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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 03:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cae9db0c-17d0-4e8a-b6ef-e15f01683f8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55231 |
> If a Forth implementer wants to do something, there are 3 possible > approaches: > > 1) do it the ANS way > 2) do it some other way because that has significant advantages > 3) do it some other way even without gaining any advantages. > > Example of #3 is Colorforth's OR word, which means exclusive OR. > What the heck did anyone gain from not calling it XOR? OMG! Such a surprise! I didn't knew about this. Of course, no advantages here, and it can cause problems only. > My attitude towards standardization is #1 is good if it's not too much > hassle, #2 is fine if it gains advantages or avoids hassle, #3 is just > silly. Lots of non-standard approaches are basically #3. What's the gain? I describe differencies I've add to my Forth. It regards to floating-point numbers, file operations, vocabularies and many DEFERred words in the interpreter loop. Sources are other languages or programmer's demands. Here is a huge flame, revealing ANS defenders position to protect syntax by all cost. I use POSIX-like syntax and stack notation, which allows to read C-language fileio examples and write similar in Forth. Simple enough, and note Forth is not specially designed for file operations. I wonder why it is so scary to modify syntax of non-core words and make Forth more friendly to non-Forth programmers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 10:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9snnn$1kf6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55211 |
Ilya Tarasov wrote: > ... > I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often non-compatible with each > other. Authors claims they need other features or implement existing features by other > way. What is the reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still > can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, familiar with > different approaches? Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. Incompatible is a failure only if compatibility is needed, and in Forth that need has never been great. Standardize and users will flock to Forth was the idea. It has never been demonstrated. If Forth is being used today it is for reasons other than compatibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-09 18:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9sns0$pc2$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55578 |
On 3/9/2017 6:16 PM, HAA wrote: > Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> ... >> I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often non-compatible with each >> other. Authors claims they need other features or implement existing features by other >> way. What is the reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who still >> can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical programmers, familiar with >> different approaches? > > Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the most implemented > and commercially significant system Forth has known. Incompatible is a failure only if > compatibility is needed, and in Forth that need has never been great. Standardize and > users will flock to Forth was the idea. It has never been demonstrated. If Forth is being > used today it is for reasons other than compatibility. What standard would Fig-forth have been incompatible with, Fortran, Cobol, Algol? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-09 23:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9sp83$v7q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55578 |
On 3/9/2017 23:16, HAA wrote: > Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> ... I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often >> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other >> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the >> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who >> still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical >> programmers, familiar with different approaches? > > Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the > most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. It was a de facto standard. I don't know why there wasn't work to formalise it as a standard; but it may have been because it was tied to 16 bit machines. (I may be wrong with this statement.) > Incompatible is a failure only if compatibility is needed, and in > Forth that need has never been great. Standardize and users will > flock to Forth was the idea. It has never been demonstrated. If > Forth is being used today it is for reasons other than > compatibility. > Probably true; but the standard is not solely for source to compiler compatibility, but also interfacing the programmer with the language. I would, I suspect, not be alone in suggesting that colorForth was from the Forth family; but the impedance mismatch between what might be considered classically based Forth an it is so great that it is effectively another language. Much like Algol68 and C++. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-09 19:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9stbk$9b2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55581 |
On 3/9/2017 6:44 PM, Alex wrote: > On 3/9/2017 23:16, HAA wrote: >> Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> ... I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often >>> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other >>> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the >>> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who >>> still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical >>> programmers, familiar with different approaches? >> >> Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the >> most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. > > It was a de facto standard. I don't know why there wasn't work to > formalise it as a standard; but it may have been because it was tied to > 16 bit machines. (I may be wrong with this statement.) I believe there were versions for 8 bitters like the Z80, no? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 11:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8737elrl3v.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #55582 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> [Fig-FORTH] was tied to 16 bit machines. > I believe there were versions for 8 bitters like the Z80, no? To be more precise, I believe it mandated a 16-bit cell size.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <94137f0d-42da-422f-8d6d-c320a8dc3f8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55603 |
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 12:24:23 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> >> [Fig-FORTH] was tied to 16 bit machines.
