Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #52738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 159 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-20 00:53 +0000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 14:46 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-19 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 20:10 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 01:18 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 01:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 02:16 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-20 07:48 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 23:36 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:03 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 21:49 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 03:33 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 08:52 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-20 12:05 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 10:43 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 00:02 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 01:00 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 01:13 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-22 20:54 +0000
Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-27 13:32 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 18:52 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-28 15:00 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-27 18:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 20:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-29 15:22 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 00:42 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-28 22:20 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 17:18 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 23:15 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 07:08 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 21:51 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:09 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 09:43 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-11-30 17:36 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 14:31 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:02 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-01 08:58 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-05 21:28 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 07:41 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-06 18:13 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-05 21:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-08 10:09 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-07 15:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-08 04:22 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 17:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 01:47 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-09 04:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 06:49 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 10:15 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) josv@planet.nl - 2017-04-12 04:47 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-07 14:34 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 18:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 09:38 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-12-06 12:01 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-08 21:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-08 18:57 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 05:28 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 06:45 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-10 16:54 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 17:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-04-11 08:03 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-11 07:50 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-11 11:43 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:16 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 10:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:48 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 23:58 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 00:55 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:51 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:50 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-12 12:55 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:17 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 06:03 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:30 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 08:44 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:01 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:33 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:27 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:02 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 20:10 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:16 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-05 12:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 10:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 18:53 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 11:33 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 22:22 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:29 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 11:32 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 19:06 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:27 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:24 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-30 13:41 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-30 15:15 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-01 09:54 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-01 04:42 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:09 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 08:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 10:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:41 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 13:25 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:45 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 05:53 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:34 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 11:48 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-29 14:24 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 21:27 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 18:15 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-11-30 10:03 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 12:22 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-29 14:31 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-02 23:05 