Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #54673 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-06 06:46 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-09 17:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Really? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 06:46 -0800
Re: Really? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 07:20 -0800
Re: Really? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 08:58 -0800
Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:06 -0500
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:25 -0800
Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-07 11:45 +1100
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-06 15:38 -1000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 09:50 -0800
Re: Really? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-02-06 23:39 -0500
Re: Really? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:04 -0800
Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-08 11:04 +1100
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:42 -0800
Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-08 20:12 +1100
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 02:44 -0800
Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-08 17:48 +0000
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-08 18:43 +0000
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 15:24 -0800
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-08 16:26 -0800
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 22:45 -0800
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 22:50 -0800
Re: Really? clozaga@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 21:03 -0800
Re: Really? clozaga@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 21:04 -0800
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 20:01 -0800
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-12 16:26 +0000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 16:52 -0800
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-13 09:49 +0000
Re: Really? minforth@arcor.de - 2017-02-13 07:03 -0800
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 13:41 -0800
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-13 22:32 +0000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-15 11:42 -0800
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-15 20:41 +0000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-17 09:42 -0800
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-17 22:22 +0000
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-12 19:24 -1000
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-13 08:49 +0000
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-07 11:01 +0000
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 03:06 -0800
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 09:35 -0800
Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-07 17:35 +0000
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:24 -0800
Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-09 08:57 +0000
Re: Really? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-09 13:24 +0100
Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-11 15:32 +0000
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-07 20:42 +0000
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-07 13:58 -1000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 21:51 -0800
Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 01:47 -0500
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 22:52 -0800
Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 03:34 -0500
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-08 13:43 +0000
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-08 15:39 -1000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 22:39 -0800
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-09 08:56 +0000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 14:36 -0800
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 08:33 +0000
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-09 09:03 +0000
Re: Really? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-09 10:51 +0100
Re: Really? john <anon@example.com> - 2017-02-09 11:54 +0000
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-09 09:30 -1000
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-09 14:14 +0000
Re: Really? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-09 14:37 +0000
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-09 15:24 +0000
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-09 12:01 -0800
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-10 01:09 +0000
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-09 18:19 -0800
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-09 16:30 -1000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 19:16 -0800
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-10 16:29 +0000
OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 17:30 +0000
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 11:46 -0600
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-10 11:54 -0600
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 18:05 +0000
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 17:55 +0000
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 12:04 -0600
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 18:07 +0000
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 12:57 -0600
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-10 19:26 +0000
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-10 14:04 -0600
Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-11 09:35 +0000
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 16:33 -0800
Static type checking (was: Really?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-10 11:07 +0000
Re: Really? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-02-11 15:16 +0000
Re: Really? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-11 10:20 -0600
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 19:02 -0800
Re: Really? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-10 17:31 +0100
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-08 15:34 -1000
Re: Really? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-07 21:15 -1000
Re: Really? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-07 23:46 -0800
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 22:47 -0800
Re: Really? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:52 +0200
Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:29 -0500
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-07 20:47 +0000
Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-08 09:47 +0000
Re: Really? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:13 -0500
Re: Really? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-02-08 11:23 +0000