> > I believe there were versions for 8 bitters like the Z80, no?
>
> To be more precise, I believe it mandated a 16-bit cell size.
Forth-83 supposedly mandated a 16-bit cell size. As a practical matter, this was easy to circumvent. I had constants such as these for 16-bit UR/Forth:
2 constant w
4 constant d
8 constant f
For 32-bit UR/Forth I had these:
4 constant w
8 constant d
8 constant f
I could port programs between 16-bit and 32-bit UR/Forth without needing any other changes. Testra did something similar. Pretty much everybody did something similar --- it was pretty rare to see anybody using values such as 2 or 4 inside of program for cell sizes --- hiding magic numbers inside of constants is very basic programming which I would expect anybody with a high-school education to figure out on their own.
We could go back to Forth-83 and make a few slight upgrades, and call it Traditional Forth, and obtain a usable standard:
1.) Mandate the W D F constants as described above.
2.) Mandate that LITERAL etc. should be vectored so we can have literal numbers in TARG colon words in a cross-compiler.
3.) Mandate { ... } (the John Hopkis format) for locals, make the locals provide an address, and make the locals large enough to hold doubles and floats as well as singles.
4.) Mandate that my rquotations work.
My Straight Forth mandates a 64-bit cell size and does not support 32-bit or 16-bit --- I also have a different definition of "number" and "string" that are appropriate for a 64-bit processor and incompatible with Forth-83 or ANS-Forth --- Straight Forth, with its heavy reliance on quotations and HOFs, has a different feel than Forth-83 and may not appeal to Forth traditionalists.
ANS-Forth is a just a steaming pile of salesmanship that needs to be flushed --- Forth-83 wasn't too bad though, and with a slight upgrade into Traditional Forth as described above it could be usable --- the design of Traditional Forth could be done in one or two weeks of collaboration --- it would be uncontroversial and easy so long as Elizabeth Rather and her sycophants are banned.
Forth is inherently a pretty simple and easily understood language --- there is no need for Forth to boggle the mind with ambiguities and idiocy the way that ANS-Forth does.
Get rid of the "leading expert" who has never written a Forth program in her life; go back to Traditional Forth, which was the de facto standard of 1994 when I was a professional Forth programmer --- also get rid of Forth-200x with its recognizers that introduce syntax to Forth, although Forth has traditionally not had a syntax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa0p6c$8lc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55603 |
On 3/10/2017 19:24, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>> [Fig-FORTH] was tied to 16 bit machines. >> I believe there were versions for 8 bitters like the Z80, no? > > To be more precise, I believe it mandated a 16-bit cell size. > Thanks for the correction. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-09 16:34 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <pKydnWvYrp1bjV_FnZ2dnUU7-bPNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55581 |
On 3/9/17 1:44 PM, Alex wrote: > On 3/9/2017 23:16, HAA wrote: >> Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> ... I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often >>> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other >>> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the >>> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who >>> still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical >>> programmers, familiar with different approaches? >> >> Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the >> most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. > > It was a de facto standard. I don't know why there wasn't work to > formalise it as a standard; but it may have been because it was tied to > 16 bit machines. (I may be wrong with this statement.) By the time Fig-Forth was published, FORTH, Inc. products (miniFORTH for "minicomputers" (e.g., PDP-11 and NOVA) and microFORTH for microprocessors were fairly well-established in the marketplace, so there was no potential for Fig-Forth to become a de facto standard. Fig-Forth was based on a limited-function variant of microFORTH, but had some significant differences. At the time all implementations were 16-bit; after a brief period of experimentation, everyone agreed that a <16-bit cell size was unworkable, even on 8-bitters. The first attempt at a standard was a one-day meeting in Netherlands in 1978, so there was the motivation from the outset. A document was published, but it was of very limited scope. Forth 79 was an improvement, but it was also felt to be pretty limited in scope. That led to Forth 83. >> Incompatible is a failure only if compatibility is needed, and in >> Forth that need has never been great. Standardize and users will >> flock to Forth was the idea. It has never been demonstrated. If >> Forth is being used today it is for reasons other than >> compatibility. Actually, ANSI standardization was a great help in the marketplace. One of the major sources of resistance to the use of Forth by companies was that there was no recognized standard for it. Acceptance went way up in the 90's thanks to ANS Forth. > Probably true; but the standard is not solely for source to compiler > compatibility, but also interfacing the programmer with the language. I > would, I suspect, not be alone in suggesting that colorForth was from > the Forth family; but the impedance mismatch between what might be > considered classically based Forth an it is so great that it is > effectively another language. Much like Algol68 and C++. Indeed, programmer portability was (and remains) a more powerful incentive than code portability, although the latter is nice, too. 