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-12-03 01:58 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-03 22:00 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-23 10:11 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 00:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-23 13:49 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:51 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-24 09:26 -1000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 12:28 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 16:54 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 02:20 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-25 10:39 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-22 04:17 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 10:38 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 13:05 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-29 15:23 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 07:46 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 21:59 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 08:12 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 22:22 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 21:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 01:06 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-25 11:56 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 23:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 18:11 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 18:58 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 14:08 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 01:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c1337f8-05f8-43e9-8094-e8c015d00ccf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52806 |
On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 08:03:00 UTC, Paul Rubin wrote: > "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > > MOVETO ( x y -- ) is a general-purpose function in the graphics > > package and requires the 2DUP here. I think you have hit on the > > definitive Forth definition for RECT. My original was 14 > > instructions, yours would make it 11. > > Heh, I'm sure others have done it better. And the LINE version is still > a pretty annoying challenge. I wrote a "brute force" version with the > idea of refactoring it for fewer operations after writing it; but > getting it working was time consuming and tiring enough that I put it > aside after it worked: > > : 4dup 2over 2over ; > > : LINE ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- ) 2>r swap . . 2r> swap . . cr ; > > \ & in stack comment means duplicate the input parameters > : r1 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- & x0 y0 x1 y0 ) 4dup drop over ; > > : r2 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- & x1 y0 x1 y1 ) > 4dup >r -rot nip over r> ; > > : r3 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- & x1 y1 x1 y0 ) > 4dup 2swap drop over ; > > : r4 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- x0 y1 x0 y0 ) > nip ( x0 y0 y1 ) > >r over r> ( x0 y0 x0 y1 ) > -rot swap ; > > : rect r1 LINE r2 LINE r3 LINE r4 LINE ; > > : test cr clearstack 0 10 1 11 rect ; > > Is this really the language we want to entice schoolkids into > programming with?! :) Guys, Just use locals and quit with the stack thrashing s**t! WTF guys???!!!!! <SLAP!> :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 01:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87mvgrandj.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #52807 |
Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes: > Just use locals and quit with the stack thrashing s**t! > WTF guys???!!!!! <SLAP!> Heh, what kind of challenge would that be? It's also easy with PICK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o12bac$1h29$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #52808 |
On 11/22/2016, Paul Rubin wrote: > Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes: > > Just use locals and quit with the stack thrashing s**t! > > WTF guys???!!!!! <SLAP!> > > Heh, what kind of challenge would that be? It's also easy with PICK. I thought that purpose of a programming language was to make programming as easy as possible. It seems that the purpose of Forth is to make programming as hard as possible. It achieves that goal. -- I do know that Jews are G-d's Chosen People (we say that in Kiddush every Friday nite). Does that make us different from Gentiles? Clearly. If that's a problem, deal with it. web.archive.org/web/20101020044210/http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=191782
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 13:32 +1100 |
| Subject | Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o1dgji$1m4v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #52819 |
Robert L. wrote: > ... > I thought that purpose of a programming language was to make > programming as easy as possible. A programming language is an interface between man and machine. As needs vary so do programming languages and what is "easy". > It seems that the purpose of Forth is to make programming > as hard as possible. It achieves that goal. Assembler is a programming language. Its goal is to offer the best flexibility and best speed. It's not the fault of assembler that some programmers have neither the interest, need, nor capacity to use it. Offering features no other programming language has, assembler continues to exist. The same has been true of Forth. That there are those who want to make Forth compete with other languages and in doing so draw comparison as you do is not the fault of Forth's creator who continues to see it as a unique tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 18:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <d2e931c3-88c3-43a4-b723-7eef65093d43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52885 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:32:23 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > Assembler is a programming language. Its goal is to offer the best > flexibility and best speed. It's not the fault of assembler that some > programmers have neither the interest, need, nor capacity to use it. > > Offering features no other programming language has, assembler > continues to exist. The same has been true of Forth. That there > are those who want to make Forth compete with other languages > and in doing so draw comparison as you do is not the fault of > Forth's creator who continues to see it as a unique tool. I want Straight Forth to be competitive with other languages --- maybe Forth's creator will hate it --- or maybe he will just ignore it the same way that he ignored ANS-Forth in the last century and ignores Forth-200x in this century. I think that Forth is a "unique tool" --- I wouldn't