Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jim <njbetts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Wikipedia article on Forth jim <njbetts@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800
The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:14 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 23:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-25 04:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-26 14:29 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 09:30 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 02:44 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 14:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:32 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:29 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 21:57 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 22:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 15:41 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 14:46 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 17:08 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 15:18 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:20 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 17:47 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 15:16 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 19:04 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 21:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 01:12 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:23 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:04 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-27 18:54 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 13:59 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 23:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-28 11:51 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:19 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:34 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:42 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-09 23:44 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 19:55 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:08 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-09 16:34 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 22:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-11 15:23 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 21:17 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 11:17 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 14:59 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-12 15:00 -0400
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-13 10:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 07:57 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 10:26 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-10 03:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-10 08:47 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-11 01:57 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 10:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 18:32 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 11:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:23 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:21 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 19:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 12:37 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 14:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 04:13 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:31 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:53 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 13:15 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 02:22 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-27 15:52 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-28 14:44 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 22:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-04 21:38 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:11 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:21 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 13:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-05 08:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 15:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 18:25 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 02:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:20 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 02:45 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 08:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 04:42 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 04:06 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-03-07 13:02 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 18:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 22:04 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:49 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 19:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:35 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 13:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-08 15:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 15:10 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-07 08:31 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:03 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 22:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:36 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-12 15:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:46 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:09 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth alex@rivadpm.com - 2017-03-05 15:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-05 22:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-04 07:23 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:11 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 04:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-05 18:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-07 11:35 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 17:13 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 16:50 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 09:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-12 14:31 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-15 23:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:00 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:27 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 22:13 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-16 10:20 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:42 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:48 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 01:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 05:33 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 