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 | 2017-03-09 22:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac78572a-254c-42f0-9fcd-3643255875d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55583 |
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 at 7:34:51 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 3/9/17 1:44 PM, Alex wrote: > > On 3/9/2017 23:16, HAA wrote: > >> Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >>> ... I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often > >>> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other > >>> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the > >>> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who > >>> still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical > >>> programmers, familiar with different approaches? > >> > >> Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the > >> most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. > > > > It was a de facto standard. I don't know why there wasn't work to > > formalise it as a standard; but it may have been because it was tied to > > 16 bit machines. (I may be wrong with this statement.) > > By the time Fig-Forth was published, FORTH, Inc. products (miniFORTH for > "minicomputers" (e.g., PDP-11 and NOVA) and microFORTH for > microprocessors were fairly well-established in the marketplace, so > there was no potential for Fig-Forth to become a de facto standard. > Fig-Forth was based on a limited-function variant of microFORTH, but had > some significant differences. At the time all implementations were > 16-bit; after a brief period of experimentation, everyone agreed that a > <16-bit cell size was unworkable, even on 8-bitters. FIG-Forth was what caused Charles Moore to leave Forth Inc.. Elizabeth Rather wanted to sue FIG for stealing Forth Inc. proprietary software (FIG-Forth was derived directly from MicroFORTH). Her plan was to sue anybody who distributed any Forth system, even if it wasn't directly derived from a Forth Inc. system --- any Forth system could be considered to steal the "look and feel" of the Forth Inc. systems --- only Forth Inc. would legally be able to distribute a Forth compiler, as Forth Inc. would entirely own the Forth language. Charles Moore refused to support this plan. He contacted FIG and came to an agreement that they could continue to distribute FIG-Forth but that they could not upgrade it --- by this time, he had upgraded Forth Inc. systems beyond MicroFORTH and so FIG-Forth that was based on MicroFORTH was not competitive --- FIG was okay with this agreement because they wanted to promote Forth and they wanted to do so amiably with Charles Moore the inventor of Forth, but it was not their intention to be a pirate-software outfit that just steals from Charles Moore willy-nilly. The lawsuit failed because Charles Moore was the inventor of Forth and he alone had the right to file such a lawsuit, and Elizabeth Rather couldn't succeed at the lawsuit without his support. This was an irreconcilable difference between Elizabeth Rather and Charles Moore however, and so Charles Moore had to leave Forth Inc. --- they split up. > >> Incompatible is a failure only if compatibility is needed, and in > >> Forth that need has never been great. Standardize and users will > >> flock to Forth was the idea. It has never been demonstrated. If > >> Forth is being used today it is for reasons other than > >> compatibility. > > Actually, ANSI standardization was a great help in the marketplace. One > of the major sources of resistance to the use of Forth by companies was > that there was no recognized standard for it. Acceptance went way up in > the 90's thanks to ANS Forth. ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Forth Inc. --- it was a "great help in the marketplace" insomuch as it convinced the world that Forth Inc. defines Forth --- this is essentially the same thing that Elizabeth Rather was trying to accomplish with her lawsuits, claiming that Forth Inc. owns Forth, and nobody can be a Forth programmer without Forth Inc.'s permission. > > Probably true; but the standard is not solely for source to compiler > > compatibility, but also interfacing the programmer with the language. I > > would, I suspect, not be alone in suggesting that colorForth was from > > the Forth family; but the impedance mismatch between what might be > > considered classically based Forth an it is so great that it is > > effectively another language. Much like Algol68 and C++. > > Indeed, programmer portability was (and remains) a more powerful > incentive than code portability, although the latter is nice, too. All of this talk about "programmer portability" implies that the only opportunity for any Forth programmer to work professionally is to be an employee of Forth Inc. --- Forth Inc. wants the employees to be "portable" in the sense that if an employee is caught thinking creatively, that employee can be fired and a replacement can be brought in who also knows the basic ANS-Forth concepts --- all Forth programmers must know the basic ANS-Forth concepts so they are interchangeable (similar to how ditch diggers are interchangeable so long as they all know the basic pick-and-shovel concepts).