program in Forth if I didn't think so --- but this doesn't mean that Forth programmers have to do without general-purpose data-structures (there should be a distinction between "unique" and "stupid," although some people believe that the words are synonyms). BTW: You do know that "Robert L." is a sock-puppet for WJ, don't you? I just mark all of his posts as spam without bothering to read them --- most likely Google cancelled his WJ account because everybody marks his posts as spam --- that is why he had to invent a new name for himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 15:00 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o1ga5a$1pa0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #52886 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > ... > I want Straight Forth to be competitive with other languages --- maybe Forth's creator > will hate it --- or maybe he will just ignore it the same way that he ignored ANS-Forth > in the last century and ignores Forth-200x in this century. Chuck's interviews make it clear he wrote Forth for himself and his views haven't altered substantially since the 70's. It's an image promoters of Forth would prefer to avoid. > BTW: You do know that "Robert L." is a sock-puppet for WJ, don't you? Content and sig unmistakeable. Using assembler as my example was deliberate. If I were going to compare Forth with another language it would be asm - same building-block approach, emphasis on code generation, and low-level access to everything. Comparing Forth with little-in-common languages like Ruby doesn't work for me, and I doubt anyone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 18:32 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <-6qdnZ0INtHoLqbFnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #52910 |
On 11/27/16 6:00 PM, HAA wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> ... >> I want Straight Forth to be competitive with other languages --- maybe Forth's creator >> will hate it --- or maybe he will just ignore it the same way that he ignored ANS-Forth >> in the last century and ignores Forth-200x in this century. > > Chuck's interviews make it clear he wrote Forth for himself and his views haven't > altered substantially since the 70's. It's an image promoters of Forth would prefer > to avoid. Chuck probably hasn't changed much, it's true. But Forth had outgrown Chuck by 1980, and has been extended and used on virtually every CPU on the market since then, by thousands of programmers and in thousands of successful projects. There are standards, and they have evolved. Forth may have begun as Chuck's personal productivity tool, but like many technologies, it outgrew its inventor. >> BTW: You do know that "Robert L." is a sock-puppet for WJ, don't you? > > Content and sig unmistakeable. Using assembler as my example was deliberate. > If I were going to compare Forth with another language it would be asm - same > building-block approach, emphasis on code generation, and low-level access to > everything. Comparing Forth with little-in-common languages like Ruby doesn't > work for me, and I doubt anyone else. Yes, quite recognizable, and quite useless. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 20:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <42f2d0ba-a1bc-41b6-bc35-50a065bf0f9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52910 |
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 9:00:45 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > ... > > I want Straight Forth to be competitive with other languages --- maybe Forth's creator > > will hate it --- or maybe he will just ignore it the same way that he ignored ANS-Forth > > in the last century and ignores Forth-200x in this century. > > Chuck's interviews make it clear he wrote Forth for himself and his views haven't > altered substantially since the 70's. It's an image promoters of Forth would prefer > to avoid. Well, yes and no. According to Jeff Fox, the cause of him leaving Forth Inc. was that Elizabeth Rather wanted to sue FIG for pirating Forth Inc.'s MicroForth and releasing it into the public-domain as FIGforth. She wanted the Forth language to be proprietary to Forth Inc.. She would have also liked to sue Laboratory MicroSystems Inc. (LMI) for selling PC/Forth and UR/Forth in competition with Forth Inc. (their products weren't pirated directly from Forth Inc.'s PolyForth, but they did have the same "look and feel"). Charles Moore refused to support these lawsuits and this was the irreconcialiable difference that forced him to leave Forth Inc. in 1982. He contacted FIG and told them they could continue distributing FIGforth, but they couldn't pirate any of his more recent Forth systems which were better, and they agreed. As for LMI, they didn't pirate his code so he didn't think they were his concern --- same with the variety of other Forth systems available, from public-domain to shareware to commercial --- he seemed to be friends with C.H.Ting, and was at least friendly toward the other Forth developers. So, no, he didn't want Forth to only for himself --- he was okay with other people writing their own Forth systems and/or writing application programs in Forth --- he didn't demand money from them. But, yes, he declined to take a leadership role and tell people what they can and cannot do with Forth --- he wasn't involved in ANS-Forth that is all about telling people what they can't do with Forth --- he seemed to be content with letting people do what they want with Forth, and he seemed to even expect that some of them would do something intelligent that he hadn't thought of himself. Despite what the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x proponents say, he doesn't support them, and he isn't opposed to my Straight Forth either --- he is still waiting for somebody to do something intelligent --- it has been 40 years now, which is a pretty long wait. > > BTW: You do know that "Robert L." is a sock-puppet for WJ, don't you? > > Content and sig unmistakeable. Using assembler as my example was deliberate. > If I were going to compare Forth with another language it would be asm - same > building-block approach, emphasis on code generation, and low-level access to > everything. Comparing Forth with little-in-common languages like Ruby doesn't > work for me, and I doubt anyone else. It would make more sense to compare Forth to C than to assembler --- Forth and C have similar uses --- of course, C has been described as a portable assembly-language, and for a long time I thought of Forth as being an over-grown macro-assembler, so comparing both of them to assembler is reasonable. As for Ruby, Python, etc., they are very different from both Forth and C and comparisons don't make much sense. My Straight Forth does have quotations, which