04:33 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-06 17:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:10 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:22 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 02:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:50 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 12:06 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 16:00 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-07 13:18 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 00:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:04 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 09:52 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 05:09 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 14:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 12:05 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:00 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:53 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 23:19 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 17:01 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 10:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 07:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 12:43 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 12:28 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-12 16:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 16:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 21:42 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:13 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 01:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:37 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-04 18:35 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-27 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-28 07:49 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-25 11:55 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-24 22:14 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-02-26 15:15 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 20:02 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 23:08 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-26 23:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa5rum$enn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55716 |
On 3/12/2017 23:43, HAA wrote: > Alex wrote: >> On 3/10/2017 10:17, HAA wrote: >>> ... >>> What's a "de facto standard"? We know what a Standard is - a specification >>> arrived through a *formal* process involving, membership, consultation, >>> submissions, meetings, voting etc. A Standard *requires* users conform to >>> specifications, provide documentation etc, before they can label their product >>> "compliant with Standard xxx". Fig-Forth did none of these. >> >> De facto standards are those that become standards without the formality >> you describe, normally by market dominance or informal collaboration. >> >> For example SMB (a network protocol) from Microsoft is a de facto >> standard. For most of the last 20 years it has had none of the things >> you claim are required. Only in the last few years has MS begun to >> document it. The Samba guys (an opensource implementation of an SMB >> server) spent most of their time engineering a clone from data they >> sniffed on the wire. MS are much more open now; there are MS supported >> plugfests where vendors can test their SMB code. > > I would call that a specification (which often come with disclaimers such > as 'subject to change'). While users of SMB may describe it as a standard, > defacto or otherwise, it's unlikely MS would. Here's how the IETF describes it; https://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html "In outline, the process of creating an Internet Standard is straightforward: a specification undergoes a period of development and several iterations of review by the Internet community and revision based upon experience, is adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body... and is published." MS did submit many of the early CIFS protocols (precursor to SMB) to the IETF in the late 1990s, but they expired. It is similar to the way the Forth community carries out its work. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 03:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ntWdna_Pju747F_FnZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55578 |
HAA <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard No it wasn't. fig-FORTH was compatible with Forth-78 IIRC. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 08:47 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <MpidnWmgE_w1aV_FnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55588 |
On 3/9/17 11:27 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > HAA <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard > > No it wasn't. fig-FORTH was compatible with Forth-78 IIRC. Well, sort-of, but Forth-78 was a very limited document. Compliance covered only the most commonly used Forth words and obvious policies. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 01:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <J6CdnfiOKNZGMF7FnZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55601 |
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 3/9/17 11:27 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> HAA <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> >>> Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard >> >> No it wasn't. fig-FORTH was compatible with Forth-78 IIRC. > > Well, sort-of, but Forth-78 was a very limited document. Compliance > covered only the most commonly used Forth words and obvious policies. I take your point, but it does show that fig-FORTH was as compatible with standards as it was possible to be. That's clear evidence of intent, IMO. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 10:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <14712d19-cf24-4edf-a03d-34a064569022@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55110 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 2:30:32 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > On 2/26/2017 03:29, HAA wrote: > > Albert van der Horst wrote: > >> In article <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com>, > >> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Who are the guardian angels? Anyone here? > >>> My experience with Wikipedia has not been good. In my experience the subjects > >>> in which I had knowledge and experience were 'guarded' by what can > >>> only be described as zealots who think they know better than everyone > >>> else. > >> > >> Please restrict to 72 char's. > >> > >> You mean you contributed something important, then it was subsequently > >> deleted by a wikibobo? > >> Yes that can be a problem, but let it not deter you. > >> To be honest the times that happened to me, the contribution was a bit > >> dubious. > >> > >> Groetjes Albert > > > > Scrutiny is needed else the result is ignorant or biased statements e.g. > > > > "... de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 ... were unified by ANSI in 1994" > > > > In mentioning standards as part of Forth's history, is it not incumbent to > > mention their contentiousness in a language designed to be user-alterable. > > > > Chuck Moore: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to subsume all possible > > opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard." > > > > > > Chuck Moore actually said: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to > subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard. > *I think ANS Forth will become the dominant dialect.