Re: Really? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-07 09:49 -0600
Really? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 00:30 -0800
Re: Really? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-10 10:32 +1100
Re: Really? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 17:22 -0800
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7huog$au5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54750 |
On 2/9/2017 14:14, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:51:48 +0100 (CET), > albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote: > >> That's why ( addr len -- fl ) "comments" are harmful. There must be a >> narrative, (a sequence of proper sentences that are statements, i.e. >> can be true or false) that tells *everything* one must know about >> this word (that is not defined in the context of the project already). > > Stack comments are essential. People who do not provide a stack > comment for every word do not work for MPE. However, each word > *must* also have a description. In MPE world, this is the > \ *G What this word does and why. > comment provided for each word. > > In order to write code that is maintainable beyond the time > frame of the original programmer, his memory and her availability, > both the stack comment and the description/narrative must be > present. > > Note that this discipline applies to all programming languages. > > Stephen > Perhaps that needs to be in the standard. If we can parse moustachieod locals, surely we can formally parse stack comments. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <589c8956.100395863@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #54751 |
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:37:47 +0000, Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: >> Stack comments are essential. People who do not provide a stack >> comment for every word do not work for MPE. However, each word >> *must* also have a description. In MPE world, this is the >> \ *G What this word does and why. >> comment provided for each word. >> >> In order to write code that is maintainable beyond the time >> frame of the original programmer, his memory and her availability, >> both the stack comment and the description/narrative must be >> present. >> >> Note that this discipline applies to all programming languages. >Perhaps that needs to be in the standard. If we can parse moustachieod >locals, surely we can formally parse stack comments. The safety-critical version of DcocGen, DocGen/SC, has formally parsed stack comments since the year 2000. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 12:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87r337uoal.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #54752 |
stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: > The safety-critical version of DcocGen, DocGen/SC, has formally > parsed stack comments since the year 2000. Does it compare the stack comment with the code?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 01:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <589d1217.135405467@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #54755 |
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:01:06 -0800, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: >> The safety-critical version of DcocGen, DocGen/SC, has formally >> parsed stack comments since the year 2000. > >Does it compare the stack comment with the code? No, but if you look carefully on the MPE web site we have asked for people to provide to such a tool. Many have waved their hands but none have delivered. After Brexit, there is now no suitable source of funding for such a poject. If you want to see the papers, look for EuroForth papers by Jaanos Poial. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 18:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87mvduvlcz.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #54759 |
stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: >>Does it compare the stack comment with the code? > No, but if you look carefully on the MPE web site we have asked > for people to provide to such a tool. Many have waved their hands > but none have delivered. Hmm, well there is Strongforth, which never seemed to get much traction. I have the impression that stack effect bugs aren't that common in Forth code written by experienced Forthers. I made a number of them at first, mostly by saying + when I meant F+ so the addition happened on the wrong stack, leading to puzzling-at-the-time debugging. But that's less of an issue for me now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 16:30 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ooWdneMa-fEkuADFnZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #54762 |
On 2/9/17 4:19 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: >>> Does it compare the stack comment with the code? >> No, but if you look carefully on the MPE web site we have asked >> for people to provide to such a tool. Many have waved their hands >> but none have delivered. > > Hmm, well there is Strongforth, which never seemed to get much traction. > > I have the impression that stack effect bugs aren't that common in Forth > code written by experienced Forthers. I made a number of them at first, > mostly by saying + when I meant F+ so the addition happened on the wrong > stack, leading to puzzling-at-the-time debugging. But that's less of an > issue for me now. The thing is, stack issues are so very easy to test for, that they're normally caught very quickly. The trick, of course, is to do modular testing. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-09 19:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6068841-d384-446f-ad66-4e732d5ac663@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54759 |
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 6:09:45 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:01:06 -0800, Paul Rubin > <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: > >> The safety-critical version of DcocGen, DocGen/SC, has formally > >> parsed stack comments since the year 2000. > > > >Does it compare the stack comment with the code? > > No, but if you look carefully on the MPE web site we have asked > for people to provide to such a tool. Many have waved their hands > but none have delivered. I can write code that you are incapable of writing --- I have done this more than once --- you would have to pay me up front though. > After Brexit, there is now no suitable source of funding for such > a poject. If you want to see the papers, look for EuroForth papers > by Jaanos Poial. You were expecting Germany to pay for it? Why should Germany carry England? Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 16:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <589de949.190495488@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #54764 |