ANS-Forth and Forth-200x lack (although my rquotations are an easy upgrade) --- so I'm closer to these Lisp-derived languages than either C or Forth-200x --- my Straight Forth is still a low-level language though (it doesn't have tagged data), so comparing it to languages with tagged data (Ruby, Python, Oforth, Factor, etc.) is comparing apples to oranges. I'm not opposed to Ruby, Python etc.. If I were to get into web-development, I would go with one of these because they have web-frameworks available --- Rails was Ruby's killer-application; it would still be largely unknown if Rails hadn't been developed --- all of these languages produce code that is slow as molasses though, so they aren't good choices for CAM which is my own interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 15:22 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o1ivr7$1su0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #52912 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > ... > It would make more sense to compare Forth to C than to assembler --- Forth and C have > similar uses --- of course, C has been described as a portable assembly-language, and > for a long time I thought of Forth as being an over-grown macro-assembler, so comparing > both of them to assembler is reasonable. Interesting C being described that way. It's low level in a sense but users are still at the mercy of compiler, presupplied libraries and standards. Forth is one of the few languages that's truly 'grass roots' - where users could create from ground up. No reliance on anybody or thing. Anyone that's used MASM has probably discovered there are things which can't be done, except perhaps awkwardly. So Forth gets a tick over asm :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 00:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <20161129004209.27f63172@_> |
| In reply to | #52943 |
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:22:40 +1100 "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > It would make more sense to compare Forth to C than to assembler > > --- Forth and C have similar uses --- of course, C has been > > described as a portable assembly-language, and for a long time I > > thought of Forth as being an over-grown macro-assembler, so > > comparing both of them to assembler is reasonable. > > Interesting C being described that way. It's low level in a sense > but users are still at the mercy of compiler, presupplied libraries > and standards. Forth is one of the few languages that's truly 'grass > roots' - where users could create from ground up. No reliance on > anybody or thing. Anyone that's used MASM has probably discovered > there are things which can't be done, except perhaps awkwardly. So > Forth gets a tick over asm :) > "... where users could create from [the] ground up." I'd argue that statement describes the failing of Forth, not it's merit. That's part of the reason why Forth is called a "write-once" language. The others being that it's simple syntax can be exceptionally cryptic, the code can be untraceable or difficult to understand, and Forth requires the user to juggle stack items. Without a large, standardized, and ubiquitous set of functionality, every Forth application has to develop it's own solution to the same basic programming problems and situations. This requires extra work, time or man-hours, on the part of the programmer, and interferes with portability, as the resulting code is non-standard. The code is unique to that application, when every application could've used the same functionality. It also means that any bad solutions or poor designs will be passed along forever with that application. It also means that numerous programs will most assuredly have bad, buggy, or limited implementations of functionality which is commonly used. A programmer needs to have a certain set of standard tools or components which are widely available and easy to use. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 22:20 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <RMmdnaJC_c7Cp6DFnZ2dnUU7-evNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #52944 |
On 11/28/16 7:42 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:22:40 +1100 > "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > >>> It would make more sense to compare Forth to C than to assembler >>> --- Forth and C have similar uses --- of course, C has been >>> described as a portable assembly-language, and for a long time I >>> thought of Forth as being an over-grown macro-assembler, so >>> comparing both of them to assembler is reasonable. >> >> Interesting C being described that way. It's low level in a sense >> but users are still at the mercy of compiler, presupplied libraries >> and standards. Forth is one of the few languages that's truly 'grass >> roots' - where users could create from ground up. No reliance on >> anybody or thing. Anyone that's used MASM has probably discovered >> there are things which can't be done, except perhaps awkwardly. So >> Forth gets a tick over asm :) >> > > "... where users could create from [the] ground up." > > I'd argue that statement describes the failing of Forth, not it's > merit. That's part of the reason why Forth is called a "write-once" > language. Typical complaints of Forth newbies, contrary to the experience of people who have experience via a course, good tutorials, or the chance to work alongside experienced Forth programmers. > The others being that it's simple syntax can be > exceptionally cryptic, the code can be untraceable or difficult to > understand, and Forth requires the user to juggle stack items. Again, not the experience of those who have actually written one or more Forth applications. Yes, Forth doesn't "look like" C or the algol-derivatives or Fortran-derivatives. But it's really simpler than any of the others, and quite easy to pick up if you can resist trying to program "the way you always do". > Without > a large, standardized, and ubiquitous set of functionality, every Forth > application has to develop it's own solution to the same basic > programming problems and situations. This requires extra work, time or > man-hours, on the part of the programmer, and interferes with > portability, as the resulting code is non-standard. The code is unique > to that application, when every application could've used the same > functionality. Chuck first described Forth as an "application-oriented language." The fact is, not all applications require the same functionality, and even consecutive applications in similar application domains have different constraints and requirements. I worked with Chuck on ~8 image-processing applications, for example. He quickly developed an approach very much like later OOP systems, in which an "image" was a basic object