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 15:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9vu05$r36$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55583 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 3/9/17 1:44 PM, Alex wrote: > > On 3/9/2017 23:16, HAA wrote: > >> Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >>> ... I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often > >>> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other > >>> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the > >>> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who > >>> still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical > >>> programmers, familiar with different approaches? > >> > >> Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the > >> most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. > > > > It was a de facto standard. I don't know why there wasn't work to > > formalise it as a standard; but it may have been because it was tied to > > 16 bit machines. (I may be wrong with this statement.) > > By the time Fig-Forth was published, FORTH, Inc. products (miniFORTH for > "minicomputers" (e.g., PDP-11 and NOVA) and microFORTH for > microprocessors were fairly well-established in the marketplace, so > there was no potential for Fig-Forth to become a de facto standard. > ... It was never on the table. According to Ragsdale, Fig-Forth was a stopgap measure to make Forth available to the popular microcomputer market as no vendor was interested. With the release of the ten Fig-Forth models, it was mission accomplished as far as FIG was concerned. Responding to letters in FD, FIG indicated they had no intention of supporting Fig-Forth. They would not even issue bug fixes, deeming it the function of vendors who wanted to produce commercial versions. FIG saw their role as supporting Forth generally - vendors, Standards etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-10 21:17 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9tub7$19iq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55581 |
Alex wrote: > On 3/9/2017 23:16, HAA wrote: > > Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >> ... I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often > >> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other > >> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the > >> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who > >> still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical > >> programmers, familiar with different approaches? > > > > Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the > > most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. > > It was a de facto standard. I don't know why there wasn't work to > formalise it as a standard; but it may have been because it was tied to > 16 bit machines. (I may be wrong with this statement.) 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. Since 200x TC claims to be producing a "Forth Standard", it's obligated to follow the norms and to be careful with the terminology so as to not create confusion ... "Forth Standard 2012" (doc front page) suggests it's a standard. "Notice: Status of this Document ... This is a draft proposed Standard ..." (doc front page) suggests it's not a standard. "forth-2012.pdf" (from official link) suggests it's a standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 12:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa0p32$8lc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55590 |
On 3/10/2017 10:17, HAA wrote: > Alex wrote: >> On 3/9/2017 23:16, HAA wrote: >>> Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>>> ... I just can see a fact we have many Forth versions, often >>>> non-compatible with each other. Authors claims they need other >>>> features or implement existing features by other way. What is the >>>> reason to behave this way? Is it just a band of individuals who >>>> still can't see a light? Or maybe it is a voice of practical >>>> programmers, familiar with different approaches? >>> >>> Fig-Forth was incompatible with every standard yet was probably the >>> most implemented and commercially significant system Forth has known. >> >> It was a de facto standard. I don't know why there wasn't work to >> formalise it as a standard; but it may have been because it was tied to >> 16 bit machines. (I may be wrong with this statement.) > > 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. > > Since 200x TC claims to be producing a "Forth Standard", it's obligated to > follow the norms and to be careful with the terminology so as to not create > confusion ... > > "Forth Standard 2012" (doc front page) suggests it's a