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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55597 > unrolled thread

The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 09:24 -0800
    Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-11 03:46 -0800
      Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-11 16:30 -0800
        Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 17:51 -0800
        Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-12 03:26 -0700
          Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 20:11 -0700
            Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 22:27 -0700
              Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-13 00:42 -0700
                Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 16:54 -0700
                  Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-14 08:40 -0700
                    Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 10:38 -0700
                Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 00:51 -0700
              Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 00:51 -0700
            Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 17:05 -0700
              Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 18:04 -0700
                Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 00:54 -0700
              Re: The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 00:53 -0700
    The only problem we Forthers have is ... "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-12 10:58 +1100
      Re: The only problem we Forthers have is ... polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-11 17:50 -0800
        Re: The only problem we Forthers have is ... "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-15 17:39 +1100
          Re: The only problem we Forthers have is ... gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 15:04 -0700
            Re: The only problem we Forthers have is ... "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-17 12:03 +1100
              Re: The only problem we Forthers have is ... gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 12:02 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#55597 — The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better ap

    The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.

    Bernd Paysan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#55619

On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> 
>     Bernd Paysan

Where is the problem? 

The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.

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

#55651

On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > 
> >     Bernd Paysan

Where did that quote come from?

> Where is the problem? 
> 
> The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.

Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?

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

#55659

On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 7:30:27 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > 
> > >     Bernd Paysan
> 
> Where did that quote come from?
> 
> > Where is the problem? 
> > 
> > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> 
> Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?

Hugh do you have any info on using forth and cgi for dynamic websites?

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

#55680

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > 
> > >     Bernd Paysan
> 
> Where did that quote come from?
> 
> > Where is the problem? 
> > 
> > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> 
> Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?

We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.

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

#55725

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > 
> > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > 
> > Where did that quote come from?
> > 
> > > Where is the problem? 
> > > 
> > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > 
> > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> 
> We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.

That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.

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

#55727

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > 
> > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > 
> > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > 
> > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > 
> > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > 
> > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> 
> That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.

I wrote this thinking that I was responding to Stephen Pelc rather than just his employee --- that is why I said that he (Stephen Pelc) is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee.

If I had realized that this post was from Juergen Pintaske, I wouldn't have bothered to respond --- salesmen are idiots --- I don't waste my time talking to them.

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

#55729

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:27:04 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > > 
> > > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > > 
> > > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > > 
> > > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > > 
> > > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> > 
> > That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> 
> I wrote this thinking that I was responding to Stephen Pelc rather than just his employee --- that is why I said that he (Stephen Pelc) is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee.
> 
> If I had realized that this post was from Juergen Pintaske, I wouldn't have bothered to respond --- salesmen are idiots --- I don't waste my time talking to them.

Thanks for confirming that your reading skills are very limited. Your mental limitation does unfortunately not allow you to realize that You are the sales man here - and the worst one. Trying to sell your novice package or your straight forth. Sales bullshit at its worst. You are showing yourself  like a child in Kindergarden - spitting at everybody and then wondering why nobody loves you. You are selling your work like everybody else - look in the mirror. 
And if you had been intelligent enough you would know that Forth is only part of my working life - Exmark Consultancy does a lot more - show at least some knowledge before you shit all over the place again.

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

#55739

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 12:42:07 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:27:04 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > > > 
> > > > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > > > 
> > > > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> > > 
> > > That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> > 
> > I wrote this thinking that I was responding to Stephen Pelc rather than just his employee --- that is why I said that he (Stephen Pelc) is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee.
> > 
> > If I had realized that this post was from Juergen Pintaske, I wouldn't have bothered to respond --- salesmen are idiots --- I don't waste my time talking to them.
> 
> Thanks for confirming that your reading skills are very limited. Your mental limitation does unfortunately not allow you to realize that You are the sales man here - and the worst one. Trying to sell your novice package or your straight forth. Sales bullshit at its worst. You are showing yourself  like a child in Kindergarden - spitting at everybody and then wondering why nobody loves you. You are selling your work like everybody else - look in the mirror. 
> And if you had been intelligent enough you would know that Forth is only part of my working life - Exmark Consultancy does a lot more - show at least some knowledge before you shit all over the place again.

You are a vulgar little salesman, aren't you?

Well, to use your vulgar terms, ANS-Forth shit all over the Forth community in 1994.

My disambiguifiers allow FIND to work consistently between ANS-Forth systems. 
FIND of C" IF" returns an xt and it returns 1 to indicate that it is immediate (which is what would be expected). We no longer have that bizarre nonsense of IF being non-immediate, as it is in VFX. We also no longer have that grossly bizarre nonsense of FIND returning different xt values depending upon what STATE @ is at the time that FIND executes, as it does in Gforth.