and possessed characteristic methods, etc. But they were all very different in detail, and although they shared a common overall paradigm, the code differed a lot. But each one was developed to completion in 2-3 weeks, despite estimates from our customers of months of development, even using "standard libraries". Chuck kept for many years a microfilm cache of his past applications, from which he extracted math functions, graphics capabilities, device drivers, and much more... and re-wrote them every time to adapt to the situation at hand. And every time he had his code up and running far faster than our customer has expected of programmers using "standard libraries". And they were usually faster, smaller, and more accurate. And I have seen similar results from a long line of outstanding Forth progrmmers I've worked with over the years. It's really hard to understand the power of Forth as a "dabbler" or even from implementing a DIY Forth. It's power is in developing real-world applications. It also means that any bad solutions or poor designs > will be passed along forever with that application. It also means that > numerous programs will most assuredly have bad, buggy, or limited > implementations of functionality which is commonly used. A programmer > needs to have a certain set of standard tools or components which are > widely available and easy to use. That is only true for incompetent programmers, and incompetent programmers can produce awful results in any language. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 17:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <174ac180-8e6d-4a6a-ac36-003287a47540@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52947 |
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:20:53 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/28/16 7:42 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > "... where users could create from [the] ground up." > > > > I'd argue that statement describes the failing of Forth, not it's > > merit. That's part of the reason why Forth is called a "write-once" > > language. I marked Rod Pemberton's post as spam so it won't appear under Google Groups. Rod Pemberton is a troll promoting C on comp.lang.forth (also comp.lang.asm.x86 and alt.lang.asm) and likely other forums --- he is no different than WJ (aka Robert L.) who promotes Ruby (used to promote Gauche Scheme but apparently got told to stop by the Gauche Scheme developers, and who used to promote Oforth but got told to stop by Franck). Only an idiot would respond to a Rod Pemberton post. > Again, not the experience of those who have actually written one or more > Forth applications. And here we have our idiot responding to the Rod Pemberton post. Elizabeth Rather has never written even one Forth application. All of the Forth code she has posted on comp.lang.forth was copied directly out of the "Starting Forth" book. She also knows almost nothing about computer programming. There is no evidence to indicate that she knows about any data-structure other than the array. There is no evidence to indicate that she knows what structs are. There is no evidence to indicate that she knows what a circular buffer is or how an ISR works. > Chuck kept for many years a microfilm cache of his past applications, > from which he extracted math functions, graphics capabilities, device > drivers, and much more... and re-wrote them every time to adapt to the > situation at hand. And every time he had his code up and running far > faster than our customer has expected of programmers using "standard > libraries". And they were usually faster, smaller, and more accurate. > And I have seen similar results from a long line of outstanding Forth > progrmmers I've worked with over the years. It's really hard to > understand the power of Forth as a "dabbler" or even from implementing a > DIY Forth. It's power is in developing real-world applications. You are describing writing new programs by cut-and-paste-and-tweak of old programs. This is stupid: 1.) Tweaking old code is very error-prone and usually introduces bugs --- with code-libraries that were tested, you can be sure that they will continue to work, because the code isn't being modified and so bugs can't be introduced. 2.) Tweaking old code results in bloated hard-to-read source-code because the low-level iteration-code is mixed together with the application code. It is better to hide the iteration-code inside of HOFs. We have much better software now than we did in the 1970s. Part of the reason is that computers are bigger and more powerful and hence can support bigger programs that do more. More important though, is that we have code-libraries and better languages now --- if we were still using 1970s programming techniques (cut-and-paste-and-tweak) today, our programs would still be at the 1970s level in what they could do --- we would not have the internet; we would be programming in C; we would consider WordStar to be the ultimate in what a computer is capable of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 23:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <20161129231536.47f8e58e@_> |
| In reply to | #52972 |
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:18:28 -0800 (PST) hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: [OT, yet another attempt to infuse Hugh with some reason] > I marked Rod Pemberton's post as spam so it won't appear under Google > Groups. > Well, it seems that a few someones did me a favor then, as you'll need to remark it as spam, yet again ... I guess we won't be hearing from you for a few days, since you'll be involved in "spam" flag war on Google Groups? LOL. Hugh, I truly don't care if you mark it as spam on Google Groups, as someone only needs to click on GG "spam" messages to read them. But, I really don't know why you'd be marking Usenet messages as spam on Google Groups. That seems like a pointless waste of your time, much like your incessant rants and personal attacks on the most active of those who post to comp.lang.forth. But, only you can decide to keep on attacking windmills. Most who read c.l.f. are likely actually reading and posting to Usenet from Usenet, not Google Groups. FYI, for the past few years, someone was marking _ALL_ of your posts as spam on Google Groups. No, it wasn't me. Personally, I still think that you're still "butt hurt" that no serious Forth programmers here happen to like your "novice" Forth package, or that they keep pointing out the flaws it has. I don't think you should take this personally, as I assume they would "help" to "fix" my Forth as well, should it ever be released. Someone has to keep Forth standards high, you just happened to be earlier in line ... > Rod Pemberton is a troll promoting C on comp.lang.forth (also > comp.lang.asm.x86 