*" (my emphasis). > > And: "I think an ANSI standard is relevant now, so that you can have a > program written on one personal computer and run it on another... The > standard as a documentation and communication language is a laudable > goal...a useful tool that we've never had." > > -- > Alex Where do these Charles Moore quotes come from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8v6rp$j70$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55118 |
On 2/26/2017 18:00, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 2:30:32 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >> On 2/26/2017 03:29, HAA wrote: >>> Albert van der Horst wrote: >>>> In article <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com>, >>>> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Who are the guardian angels? Anyone here? >>>>> My experience with Wikipedia has not been good. In my experience the subjects >>>>> in which I had knowledge and experience were 'guarded' by what can >>>>> only be described as zealots who think they know better than everyone >>>>> else. >>>> >>>> Please restrict to 72 char's. >>>> >>>> You mean you contributed something important, then it was subsequently >>>> deleted by a wikibobo? >>>> Yes that can be a problem, but let it not deter you. >>>> To be honest the times that happened to me, the contribution was a bit >>>> dubious. >>>> >>>> Groetjes Albert >>> >>> Scrutiny is needed else the result is ignorant or biased statements e.g. >>> >>> "... de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 ... were unified by ANSI in 1994" >>> >>> In mentioning standards as part of Forth's history, is it not incumbent to >>> mention their contentiousness in a language designed to be user-alterable. >>> >>> Chuck Moore: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to subsume all possible >>> opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard." >>> >>> >> >> Chuck Moore actually said: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to >> subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard. >> *I think ANS Forth will become the dominant dialect.*" (my emphasis). >> >> And: "I think an ANSI standard is relevant now, so that you can have a >> program written on one personal computer and run it on another... The >> standard as a documentation and communication language is a laudable >> goal...a useful tool that we've never had." >> >> -- >> Alex > > Where do these Charles Moore quotes come from? > Meeting minutes of the committee; titled X3J14/89-002 Draft, Feb. 10, 1989. It appears Chuck had walked out of the standard process some time previously, and had come back to address the committee out of session. http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/ftp.dei.isep.ipp.pt/pub/forth/docs/cm891023 -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 11:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b41694a8-8260-48b6-81a0-2d1633a620ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55119 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 11:32:15 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > On 2/26/2017 18:00, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 2:30:32 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > >> On 2/26/2017 03:29, HAA wrote: > >>> Albert van der Horst wrote: > >>>> In article <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com>, > >>>> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Who are the guardian angels? Anyone here? > >>>>> My experience with Wikipedia has not been good. In my experience the subjects > >>>>> in which I had knowledge and experience were 'guarded' by what can > >>>>> only be described as zealots who think they know better than everyone > >>>>> else. > >>>> > >>>> Please restrict to 72 char's. > >>>> > >>>> You mean you contributed something important, then it was subsequently > >>>> deleted by a wikibobo? > >>>> Yes that can be a problem, but let it not deter you. > >>>> To be honest the times that happened to me, the contribution was a bit > >>>> dubious. > >>>> > >>>> Groetjes Albert > >>> > >>> Scrutiny is needed else the result is ignorant or biased statements e.g. > >>> > >>> "... de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 ... were unified by ANSI in 1994" > >>> > >>> In mentioning standards as part of Forth's history, is it not incumbent to > >>> mention their contentiousness in a language designed to be user-alterable. > >>> > >>> Chuck Moore: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to subsume all possible > >>> opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard." > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Chuck Moore actually said: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to > >> subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard. > >> *I think ANS Forth will become the dominant dialect.*" (my emphasis). > >> > >> And: "I think an ANSI standard is relevant now, so that you can have a > >> program written on one personal computer and run it on another... The > >> standard as a documentation and communication language is a laudable > >> goal...a useful tool that we've never had." > >> > >> -- > >> Alex > > > > Where do these Charles Moore quotes come from? > > > > Meeting minutes of the committee; titled X3J14/89-002 Draft, Feb. 10, > 1989. It appears Chuck had walked out of the standard process some time > previously, and had come back to address the committee out of session. > > http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/ftp.dei.isep.ipp.pt/pub/forth/docs/cm891023 That is a pretty interesting document --- I will include it in my novice-package. This speech in 1989 was Charles Moore's exit from ANS-Forth. In 1994 Elizabeth Rather listed Charles Moore's name in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter. As I have said many times before: the only reason why ANSI rubber-stamped ANS-Forth is because Charles Moore's name was listed as a supporter. ANSI don't know anything about Forth --- all they know about Forth is that it was invented by Charles Moore and hence he alone has the right to define what Forth is. They just looked at the document to make sure his name was listed, then rubber-stamped it --- there was no other criteria to become ANSI certified. Elizabeth Rather is a liar! Her entire career is based on name-dropping. She has no accomplishments of her own, so she pretends that people who do have accomplishments supporter and consider her to be their "leading expert" that they depend upon for leadership. The whole point of the Forth-200x mailing list is to collect names of "supporters." Anybody who gets on the mailing-list becomes a "supporter," and cancelling their membership to the mailing-list doesn't change this --- the Forth-200x committee will continue to list their name as a supporter forever --- Alex McDonald and Anton Ertl both were listing my name as a supporter on the RfD for the Paysan-faked quotations although I had been kicked off the Forth-200x mailing list years previously and I had steadfastly said that the Paysan-faked quotations were making the Forth community look stupid. I said that if the word "quotation" was going to be used, then they should be real quotations (able to access the parent function's local variables) --- implementing fake quotations that are nothing more than syntactic sugar for :NONAME just makes the Forth community look stupid --- somewhat like being too poor to buy a motorcycle, and buying a bicycle instead, but then pretending that it is a motorcycle by making "Vroom! Vroom!" noises with your mouth while riding it. My prediction for 2017 at New Years was that Stephen Pelc and his employee Peter Knaggs would resign from the Forth-200x committee before the year was over. Forth-200x is just making him look stupid. I think that the only thing preventing Stephen Pelc from resigning (and ordering his employee Peter Knaggs to also resign) is that he will look even stupider when the Forth-200x committee continue to list his name as a supporter --- this will show that he never had anything to contribute other than his name, but his opinions were always worthless --- this will also show that he is too poor to hire a lawyer to file a libel lawsuit, and he is really nothing more than a common schmuck without any legal standing whatsoever. Stephen Pelc and his employee Peter Knaggs will resign from the Forth-200x committee despite the fact that doing so is effectively the same thing as admitting that they had been Elizabeth Rather's schmucks for almost two decades (Forth-200x is now Forth-201x and will soon be Forth-202x). ANS-Forth was always a shining star of stupidity --- Forth-200x is the same glob of stupidity bloated out into a red giant --- eventually this great glob of stupidity collapses in on itself and all that is left at the center is Elizabeth Rather, as dense as dense can be!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 20:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8vdc9$c8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55122 |
On 2/26/2017 19:52, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 11:32:15 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >> On 2/26/2017 18:00, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 2:30:32 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >>>> On 2/26/2017 03:29, HAA wrote: >>>>> Albert van der Horst wrote: >>>>>> In article >>>>>> <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Who are the guardian angels? Anyone here? My experience >>>>>>> with Wikipedia has not been good. In my experience the >>>>>>> subjects in which I had knowledge and experience were >>>>>>> 'guarded' by what can only be described as zealots who >>>>>>> think they know better than everyone else. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please restrict to 72 char's. >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean you contributed something important, then it was >>>>>> subsequently deleted by a wikibobo? Yes that can be a >>>>>> problem, but let it not deter you. To be honest the times >>>>>> that happened to me, the contribution was a bit dubious. >>>>>> >>>>>> Groetjes Albert >>>>> >>>>> Scrutiny is needed else the result is ignorant or biased >>>>> statements e.g. >>>>> >>>>> "... de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 ... were >>>>> unified by ANSI in 1994" >>>>> >>>>> In mentioning standards as part of Forth's history, is it not >>>>> incumbent to mention their contentiousness in a language >>>>> designed to be user-alterable. >>>>> >>>>> Chuck Moore: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to >>>>> subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger than the >>>>> standard." >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Chuck Moore actually said: "It is impossible for one version of >>>> Forth to subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger >>>> than the standard. *I think ANS Forth will become the dominant >>>> dialect.*" (my emphasis). >>>> >>>> And: "I think an ANSI standard is relevant now, so that you can >>>> have a program written on one personal computer and run it on >>>> another... The standard as a documentation and communication >>>> language is a laudable goal...a useful tool that we've never >>>> had." >>>> >>>> -- Alex >>> >>> Where do these Charles Moore quotes come from? >>> >> >> Meeting minutes of the committee; titled X3J14/89-002 Draft, Feb. >> 10, 1989. It appears Chuck had walked out of the standard process >> some time previously, and had come back to address the committee >> out of session. >> >> http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/ftp.dei.isep.ipp.pt/pub/forth/docs/cm891023 >> > > That is a pretty interesting document --- I will include it in my > novice-package. > > This speech in 1989 ... Blah blah blah from Mr Consistent. Have you worked out yet how to use Wil Baden's sort to work anything other than an array of cells? Say a singly linked list for example? Or to get your sort to do the same thing? No? Thought not. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 11:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9437bb06-403a-4f3f-a276-2b45e66fb741@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55118 |
> Where do these Charles Moore quotes come from? Try to translate by Google, it is too big to rewrite in English: http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3116&p=42945#p42945 :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8vatq$389$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55120 |