FIND is ambiguous under ANS-Forth --- it can do anything, including crash the system, and this is ANS-Forth compliant.

The reason why my disambiguifiers work, is that POSTPONE is not ambiguous. Each disambiguifier uses POSTPONE internally. Then FIND works on the disambiguifier because the disambiguifier is no longer a special-case word. By "special-case" I mean all of those words in ANS-Forth whose definition contains the phrase:
"Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined."
This includes IF --- there are some 51 total special-case words.
FIND is ambiguous on all of these words because section 4.1.2 ("Ambiguous Conditions") lists this as one of the ambiguous conditions:
"attempting to obtain the execution token, (e.g., with 6.1.0070 ', 6.1.1550 FIND, etc.) of a definition with undefined interpretation semantics." 

Disambiguifiers are really the heart and soul of ANS-Forth programming --- nobody can be an ANS-Forth programmer (at least, not able to use FIND in their programs) if they don't understand disambiguifiers.

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

#55775

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:54:24 PM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 12:42:07 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:27:04 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> > > > 
> > > > That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> > > 
> > > I wrote this thinking that I was responding to Stephen Pelc rather than just his employee --- that is why I said that he (Stephen Pelc) is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee.
> > > 
> > > If I had realized that this post was from Juergen Pintaske, I wouldn't have bothered to respond --- salesmen are idiots --- I don't waste my time talking to them.
> > 
> > Thanks for confirming that your reading skills are very limited. Your mental limitation does unfortunately not allow you to realize that You are the sales man here - and the worst one. Trying to sell your novice package or your straight forth. Sales bullshit at its worst. You are showing yourself  like a child in Kindergarden - spitting at everybody and then wondering why nobody loves you. You are selling your work like everybody else - look in the mirror. 
> > And if you had been intelligent enough you would know that Forth is only part of my working life - Exmark Consultancy does a lot more - show at least some knowledge before you shit all over the place again.
> 
> You are a vulgar little salesman, aren't you?
> 
> Well, to use your vulgar terms, ANS-Forth shit all over the Forth community in 1994.
> 
> My disambiguifiers allow FIND to work consistently between ANS-Forth systems. 
> FIND of C" IF" returns an xt and it returns 1 to indicate that it is immediate (which is what would be expected). We no longer have that bizarre nonsense of IF being non-immediate, as it is in VFX. We also no longer have that grossly bizarre nonsense of FIND returning different xt values depending upon what STATE @ is at the time that FIND executes, as it does in Gforth.
> 
> FIND is ambiguous under ANS-Forth --- it can do anything, including crash the system, and this is ANS-Forth compliant.
> 
> The reason why my disambiguifiers work, is that POSTPONE is not ambiguous. Each disambiguifier uses POSTPONE internally. Then FIND works on the disambiguifier because the disambiguifier is no longer a special-case word. By "special-case" I mean all of those words in ANS-Forth whose definition contains the phrase:
> "Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined."
> This includes IF --- there are some 51 total special-case words.
> FIND is ambiguous on all of these words because section 4.1.2 ("Ambiguous Conditions") lists this as one of the ambiguous conditions:
> "attempting to obtain the execution token, (e.g., with 6.1.0070 ', 6.1.1550 FIND, etc.) of a definition with undefined interpretation semantics." 
> 
> Disambiguifiers are really the heart and soul of ANS-Forth programming --- nobody can be an ANS-Forth programmer (at least, not able to use FIND in their programs) if they don't understand disambiguifiers.

back to school Aguilar - you seemingly do not even know what vulgar means - but fits your level 
- Aguilar the biggest salesman in this group here - with a product that nobody wants - explains the frustration - over time leads to the mental issues you are exhibiting here.