and alt.lang.asm) and likely other forums FYI, a troll would not be skilled in x86 assembly and C, nor would said troll be implementing a Forth interpreter, which passes much of Hayes Core. I'm just expressing my perspective and programming experience in full, so as to share it with others. I think it has value, just a others here do about their experiences. This is no different than many who post here, including Ms. Rather, Rick "rickman" C., Paul Rubin, Anton Ertl, Bernd Paysan, Hugh Aguilar (yes, even you...), and many others, but to a far lesser extent. Yes, I know that not everyone will accept my experience as theirs. Yes, I understand that they share competing perspectives, which can only be rebutted via alternate experiences of their own. Does that mean such perspectives shouldn't be shared? Some would call that censorship or suppression. Who gave you that right? c.l.f. is not moderated. Of course, you could call all of those people above whom I mentioned trolls too, as Bernd goes off on microprocessors and history, rickman on micro-processors, Rubin on C, Ms. Rather on Forth history, etc. So, who are you really barking at on this troll thing, Hugh? Are you preaching to the choir ... of trolls? > > Again, not the experience of those who have actually written one or > > more Forth applications. > > And here we have our idiot responding to the Rod Pemberton post. Well, we apparently have more than one, whom you would classify as such. Perhaps, they don't give a damn anymore about your perspective, given that you incessantly attack them, or won't stop with your rather hostile variant of pro-Forth, yet anti-Forth establishment, rants? Since no one seems to share your perspectives, I'm assuming that you truly appear to be insane to almost everyone here. > Elizabeth Rather has never written even one Forth application. > [...] I'm sure you'd argue that your statement is or was the truth. But, how is that even remotely related to Forth programming? Does simply mentioning "Forth" in a sentence while attacking someone now constitute "on-topic" behavior for c.l.f.? If a troll is defined as one who posts "off-topic" stuff with an attempt to incite others into arguments for their amusement, then your rants, personal attacks, and demonification of Forth standards, are Troll behavior. How could they be received as anything but that? IIRC, there have been about half a dozen people who've called you out as such. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 07:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o1lmqq$gkq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52947 |
On 29/11/2016 10:20, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/28/16 7:42 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Without a large, standardized, and ubiquitous set of functionality, every Forth >> application has to develop it's own solution to the same basic >> programming problems and situations. This requires extra work, time or >> man-hours, on the part of the programmer, and interferes with >> portability, as the resulting code is non-standard. The code is unique >> to that application, when every application could've used the same >> functionality. > Chuck first described Forth as an "application-oriented language." The > fact is, not all applications require the same functionality, and even > consecutive applications in similar application domains have different > constraints and requirements... > It also means that any bad solutions or poor designs > will be passed along forever with that application. It also means that > numerous programs will most assuredly have bad, buggy, or limited > implementations of functionality which is commonly used. Elizabeth, I fail to understand the objection to a standardized library of working code. Most application code uses and re-uses various building-blocks, and those can be profitably put into a common library. Witness the extreme success of the lowly C standard library. What you don't mention is that while a bad solution or a poor design may be propagated, in general that is not the case. The community of users makes fixes, improvements and suggestions, and these get rolled into the standard libraries. A "standard library" does not mean an immutable implementation. Furthermore, by pushing the need to create, e.g. an "array" implementation every time one needs an array, you guarantee that *more* mistakes will be made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 21:51 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <VMadnb2EDIODGKPFnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #52975 |
On 11/29/16 7:08 PM, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>
> On 29/11/2016 10:20, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> On 11/28/16 7:42 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> Without a large, standardized, and ubiquitous set of functionality, every Forth
>>> application has to develop it's own solution to the same basic
>>> programming problems and situations. This requires extra work, time or
>>> man-hours, on the part of the programmer, and interferes with
>>> portability, as the resulting code is non-standard. The code is unique
>>> to that application, when every application could've used the same
>>> functionality.
>
>> Chuck first described Forth as an "application-oriented language." The
>> fact is, not all applications require the same functionality, and even
>> consecutive applications in similar application domains have different
>> constraints and requirements...
>
>> It also means that any bad solutions or poor designs
>> will be passed along forever with that application. It also means that
>> numerous programs will most assuredly have bad, buggy, or limited
>> implementations of functionality which is commonly used.
>
> Elizabeth, I fail to understand the objection to a standardized library
> of working code. Most application code uses and re-uses various
> building-blocks, and those can be profitably put into a common library.
> Witness the extreme success of the lowly C standard library.
I have no objection whatever to a standardized library of Forth code. I
have supported the Forth Math Library by including it with FORTH, Inc.
products since the '90's even though many people criticize it for
containing a lot of really bad code and few widely useful functions. It
would be wonderful if more people directed their efforts toward useful
library functions rather the "Yet another Forth implementation". I
merely offer my view as to why this hasn't happened much.
> What you don't mention is that while a bad solution or a poor design may
> be propagated, in general that is not the case. The community of users
> makes fixes, improvements and suggestions, and these get rolled into the
> standard libraries.