On 2/26/2017 19:21, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >> Where do these Charles Moore quotes come from? > > Try to translate by Google, it is too big to rewrite in English: > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=3116&p=42945#p42945 > > :) > I fail to see the relevance of this любительское философия, and can see no reference to Moore's quotes beyond Любые отсылки к Муру, применяемые в качестве «последнего аргумента» (Any reference to Moore is used as a "final argument"). What is your point? -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 11:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eb0e3987-91be-44bb-82d5-81daf7cf6094@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55121 |
> I fail to see the relevance of this любительское философия, and can see > no reference to Moore's quotes beyond Любые отсылки к Муру, применяемые > в качестве «последнего аргумента» (Any reference to Moore is used as a > "final argument"). > > What is your point? Medieval phylosophy was based on irrevocably authority of religious texts. Local authorities were added over time, forming a huge entangled pile of sentences, used as an irrevocably arguments 'by the source'. So, if someone refers to Moore 'just because it is Moore's words' it is like old medieval empty talking about nothing. This does not mean Moore is wrong, it just means the right sequence is 'listen to Moore (or anyone else) -> check it -> approve it by your own experience'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 20:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8vcrj$aa3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55123 |
On 2/26/2017 19:55, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> I fail to see the relevance of this любительское философия, and can >> see no reference to Moore's quotes beyond Любые отсылки к Муру, >> применяемые в качестве «последнего аргумента» (Any reference to >> Moore is used as a "final argument"). >> >> What is your point? > > Medieval phylosophy was based on irrevocably authority of religious > texts. Local authorities were added over time, forming a huge > entangled pile of sentences, used as an irrevocably arguments 'by the > source'. So, if someone refers to Moore 'just because it is Moore's > words' it is like old medieval empty talking about nothing. This does > not mean Moore is wrong, it just means the right sequence is 'listen > to Moore (or anyone else) -> check it -> approve it by your own > experience'. > HAA will need to bear that in mind as he rewrites the wikipedia article. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 12:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0716ec7a-3a85-4264-8c0e-e5b986b81f6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55123 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 1:55:18 PM UTC-6, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > So, if someone refers to Moore 'just because it is Moore's words' it is like old medieval empty talking about nothing. This is what what happened here: HAA: "this sugary tone about the standard is inappropriate. Where's the anti-standard representation? Even the inventor of the language was such a person!" Alex: "He also had sugary things to say about ANS Forth, you know?" There's no 'just because' or 'end of the discussion'. Alex did not even attempt to say that someone shouldn't point out that standardization efforts have also been controversial. Citing a prominent member of a community is a good way to convey opinions that large segments of the community probably agreed with -- and if that's wrong, "you're being LIKE MEDIEVAL PEOPLE" is a pretty ridiculous argument against it. Actually I doubt it happened much during religious arguments in medieval times, either. Idiots weren't well equipped to make religious arguments, and couldn't read any authoritative texts. Those who were well equipped were specialists and not 'hundreds of years stupider' than men today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 14:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <afb9c989-79b0-424e-9c88-5e334ba0139a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55127 |
> Actually I doubt it happened much during religious arguments in > medieval times, either. Idiots weren't well equipped to make religious > arguments, and couldn't read any authoritative texts. Those who were > well equipped were specialists and not 'hundreds of years stupider' > than men today. You wrote to me: ------------------------------------------------------------------- When it occurs to you that a smart person has said something stupid, please consider that "No--he probably didn't mean that." is always available to you. It can save a lot of time, especially when the man himself will be slow to reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- This looks like 'don't try to say a word against Moore'. My point was very simple - if you provide Forth + source of your application, anybody can run your Forth and your code and get result. If Moore talks about compatibility, it can be applied only when you send a source only. Discussion about standard has a very long history here, and pointing to Moore is a kind of religious style, when missing arguments are replaced by authorities. I'm sure a really smart man don't need defenders and other peoples can lead the same way. So 'Moore agreed' has a historical meaning primarly :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 14:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9057m$18d3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55130 |
Ilya Tarasov wrote: > ... > Discussion about standard has a very long history here, and > pointing to Moore is a kind of religious style, when missing arguments are replaced by > authorities. Standards are the most religious. Discussion stops when someone remarks 'the standard says xxx' as if that was the final word on the matter. Moore is preferable, because like God, he's rarely seen and doesn't say much :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-26 19:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <479d7725-478b-42f6-afca-ea330f523d75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55148 |
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 8:08:43 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > ...
> > Discussion about standard has a very long history here, and
> > pointing to Moore is a kind of religious style, when missing arguments are replaced by
> > authorities.
>
> Standards are the most religious. Discussion stops when someone remarks
> 'the standard says xxx' as if that was the final word on the matter.
>
> Moore is preferable, because like God, he's rarely seen and doesn't say much :)
Well, I've done some reading about the Middle Ages in Europe.
Ilya's comparison of ANS-Forth to the Catholic Church is pretty good, as Elizabeth Rather has set herself up as the Pope who supposedly speaks for God, and Charles Moore has faded into irrelevance in much the same way that God has become irrelevant to most religious zealots.