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

#55777

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 11:40:36 AM UTC-4, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:54:24 PM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 12:42:07 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:27:04 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> > > > 
> > > > I wrote this thinking that I was responding to Stephen Pelc rather than just his employee --- that is why I said that he (Stephen Pelc) is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee.
> > > > 
> > > > If I had realized that this post was from Juergen Pintaske, I wouldn't have bothered to respond --- salesmen are idiots --- I don't waste my time talking to them.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for confirming that your reading skills are very limited. Your mental limitation does unfortunately not allow you to realize that You are the sales man here - and the worst one. Trying to sell your novice package or your straight forth. Sales bullshit at its worst. You are showing yourself  like a child in Kindergarden - spitting at everybody and then wondering why nobody loves you. You are selling your work like everybody else - look in the mirror. 
> > > And if you had been intelligent enough you would know that Forth is only part of my working life - Exmark Consultancy does a lot more - show at least some knowledge before you shit all over the place again.
> > 
> > You are a vulgar little salesman, aren't you?
> > 
> > Well, to use your vulgar terms, ANS-Forth shit all over the Forth community in 1994.
> > 
> > My disambiguifiers allow FIND to work consistently between ANS-Forth systems. 
> > FIND of C" IF" returns an xt and it returns 1 to indicate that it is immediate (which is what would be expected). We no longer have that bizarre nonsense of IF being non-immediate, as it is in VFX. We also no longer have that grossly bizarre nonsense of FIND returning different xt values depending upon what STATE @ is at the time that FIND executes, as it does in Gforth.
> > 
> > FIND is ambiguous under ANS-Forth --- it can do anything, including crash the system, and this is ANS-Forth compliant.
> > 
> > The reason why my disambiguifiers work, is that POSTPONE is not ambiguous. Each disambiguifier uses POSTPONE internally. Then FIND works on the disambiguifier because the disambiguifier is no longer a special-case word. By "special-case" I mean all of those words in ANS-Forth whose definition contains the phrase:
> > "Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined."
> > This includes IF --- there are some 51 total special-case words.
> > FIND is ambiguous on all of these words because section 4.1.2 ("Ambiguous Conditions") lists this as one of the ambiguous conditions:
> > "attempting to obtain the execution token, (e.g., with 6.1.0070 ', 6.1.1550 FIND, etc.) of a definition with undefined interpretation semantics." 
> > 
> > Disambiguifiers are really the heart and soul of ANS-Forth programming --- nobody can be an ANS-Forth programmer (at least, not able to use FIND in their programs) if they don't understand disambiguifiers.
> 
> back to school Aguilar - you seemingly do not even know what vulgar means - but fits your level 
> - Aguilar the biggest salesman in this group here - with a product that nobody wants - explains the frustration - over time leads to the mental issues you are exhibiting here.

awesome banter!
love it!

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

#55749

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 3:42:07 AM UTC-4, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:27:04 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > > > 
> > > > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > > > 
> > > > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> > > 
> > > That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> > 
> > I wrote this thinking that I was responding to Stephen Pelc rather than just his employee --- that is why I said that he (Stephen Pelc) is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee.
> > 
> > If I had realized that this post was from Juergen Pintaske, I wouldn't have bothered to respond --- salesmen are idiots --- I don't waste my time talking to them.
> 
> Thanks for confirming that your reading skills are very limited. Your mental limitation does unfortunately not allow you to realize that You are the sales man here - and the worst one. Trying to sell your novice package or your straight forth. Sales bullshit at its worst. You are showing yourself  like a child in Kindergarden - spitting at everybody and then wondering why nobody loves you. You are selling your work like everybody else - look in the mirror. 
> And if you had been intelligent enough you would know that Forth is only part of my working life - Exmark Consultancy does a lot more - show at least some knowledge before you shit all over the place again.

Shut up sales weasil.

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

#55748

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 1:27:04 AM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > > 
> > > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > > 
> > > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > > 
> > > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > > 
> > > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> > 
> > That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> 
> I wrote this thinking that I was responding to Stephen Pelc rather than just his employee --- that is why I said that he (Stephen Pelc) is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee.
> 
> If I had realized that this post was from Juergen Pintaske, I wouldn't have bothered to respond --- salesmen are idiots --- I don't waste my time talking to them.

Hugh putting the smak down.  I love it.
Hugh do you have your own forth like the Beez?
Use gforth? pfe?
what do you think of forthos?

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

#55740

On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > 
> > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > 
> > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > 
> > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > 
> > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > 
> > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> 
> That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.

When I wrote that, I thought it was Stephen Pelc that I was responding to, rather than just his salesman.

Still though, I think this quote shows very well why Stephen Pelc is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.

Does the Forth community want FIND to be ambiguous? No, they don't!

Stephen Pelc wants FIND to be ambiguous. This is so that, when people write ANS-Forth programs under VFX and assume that FIND works in the unique VFX way, their programs won't work under SwiftForth or Gforth in which FIND works in different ways. The VFX programmers become trapped in vendor lock-in --- they thought that they were programming in ANS-Forth, but they were actually programming in VFX-specific Forth --- they can't port their programs to other ANS-Forth systems, but are stuck with VFX.