>
> A "standard library" does not mean an immutable implementation.
A "standard library" would be wonderful. I invite you do propose one.
> Furthermore, by pushing the need to create, e.g. an "array"
> implementation every time one needs an array, you guarantee that *more*
> mistakes will be made.
Many implementations and virtually all manuals include an array, like:
: ARRAY ( n ) CELLS ALLOT
DOES> ( i - a ) SWAP CELLS + ;
On the other hand, this took me less than a minute to type. What's the
big deal? I suggest that the real reason Forth libraries haven't caught
on is that it's easier to write the words than to search the internet
for versions someone else wrote that don't do exactly what you want.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 12:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o1m8eh$fd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52981 |
On 11/30/2016 09:51, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/29/16 7:08 PM, Ron Aaron wrote: >> Elizabeth, I fail to understand the objection to a standardized library >> of working code... > I have no objection whatever to a standardized library of Forth code. I > have supported the Forth Math Library by including it with FORTH, Inc. > products since the '90's even though many people criticize it for > containing a lot of really bad code and few widely useful functions. It > would be wonderful if more people directed their efforts toward useful > library functions rather the "Yet another Forth implementation". I > merely offer my view as to why this hasn't happened much. OK. I would posit that a Forth Math Library only scratches a very particular itch (I have no opinion on the quality of the code, never having looked at it). >> A "standard library" does not mean an immutable implementation. > > A "standard library" would be wonderful. I invite you do propose one. As you well know, I'm not an ANS Forth user, so my input on a standard ANS-compatible library would not be particularly useful. > Many implementations and virtually all manuals include an array, like: Yes, yes I know that. But (as has been pointed out by others), in just about every language, the user is not expected to "roll his own" fundamental data structures. Even C has built-in arrays (though not higher-level constructs like trees etc; those you have to make yourself). > On the other hand, this took me less than a minute to type. What's the > big deal? The big deal, IMO, is that this should "come for free" with the language. Indeed, that's why 8th has arrays and maps and other generally useful containers. Because when it comes to real-world applications (outside of embedded systems, that is), the "time to market" is drastically reduced when one doesn't have to cobble together basic building blocks. Likewise, the reliability of the overall system is enhanced when using well-tested building blocks. So yes, in your very narrow problem domain (of whatever your problem domain was), it's acceptable to re-invent and copy-and-paste or whatever. I've not yet worked on a project (in any language) where the people paying the bill were willing to pay me to re-invent things which already existed (or should have existed). I suggest that the real reason Forth libraries haven't caught > on is that it's easier to write the words than to search the internet > for versions someone else wrote that don't do exactly what you want. I challenge that assertion, but YMMV.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 09:43 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <bpednbVKJ5NltqLFnZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #52984 |
On 11/30/16 12:09 AM, Ron Aaron wrote: > > > On 11/30/2016 09:51, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 11/29/16 7:08 PM, Ron Aaron wrote: > >>> Elizabeth, I fail to understand the objection to a standardized library >>> of working code... > > >> I have no objection whatever to a standardized library of Forth code. I >> have supported the Forth Math Library by including it with FORTH, Inc. >> products since the '90's even though many people criticize it for >> containing a lot of really bad code and few widely useful functions. It >> would be wonderful if more people directed their efforts toward useful >> library functions rather the "Yet another Forth implementation". I >> merely offer my view as to why this hasn't happened much. > > OK. I would posit that a Forth Math Library only scratches a very > particular itch (I have no opinion on the quality of the code, never > having looked at it). > >>> A "standard library" does not mean an immutable implementation. >> >> A "standard library" would be wonderful. I invite you do propose one. > > As you well know, I'm not an ANS Forth user, so my input on a standard > ANS-compatible library would not be particularly useful. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying the lack of libraries while making no efforts to contribute to one. >> Many implementations and virtually all manuals include an array, like: > > Yes, yes I know that. But (as has been pointed out by others), in just > about every language, the user is not expected to "roll his own" > fundamental data structures. Even C has built-in arrays (though not > higher-level constructs like trees etc; those you have to make yourself). If you are selecting an implementation to use, surely you would pick one that comes with the added facilities you require for your projects, yes? >> On the other hand, this took me less than a minute to type. What's the >> big deal? > > The big deal, IMO, is that this should "come for free" with the > language. Indeed, that's why 8th has arrays and maps and other > generally useful containers. Because when it comes to real-world > applications (outside of embedded systems, that is), the "time to > market" is drastically reduced when one doesn't have to cobble together > basic building blocks. Likewise, the reliability of the overall system > is enhanced when using well-tested building blocks. Well, Forth2012 has: 6.2.0825 BUFFER: “buffer-colon” CORE EXT ( u “hspacesiname” – – ) Skip leading space delimiters. Parse name delimited by a space. Create a definition for name, with the execution semantics defined below. Reserve u address units at an aligned address. Contiguity of this region with any other region is undefined. name Execution: ( – – a-addr ) a-addr is the address of the space reserved by BUFFER: when it defined name. The program is responsible for initializing the contents. So that, at least, is standardized. It's a bit-wise array. The Forth20xx committee is perfectly capable of adding others, should they wish to. I don't in any sense argue against doing so, I merely observe the reason why it hasn't happened: it's too easy to do. > So yes, in your very narrow problem domain (of whatever your problem > domain was), it's acceptable to re-invent and copy-and-paste or > whatever. I've not yet worked on a project (in any language) where the > people paying the bill were willing to pay me to re-invent things which > already existed (or should have existed). > > >> I suggest that the real reason Forth libraries haven't caught >> on is that it's easier to write the words than to search the internet >> for versions someone else wrote that don't do exactly what you want. > > I challenge that assertion, but YMMV. > Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 17:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o1nnoe$iga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52989 |
On 11/30/2016 1:43 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/30/16 12:09 AM, Ron Aaron wrote: >> As you well know, I'm not an ANS Forth user, so my input on a standard >> ANS-compatible library would not be particularly useful. > > I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying the lack of libraries > while making no efforts to contribute to one. > > > Cheers, > Elizabeth > Not supporting a product you don't believe in is not hypocrisy, and it's obvious he supports libraries since his product has a varied selection of libraries. What is hypocrisy is selling a product full of libraries yet discouraging others from making their own libraries. Cut and paste, what a joke, the most primitive form of having a library, I understand why it was done to begin with when personal computers were not available so having a print out was necessary but we have moved way beyond that point many decades ago. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 14:31 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <HNCdnZ0Bcc3n8qLFnZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #52998 |
On 11/30/16 1:36 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote: > On 11/30/2016 1:43 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 11/30/16 12:09 AM, Ron Aaron wrote: >>> As you well know, I'm not an ANS Forth user, so my input on a standard >>> ANS-compatible library would not be particularly useful. >> >> I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying the lack of libraries >> while making no efforts to contribute to one. >> > Not supporting a product you don't believe in is not hypocrisy, and it's > obvious he supports libraries since his product has a varied selection > of libraries. > > What is hypocrisy is selling a product full of libraries yet > discouraging others from making their own libraries. What?? I was just *encouraging* those desiring a standard library to contribute to one, rather than just carping on the sidelines. > Cut and paste, what a joke, the most primitive form of having a library, > I understand why it was done to begin with when personal computers were > not available so having a print out was necessary but we have moved way > beyond that point many decades ago. No idea what that remark is in reference to. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 07:02 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o1oaq3$dq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52989 |
On 30/11/2016 21:43, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/30/16 12:09 AM, Ron Aaron wrote: >> As you well know, I'm not an ANS Forth user, so my input on a standard >> ANS-compatible library would not be particularly useful. > > I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying the lack of libraries > while making no efforts to contribute to one. "Hypocrisy", really? As Cecil pointed out in another reply, 8th has a lot of libraries and more are added with each release, whether because of user-requests or my own reasons. So better rethink the use of that term, it doesn't apply in any manner. > Well, Forth2012 has: > > 6.2.0825 BUFFER: “buffer-colon” CORE EXT > ( u “hspacesiname” – – ) ... > So that, at least, is standardized. It's a bit-wise array. If that is what an 'array' is in your mind, then I'm not sure what profit there is in further discussion on this topic. It's even named 'BUFFER:' -- to indicate that it holds a bunch of bytes. Yes, it *could* be used as an array. So could a simple CREATE 100 ALLOT. And while an 'array' of this nature is certainly simple to implement, one which accommodates increasing amounts of data is not. Nor is a "map" simple to implement correctly, let alone other common data structures. By all means, continue thinking that rolling your own array (or whatever) every single time you need one is a profitable use of your programmers' time and your money.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web