>>>>
>>>> X = (-B + SQRT ( B**2 - 4*A*C))?2*A
>>>>
>>>> ... then consider what you have to do in Forth to achieve the same
>>>> end. of pushing variables onto the stack and manipulating that stack
>>>> to realise that Forth is, indeed, assembly language!
>>>
>>> The above reminds me of the debates we used to have (mid 1970s) about
>>> RPN vs algebraic pocket calculators.
>>>
>>> With algebraic one had to use and keep track of parentheses and
>>> remember operator precedence rules. Yes, RPN at first feels unnatural,
>>> but with a little practice it became the preferred method for many of
>>> us.
>>
>> But this is not aboput a calculator; it is about a computer program
>> laid out on paper,
>> and one in which the syntax checking of the HLL compiler will root out
>> mismatched parentheses in a way that no sytax checking in Forth would
>> root out, for example,
>> an extra DUP inserted into the assembly-like code.
> 
> HLL can't find faulty use of parentheses unless you simply don't balance
> them.

is is a shame that Forth is a write only language



-- 
Anything anybody can say about America is true.
		-- Emmett Grogan

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

#49249

On 7/20/2016 11:40 AM, alister wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:52:40 -0400, rickman wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2016 9:52 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>> "Doug Hoffman" <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:578f5616$0$297$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>>> On 7/20/16 5:31 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>>>> Consider the solution of the quadratic equation expressed in a HLL
>>>>>
>>>>> X = (-B + SQRT ( B**2 - 4*A*C))?2*A
>>>>>
>>>>> ... then consider what you have to do in Forth to achieve the same
>>>>> end. of pushing variables onto the stack and manipulating that stack
>>>>> to realise that Forth is, indeed, assembly language!
>>>>
>>>> The above reminds me of the debates we used to have (mid 1970s) about
>>>> RPN vs algebraic pocket calculators.
>>>>
>>>> With algebraic one had to use and keep track of parentheses and
>>>> remember operator precedence rules. Yes, RPN at first feels unnatural,
>>>> but with a little practice it became the preferred method for many of
>>>> us.
>>>
>>> But this is not aboput a calculator; it is about a computer program
>>> laid out on paper,
>>> and one in which the syntax checking of the HLL compiler will root out
>>> mismatched parentheses in a way that no sytax checking in Forth would
>>> root out, for example,
>>> an extra DUP inserted into the assembly-like code.
>>
>> HLL can't find faulty use of parentheses unless you simply don't balance
>> them.
>
> is is a shame that Forth is a write only language

Lol.  Only true for those who can't write good code in any language.

-- 

Rick C

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

#49255

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, alister wrote:
> is is a shame that Forth is a write only language
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anything anybody can say about America is true.
> 		-- Emmett Grogan

Looks like a WJ sock-puppet to me.

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

#49254

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 3:52:15 AM UTC-7, Doug Hoffman wrote:
> On 7/20/16 5:31 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> 
> > Consider the solution of the quadratic equation expressed in a HLL
> > ...
> >
> > X = (-B + SQRT ( B**2 - 4*A*C))?2*A
> >
> > ... then consider what you have to do in Forth to achieve the same
> > end. of pushing variables onto the stack and manipulating that stack
> > to realise that Forth is, indeed, assembly language!

For a long time, I thought of Forth as being an overgrown macro-assembler. I still do, pretty much. You say "assembly language" as if it were a bad thing!

On a related note, I prefer FASM to C --- the 64-bit x86 assembly-language is effectively a high-level language (it is a VM that gets JIT'd into a RISC machine-code internally by the processor, but nobody knows anything about this internal RISC machine-code because that information is proprietary to the chip-maker) --- 64-bit x86 assembly-language and C are both high-level languages that have to be compiled into machine-code to run, but x86 is higher-level (all of those multi-register addressing modes are superior to what C has).

> The above reminds me of the debates we used to have (mid 1970s) about
> RPN vs algebraic pocket calculators.
> 
> With algebraic one had to use and keep track of parentheses and remember
> operator precedence rules. Yes, RPN at first feels unnatural, but with a
> little practice it became the preferred method for many of us.
> 
> The reality is that neither algebraic or RPN matches the way we would
> express the equation in class using pencil and paper.
> (view the following in a monospaced font)
>                 ______________
> x =  -b +-   /  b2 - 4ac
>             \/  -----------
>                      2a

This is true. Either way, infix or postfix, you get an ugly approximation of what you would have written with pencil-and-paper --- infix is arguably a closer approximation though.