standard. > > "Notice: Status of this Document ... This is a draft proposed Standard ..." > (doc front page) suggests it's not a standard. > > "forth-2012.pdf" (from official link) suggests it's a standard. > > It's not an ANSI or ISO ratified standard, as it clearly states; "This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, this is not a completed standard." I wouldn't have chosen the word "draft" to describe it as it's superfluous. I would describe this as an informal standard. The intention may have been to submit it for formal approval, something I vaguely remember being discussed. It's not a cheap process though, and given the volunteer nature of the committee and the lack of fees, it's a bill I'm sure they didn't want to pay. ANS or ISO certification may not even be needed. It may become de facto if enough vendors or developers of popular Forth systems adopt it. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 05:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iMWdndHbKIo7vljFnZ2dnUU7-ePNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55620 |
Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > 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. Just a minor digression, but you seem to have missed an important part of this story: the European Court forced Microsoft to open up its protocols to Samba. http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2011/05/27/samba-case-hearing-how-microsofts-gamble-backfired-2/ Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 11:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa3aid$ti3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55681 |
On 3/12/2017 10:32, Andrew Haley wrote: > Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Just a minor digression, but you seem to have missed an important part > of this story: the European Court forced Microsoft to open up its > protocols to Samba. > > http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2011/05/27/samba-case-hearing-how-microsofts-gamble-backfired-2/ > > Andrew. > A good point. My current concern is the ambiguous status of copyright on APIs; it will catch someone out, sooner or later. And I would advise the Forth committee to consider some legal cover for their work. An IP policy like this https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/corp-docs/SNIA_IP_Policy_v4_0_9_18_2015-final.pdf might be advisable. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar12.141811@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55690 |
Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> writes:
>My current concern is the ambiguous status of copyright on APIs; it will
>catch someone out, sooner or later.
What kind of "catch" do you expect?
>And I would advise the Forth
>committee to consider some legal cover for their work. An IP policy like
>this
>https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/corp-docs/SNIA_IP_Policy_v4_0_9_18_2015-final.pdf
>might be advisable.
All 11 pages of it? Where's the meat?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 14:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa3njn$7hb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55698 |
On 3/12/2017 13:18, Anton Ertl wrote: > Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> writes: >> My current concern is the ambiguous status of copyright on APIs; it >> will catch someone out, sooner or later. > > What kind of "catch" do you expect? Copyright on APIs is the subject of quite a lot of litigation. In Oracle vs Google (Java API) Oracle lost; there is an appeal outstanding. The defence was based on the doctrine of "fair use" but that is a uniquely US confection. The EU have (unclearly) declared APIs not to be copyrightable; but then there's the issue of EULA terms that restrict access & limit what may be done, and they have not yet been adequately tested in the courts (in fact in the US, so far all of them have been won by the licensor). I don't think we've seen the end of it yet. > >> And I would advise the Forth committee to consider some legal cover >> for their work. An IP policy like this >> https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/corp-docs/SNIA_IP_Policy_v4_0_9_18_2015-final.pdf >> might be advisable. > > All 11 pages of it? Where's the meat? 11 pages is quite tight; there are some standards that are shorter, but not many. The non-company individual contributor version is https://www.snia.org/CLA There are many very similar versions, for example; https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt Committee meeting start; "You are hereby informed that, under the SNIA IP Policy, your presence at this meeting may obligate you and/or your company/organization with respect to any of the work items of the SNIA [name(s)] Technical Working Group[s].” -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 15:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <20170312150025.08dc0d21@_> |
| In reply to | #55700 |