Another good comparison however, is to pre-science technology. In the Middle Ages, there was no science of chemistry, for example. There were a lot of trades, and each trade knew about certain chemical formulas that were needed to do that work. They didn't have common terminology however (they used words such as "acid" but they didn't have the ph scale so it was all subjective). There was no way to study chemistry outside of the context of a particular trade.
The only way to get into a trade was to first be an apprentice to a journeyman. This required many years, and it was pretty much voluntary slavery. Technology was very stagnate because there was no way to introduce new ideas. All of the journeymen in all of the trades were strongly motivated to hold onto the status quo.
ANS-Forth is very similar. This is an effort by Elizabeth Rather to force the entire Forth community to stagnate at the level of MicroForth that Charles Moore wrote before he got kicked out of Forth Inc. by Elizabeth Rather. The Wikipedia article states:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORTH, Inc.'s microFORTH was developed for the Intel 8080, Motorola 6800, and Zilog Z80 microprocessors starting in 1976. MicroFORTH was later used by hobbyists to generate Forth systems for other architectures, such as the 6502 in 1978. Wide dissemination finally led to standardization of the language. Common practice was codified in the de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 in the years 1979 and 1983, respectively. These standards were unified by ANSI in 1994, commonly referred to as ANS Forth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we have the Forth-200x committee (all appointed by Elizabeth Rather) who set themselves up as journeymen. They demand that Forth programmers such as myself submit to an apprenticeship of several years (bring knee pads!) after which they may or may not grant journeyman status.
The reason why Elizabeth Rather is opposed to code-libraries is that the introduction of code-libraries over the years would allow Forth to evolve --- she wants everybody to write ANS-Forth code from cut-and-paste-and-tweak of old programs --- effectively, all modern Forth programs have to closely resemble 1970s Forth programs (in many cases, actually contain cut-and-paste code from 1970s Forth programs). At a company, the journeymen will have access to the archives of old programs and will release the source-code to the FNG ("F'ing New Guy") only if he asks nicely, and the boss will require the FNG to only write new programs that are directly derived from old programs --- if the FNG writes new code, the boss will say: "You think you know more than these journeymen with decades of experience? You're fired!" This is very similar to the Middle Ages when the apprentice never questioned the journeyman in any way, lest that he get fired, in which case he would have to start over as an apprentice with another journeyman and lose the years that he had already invested with this one (actually, the journeymen in the trade would black-list any trouble-maker, so he might have to start over in a different trade).
ANS-Forth is all about preventing progress --- Forth will never progress until ANS-Forth is abandoned --- ANS-Forth is a boat-anchor chained to our ankles that holds our technology in the 1970s and our mind-set in the late Middle Ages (roughly 1400--1800)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 04:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <yuednWyKf9EnZi7FnZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55130 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Actually I doubt it happened much during religious arguments in >> medieval times, either. Idiots weren't well equipped to make religious >> arguments, and couldn't read any authoritative texts. Those who were >> well equipped were specialists and not 'hundreds of years stupider' >> than men today. > > You wrote to me: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > When it occurs to you that a smart person has said something stupid, > please consider that "No--he probably didn't mean that." is always > available to you. It can save a lot of time, especially when the man > himself will be slow to reply > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This looks like 'don't try to say a word against Moore'. What it actually says is that when someone writes something that appears to you to be stupid, think twice. Read what they wrote again, and ask yourself "Could what they wrote make sense if I interpreted it differently?" Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 14:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75b3fe8f-9bc2-483d-8f39-6566b3d2afc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55166 |