I have two pocket calculators, both of which are traditional infix (my HP41 is in the storage unit; I don't use it anymore). One of these calculators has me type the key for the transcendental function after I've entered the parameter, and the other has me type the key for the transcendental function before I've entered the parameter --- this messes me up every time, as I forget which calculator is which --- so, since you say that infix is natural, please explain why we have two forms of infix.

Why do people write equations with infix rather than postfix? Why do people use a QWERTY rather than Dvorak keyboard on their computers? Why do people use base-10 rather than base-6 for their numbers? In all these cases, it can be argued that people have chosen the worst option and would have been better off the other way. None of these are inherently "natural" --- it is all just a matter of what people are accustomed to --- the same is true of spoken languages; neither Russian nor English seem "natural" outside of Russia or America. Also, if English were inherently natural, the Brits wouldn't spell their words differently or speak with British accents, but they would just spell their words in the American way and speak with American accents. Also, if English were inherently natural, it wouldn't have changed so much in the last 500 years (try reading "Canterbury Tales" in the original).

My point is --- there is no correct way to do this stuff --- so, get off your high horse and stop criticizing people for doing things differently than you do them.

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

#49258

On 7/20/2016 12:22 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My point is --- there is no correct way to do this stuff --- so, get
> off your high horse and stop criticizing people for doing things
> differently than you do them.

My head just exploded!

-- 

Rick C

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

#49269

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> On 7/20/2016 12:22 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > My point is --- there is no correct way to do this stuff --- so, get
> > off your high horse and stop criticizing people for doing things
> > differently than you do them.
> 
> My head just exploded!

This Gareth guy reminds me of Elizabeth Rather.

Gareth doesn't see any point to RPN, so he criticizes it and says it ought not to be done.

Elizabeth Rather doesn't see any point to local variables or quotations or pretty much any intermediate-level computer-science concepts, so she makes a rule stating that all of this is banned and that anybody who writes Forth code with these features is non-standard --- that rule is ANS-Forth --- Elizabeth Rather is all about telling people what they can't do, rather than what they can do.

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

#49270

On 7/21/2016 12:44 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> On 7/20/2016 12:22 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> My point is --- there is no correct way to do this stuff --- so, get
>>> off your high horse and stop criticizing people for doing things
>>> differently than you do them.
>>
>> My head just exploded!
>
> This Gareth guy reminds me of Elizabeth Rather.
>
> Gareth doesn't see any point to RPN, so he criticizes it and says it ought not to be done.

I've been hoping the two of you would meet and like particle and 
anti-particle merge and turn into a pair of very large energy photons.

But that would violate the conservation of whacko.

There is tremendous irony in how you view him.

-- 

Rick C

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

#49271

On 7/21/2016 12:32 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 7/21/2016 12:44 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2016 12:22 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My point is --- there is no correct way to do this stuff --- so, get
>>>> off your high horse and stop criticizing people for doing things
>>>> differently than you do them.
>>>
>>> My head just exploded!
>>
>> This Gareth guy reminds me of Elizabeth Rather.
>>
>> Gareth doesn't see any point to RPN, so he criticizes it and says it
>> ought not to be done.
>
> I've been hoping the two of you would meet and like particle and
> anti-particle merge and turn into a pair of very large energy photons.
>
> But that would violate the conservation of whacko.
>
> There is tremendous irony in how you view him.
>
LOL....

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#49294

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 9:44:29 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> This Gareth guy reminds me of Elizabeth Rather.
> 
> Gareth doesn't see any point to RPN, so he criticizes it and says it ought not to be done.
> 
> Elizabeth Rather doesn't see any point to local variables or quotations or pretty much any intermediate-level computer-science concepts, so she makes a rule stating that all of this is banned and that anybody who writes Forth code with these features is non-standard --- that rule is ANS-Forth --- Elizabeth Rather is all about telling people what they can't do, rather than what they can do.

Elizabeth has defended the use of local variables for Windows programming. For embedded stuff, I implemented locals and never used them once. Oh, well. It's probably that ANS Locals don't support enough scoping. You might want locals to apply to a range of words, not just one.

Just to go completely off topic, I doubt Gareth has ever been run down by a crazy surfer.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web