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:59:45 +0000 Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On 3/12/2017 13:18, Anton Ertl wrote: > > Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> writes: > >> My current concern is the ambiguous status of copyright on APIs; it > >> will catch someone out, sooner or later. > > > > What kind of "catch" do you expect? > > Copyright on APIs is the subject of quite a lot of litigation. In > Oracle vs Google (Java API) Oracle lost; there is an appeal > outstanding. The defence was based on the doctrine of "fair use" but > that is a uniquely US confection. The EU have (unclearly) declared > APIs not to be copyrightable; but then there's the issue of EULA > terms that restrict access & limit what may be done, and they have > not yet been adequately tested in the courts (in fact in the US, so > far all of them have been won by the licensor). I don't think we've > seen the end of it yet. > From a post of mine here not quite a year ago: "In the U.S., APIs are copyrightable, but they are not necessarily protected by their copyright. This was due to the Bateman v. Mnemonics court case which ruled that the software interface is not protected by copyright when compatibility with the interface is needed by others. Basically, the court said you can copyright APIs, but the legal system wouldn't enforce that right where it interfered with free market use or compatibility with other software. There are a half-dozen other U.S. court cases which came to the same basic conclusion. Oracle is attempting to overturn that in their lawsuit(s) with Google over Java." I should add, "for financial motives," to that last sentence. Rod Pemberton -- All it takes for humanity to conquer the world's toughest problems is to hope, to believe, to share, and to do, in cooperation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 10:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <oa4mej$tr8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55620 |
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. > > Since 200x TC claims to be producing a "Forth Standard", it's obligated to > > follow the norms and to be careful with the terminology so as to not create > > confusion ... > > > > "Forth Standard 2012" (doc front page) suggests it's a standard. > > > > "Notice: Status of this Document ... This is a draft proposed Standard ..." > > (doc front page) suggests it's not a standard. > > > > "forth-2012.pdf" (from official link) suggests it's a standard. > > > > > > It's not an ANSI or ISO ratified standard, as it clearly states; "This > is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, this > is not a completed standard." ANSI/ISO ratification is not necessary to have a Standard. Forth-79 and Forth-83 were declared standards for Forth without ANSI/ISO. Forth will have a new standard when the 200x TC nominates one. Based on Anton's statement below, it appears 'Forth 2012' has been declared. Anton Ertl wrote: > "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > >There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to indicate it is a > >draft, so I assume it is an official standard and supporters are using it now. > > As far as the Forth 200x committee is concerned, Forth-2012 is not a > draft, but a finished document (not finished in the way that we don't > continue, however). For it to be a "finished document" however, the disclaimer which amounts to a notice that 200x may issue another standard at a some future date, should go. It's not necessary and creates false expection. 200x could fall apart tomorrow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-13 07:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa5j7e$i1p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55716 |
On 3/12/2017 23:43, HAA wrote: >> It's not an ANSI or ISO ratified standard, as it clearly states; >> "This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As >> such, this is not a completed standard." > ANSI/ISO ratification is not necessary to have a Standard. Agreed. > Forth-79 and Forth-83 were declared standards for Forth without > ANSI/ISO. Forth will have a new standard when the 200x TC nominates > one. Based on Anton's statement below, it appears 'Forth 2012' has > been declared. > > Anton Ertl wrote: >> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: >>> There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to >>> indicate it is a draft, so I assume it is an official standard >>> and supporters are using it now. >> >> As far as the Forth 200x committee is concerned, Forth-2012 is not >> a draft, but a finished document (not finished in the way that we >> don't continue, however). > > For it to be a "finished document" however, the disclaimer which > amounts to a notice that 200x may issue another standard at a some > future date, should go. It's not necessary and creates false > expection. 200x could fall apart tomorrow. I believe you're misreading the paragraph. In particular, the "As such" makes it clear that "this is not a completed standard" and "completed" is used in the sense of the process being completed, not the document. Since it hasn't been ratified and replaced ANSI X3.215-1994. Where do you get the idea that it says there may be another standard? (Agreed, it's badly worded, but this is the kind of argument in committee that is usually deferred and resolved at the bar over a drink. More than 2 minutes official discussion on boilerplate would be considered too long by most.) -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web