понедельник, 27 февраля 2017 г., 13:13:20 UTC+3 пользователь Andrew Haley написал: > Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Actually I doubt it happened much during religious arguments in > >> medieval times, either. Idiots weren't well equipped to make religious > >> arguments, and couldn't read any authoritative texts. Those who were > >> well equipped were specialists and not 'hundreds of years stupider' > >> than men today. > > > > You wrote to me: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > When it occurs to you that a smart person has said something stupid, > > please consider that "No--he probably didn't mean that." is always > > available to you. It can save a lot of time, especially when the man > > himself will be slow to reply > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This looks like 'don't try to say a word against Moore'. > > What it actually says is that when someone writes something that > appears to you to be stupid, think twice. Read what they wrote again, > and ask yourself "Could what they wrote make sense if I interpreted it > differently?" > > Andrew. 1. I didn't wrote it is stupid. Moore says this at certain situation and I suggest a way to avoid this problem. 2. I thought twice :) Am I MUST to decide I am a complete idiot and just stop to doubt? 3. Stop to compare me with others. You may reveal many things about smartness kinds ;) I have my own opinion and see no reasons to sitting still. I feel a much respect to Moore, but this not converts to automatic respect to all words about him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 03:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <xIudnSFOTdEX1SjFnZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55213 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: > ???????????, 27 ??????? 2017 ?., 13:13:20 UTC+3 ???????????? Andrew Haley ???????: >> Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Actually I doubt it happened much during religious arguments in >> >> medieval times, either. Idiots weren't well equipped to make religious >> >> arguments, and couldn't read any authoritative texts. Those who were >> >> well equipped were specialists and not 'hundreds of years stupider' >> >> than men today. >> > >> > You wrote to me: >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > When it occurs to you that a smart person has said something stupid, >> > please consider that "No--he probably didn't mean that." is always >> > available to you. It can save a lot of time, especially when the man >> > himself will be slow to reply >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > This looks like 'don't try to say a word against Moore'. >> >> What it actually says is that when someone writes something that >> appears to you to be stupid, think twice. Read what they wrote again, >> and ask yourself "Could what they wrote make sense if I interpreted it >> differently?" > > 1. I didn't wrote it is stupid. Moore says this at certain situation > and I suggest a way to avoid this problem. That's not what you said. Have a look, it's quoted above. You said that the paragraph quoted above looks like 'don't try to say a word against Moore'. But it does not look like that to any reasonable reader. > 2. I thought twice :) Am I MUST to decide I am a complete idiot and > just stop to doubt? Certainly, your English comprehension is poor. You also have a tendency, demonstrated in the next sentence, to invent opionions you think that other people have, and then argue against the opinion you just invented: > 3. Stop to compare me with others. You may reveal many things about > smartness kinds ;) I have my own opinion and see no reasons to > sitting still. I feel a much respect to Moore, but this not converts > to automatic respect to all words about him. Of course. No-one disagrees with you about that. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 13:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o90206$14rf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55110 |
Alex wrote: > On 2/26/2017 03:29, HAA wrote: > > Albert van der Horst wrote: > >> In article <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com>, > >> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Who are the guardian angels? Anyone here? > >>> My experience with Wikipedia has not been good. In my experience the subjects > >>> in which I had knowledge and experience were 'guarded' by what can > >>> only be described as zealots who think they know better than everyone > >>> else. > >> > >> Please restrict to 72 char's. > >> > >> You mean you contributed something important, then it was subsequently > >> deleted by a wikibobo? > >> Yes that can be a problem, but let it not deter you. > >> To be honest the times that happened to me, the contribution was a bit > >> dubious. > >> > >> Groetjes Albert > > > > Scrutiny is needed else the result is ignorant or biased statements e.g. > > > > "... de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 ... were unified by ANSI in 1994" > > > > In mentioning standards as part of Forth's history, is it not incumbent to > > mention their contentiousness in a language designed to be user-alterable. > > > > Chuck Moore: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to subsume all possible > > opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard." > > > > > > Chuck Moore actually said: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to > subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard. > *I think ANS Forth will become the dominant dialect.*" (my emphasis). > > And: "I think an ANSI standard is relevant now, so that you can have a > program written on one personal computer and run it on another... The > standard as a documentation and communication language is a laudable > goal...a useful tool that we've never had." It was a farewell speech given in apology for having walked out on the ANS TC. He made it as gracious as possible. In the years since Chuck hasn't minced words. ANS was the latest but it's all standards he has a problem with: "I distrust formal representations. For example, the ANSII Forth standard does not describe Forth, but a language with the same name." The Wikipedia article would have everyone believe otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web