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:16:44 -0800 (PST), hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> No, but if you look carefully on the MPE web site we have asked >> for people to provide to such a tool. Many have waved their hands >> but none have delivered. > >I can write code that you are incapable of writing --- I have done >this more than once --- you would have to pay me up front though. I have a really nice bridge I can sell you. But I need the money up front. >> After Brexit, there is now no suitable source of funding for such >> a poject. If you want to see the papers, look for EuroForth papers >> by Jaanos Poial. > >You were expecting Germany to pay for it? Why should Germany carry England? You don't understand how the EU works. The UK pays into the EU too. >Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that >should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything. Do tell me the details. On second thoughts, please do not. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 17:30 +0000 |
| Subject | OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7kt7f$3pi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54768 |
On 2/10/2017 16:29, Stephen Pelc wrote: >> Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that >> should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything. > Do tell me the details. On second thoughts, please do not. The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 percent. Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving away in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 11:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7ku6e$716$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54771 |
On 2/10/2017 11:30 AM, Alex wrote: > On 2/10/2017 16:29, Stephen Pelc wrote: >>> Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that >>> should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything. >> Do tell me the details. On second thoughts, please do not. > > The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 > percent. > > Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving away > in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he > overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. > > https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid > > .19% of a hell of a lot bigger pie. Still both governments sometimes gives free handouts where it's not deserved. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 11:54 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <asqdnX2oDO7HYwDFnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #54772 |
Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> wrote: > On 2/10/2017 11:30 AM, Alex wrote: >> >> The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 >> percent. >> >> Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving away >> in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he >> overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. >> >> https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid >> > .19% of a hell of a lot bigger pie. Only just: United States $31.08 billion United Kingdom $18.70 billion > Still both governments sometimes gives free handouts where it's not > deserved. Good grief. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 18:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7kva1$bd9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54773 |
On 2/10/2017 17:54, Andrew Haley wrote: > Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 11:30 AM, Alex wrote: >>> >>> The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 >>> percent. >>> >>> Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving away >>> in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he >>> overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. >>> >>> https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid >>> >> .19% of a hell of a lot bigger pie. > > Only just: > > United States $31.08 billion > United Kingdom $18.70 billion Ah, how a declining exchange rate has murdered that number. > >> Still both governments sometimes gives free handouts where it's not >> deserved. > > Good grief. > > Andrew. > -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 17:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7kun3$9um$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54772 |
On 2/10/2017 17:46, Cecil Bayona wrote: > On 2/10/2017 11:30 AM, Alex wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 16:29, Stephen Pelc wrote: >>>> Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that >>>> should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything. >>> Do tell me the details. On second thoughts, please do not. >> >> The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 >> percent. >> >> Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving away >> in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he >> overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. >> >> https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid >> >> >> > .19% of a hell of a lot bigger pie. Still both governments sometimes > gives free handouts where it's not deserved. > Not that much bigger. The absolute numbers are US $32.53bn (2014 figures) vs UK £12.2bn (2015 numbers or around $15.23bn at current exchange rates). -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7kv81$biu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54774 |
On 2/10/2017 11:55 AM, Alex wrote: > On 2/10/2017 17:46, Cecil Bayona wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 11:30 AM, Alex wrote: >>> On 2/10/2017 16:29, Stephen Pelc wrote: >>>>> Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that >>>>> should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything. >>>> Do tell me the details. On second thoughts, please do not. >>> >>> The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 >>> percent. >>> >>> Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving away >>> in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he >>> overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. >>> >>> https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid >>> >>> >>> >>> >> .19% of a hell of a lot bigger pie. Still both governments sometimes >> gives free handouts where it's not deserved. >> > > Not that much bigger. The absolute numbers are US $32.53bn (2014 > figures) vs UK £12.2bn (2015 numbers or around $15.23bn at current > exchange rates). > I would like to have the difference. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 18:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7kvcr$bd9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54775 |
On 2/10/2017 18:04, Cecil Bayona wrote: > On 2/10/2017 11:55 AM, Alex wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 17:46, Cecil Bayona wrote: >>> On 2/10/2017 11:30 AM, Alex wrote: >>>> On 2/10/2017 16:29, Stephen Pelc wrote: >>>>>> Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that >>>>>> should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything. >>>>> Do tell me the details. On second thoughts, please do not. >>>> >>>> The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 >>>> percent. >>>> >>>> Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving >>>> away >>>> in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he >>>> overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. >>>> >>>> https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> .19% of a hell of a lot bigger pie. Still both governments sometimes >>> gives free handouts where it's not deserved. >>> >> >> Not that much bigger. The absolute numbers are US $32.53bn (2014 >> figures) vs UK £12.2bn (2015 numbers or around $15.23bn at current >> exchange rates). >> > I would like to have the difference. > Do you deserve a free handout? -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 12:57 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7l2bb$oq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54777 |
On 2/10/2017 12:07 PM, Alex wrote: > On 2/10/2017 18:04, Cecil Bayona wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 11:55 AM, Alex wrote: >>> On 2/10/2017 17:46, Cecil Bayona wrote: >>>> On 2/10/2017 11:30 AM, Alex wrote: >>>>> On 2/10/2017 16:29, Stephen Pelc wrote: >>>>>>> Anyway, England gets a lot of foreign aid from America --- that >>>>>>> should be a suitable source of funding for pretty much anything. >>>>>> Do tell me the details. On second thoughts, please do not. >>>>> >>>>> The US spends 0.19 percent of GDP on foreign aid; the UK spends 0.71 >>>>> percent. >>>>> >>>>> Amazingly, the median %age that US citizens believe they are giving >>>>> away >>>>> in foreign aid is 25%. If Hugh is typical of his fellows, then he >>>>> overestimates his generosity by a truly gobsmacking factor of 100. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.interaction.org/document/american-public-overestimates-us-foreign-aid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> .19% of a hell of a lot bigger pie. Still both governments sometimes >>>> gives free handouts where it's not deserved. >>>> >>> >>> Not that much bigger. The absolute numbers are US $32.53bn (2014 >>> figures) vs UK £12.2bn (2015 numbers or around $15.23bn at current >>> exchange rates). >>> >> I would like to have the difference. >> > > Do you deserve a free handout? > More than some of the persons that get it and don't deserve it at all. That figure does not count I believe all the military aid give to countries, the US spent about 1 trillion dollars in Iraq an not all on blowing things up. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 19:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7l41j$vhp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54779 |
On 2/10/2017 18:57, Cecil Bayona wrote: >>> >> >> Do you deserve a free handout? >> > More than some of the persons that get it and don't deserve it at all. I see. Who? > > That figure does not count I believe all the military aid give to > countries, the US spent about 1 trillion dollars in Iraq an not all on > blowing things up. > > Complete bollox. See "Iraq Aid Over Time" http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/l/82/Iraq -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 14:04 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7l684$8cp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54781 |
On 2/10/2017 1:26 PM, Alex wrote: > On 2/10/2017 18:57, Cecil Bayona wrote: > >>>> >>> >>> Do you deserve a free handout? >>> >> More than some of the persons that get it and don't deserve it at all. > > I see. Who? > >> >> That figure does not count I believe all the military aid give to >> countries, the US spent about 1 trillion dollars in Iraq an not all on >> blowing things up. >> >> > > Complete bollox. See "Iraq Aid Over Time" > http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/l/82/Iraq > That does not include military aid, equipment provided and such. But I see that this is turning nasty so bye. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-11 09:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: [ was re: Really?] Foreign aid |
| Message-ID | <o7mlq9$721$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54783 |
On 2/10/2017 20:04, Cecil Bayona wrote: > On 2/10/2017 1:26 PM, Alex wrote: >> On 2/10/2017 18:57, Cecil Bayona wrote: >> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do you deserve a free handout? >>>> >>> More than some of the persons that get it and don't deserve it at all. >> >> I see. Who? >> >>> >>> That figure does not count I believe all the military aid give to >>> countries, the US spent about 1 trillion dollars in Iraq an not all on >>> blowing things up. >>> >>> >> >> Complete bollox. See "Iraq Aid Over Time" >> http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/l/82/Iraq >> > That does not include military aid, equipment provided and such. But I > see that this is turning nasty so bye. > Why would a robust rejection of unsourced and frankly fantastic figures be considered nasty? Click the "Military" button on that link and guess what. It shows the military aid. What is the source of your figures, since these are official Congress data? -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-10 16:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <803b9249-07da-46ae-b1ef-707008f63277@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54768 |
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:16:44 -0800 (PST), hughaguilar96@gmail.com > wrote: > > >> No, but if you look carefully on the MPE web site we have asked > >> for people to provide to such a tool. Many have waved their hands > >> but none have delivered. > > > >I can write code that you are incapable of writing --- I have done > >this more than once --- you would have to pay me up front though. > > I have a really nice bridge I can sell you. But I need the money > up front. You have told me multiple times that my code is crap and that I'm a bad Forth programmer. There is no way that I would write code for you on the expectation that you will pay me afterward --- you are not going to pay me --- you are going to say that my code is crap and that I'm a bad Forth programmer. Elizabeth Rather appointed you to the Forth-200x committee --- now you have to say that my code is crap and that I'm a bad Forth programmer --- to do otherwise would contradict everything that the ANS-Forth cult believes in and holds sacred.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web