How about making LITERAL (also 2LITERAL and FLITERAL) vectored? ANS-Forth doesn't do this. Because of this, it is impossible for a cross-compiler to use the built-in outer-interpreter and support literal values in TARG mode colon words. Does the Forth community want this limitation? No, they don't! Stephen Pecl wants this limitation because this largely prevents ANS-Forth programmers from writing a cross-compiler in competition with MPE.

Stephen Pelc is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee because he is financially motivated to sabotage the standard. He wants to prevent people from writing ANS-Forth programs that are competitive with MPE products --- this is why he wants the standard to be crippled --- he is financially motivated to work against the Forth community, which he considers to be competition, rather than to work for the Forth community.

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

#55742

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:05:48 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Stephen Pelc is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee because he is financially motivated to sabotage the standard. He wants to prevent people from writing ANS-Forth programs that are competitive with MPE products --- this is why he wants the standard to be crippled --- he is financially motivated to work against the Forth community, which he considers to be competition, rather than to work for the Forth community.

The reason why Elizabeth Rather endlessly promotes the purpose of ANS-Forth being "portable programmers" is that she wants ANS-Forth to be a crippled toy language, and the public-domain ANS-Forth systems (especially Gforth) to be unsuitable for writing commercial software in competition with Forth Inc. and MPE. The idea is that students will learn Forth under Gforth and will learn the basic concepts such as how the data-stack works, etc. (she doesn't want to hire programmers and then have to teach them how the data-stack works in her novice class, because that is a waste of time). They won't be able to write non-trivial programs however, because FIND is broken, and various other reasons. They will then be "portable" in the sense that they can get a job at Forth Inc. or MPE where they will be able to begin writing non-trivial programs --- but their programs will no longer be ANS-Forth and will no longer be portable to other ANS-Forth systems, including Gforth which they learned on.

ANS-Forth is all about limiting what Forth programmers can do. They can learn how DUP works, but they can't learn how FIND works. They can write toy programs, but they can't compete against Forth Inc. and MPE. In the ANS-Forth world, which Elizabeth Rather created, there is no place for somebody such as myself who knows how to program in Forth and takes pride in doing so --- this is what she hates and fears the most! --- this is why, in her world, I have to be utterly incompetent (not know how pointers work, etc.) as her sycophants endlessly proclaim.

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

#55751

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:04:42 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 5:05:48 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Stephen Pelc is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee because he is financially motivated to sabotage the standard. He wants to prevent people from writing ANS-Forth programs that are competitive with MPE products --- this is why he wants the standard to be crippled --- he is financially motivated to work against the Forth community, which he considers to be competition, rather than to work for the Forth community.
> 
> The reason why Elizabeth Rather endlessly promotes the purpose of ANS-Forth being "portable programmers" is that she wants ANS-Forth to be a crippled toy language, and the public-domain ANS-Forth systems (especially Gforth) to be unsuitable for writing commercial software in competition with Forth Inc. and MPE. The idea is that students will learn Forth under Gforth and will learn the basic concepts such as how the data-stack works, etc. (she doesn't want to hire programmers and then have to teach them how the data-stack works in her novice class, because that is a waste of time). They won't be able to write non-trivial programs however, because FIND is broken, and various other reasons. They will then be "portable" in the sense that they can get a job at Forth Inc. or MPE where they will be able to begin writing non-trivial programs --- but their programs will no longer be ANS-Forth and will no longer be portable to other ANS-Forth systems, including Gforth which they learned on.
> 
> ANS-Forth is all about limiting what Forth programmers can do. They can learn how DUP works, but they can't learn how FIND works. They can write toy programs, but they can't compete against Forth Inc. and MPE. In the ANS-Forth world, which Elizabeth Rather created, there is no place for somebody such as myself who knows how to program in Forth and takes pride in doing so --- this is what she hates and fears the most! --- this is why, in her world, I have to be utterly incompetent (not know how pointers work, etc.) as her sycophants endlessly proclaim.

Woa now elizabeth has always been nice, can this be true?
Wouldnt open source forths amtching commercial let more forth progarmmer scome into existance and the whole forth industry grow?

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

#55750

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 8:05:48 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:11:13 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:26:37 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 12:30:27 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 4:46:36 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 5:24:44 PM UTC, polymorph self wrote:
> > > > > > The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     Bernd Paysan
> > > > 
> > > > Where did that quote come from?
> > > > 
> > > > > Where is the problem? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The 3 plus the one who says it are either lying - or did not share. Let them prove it and let others prove it is correct ;or they are just and should stay in this special group. The only one who adds to the common knowledge is the one who shares. Good code, bad code - better than the nothing before.
> > > > 
> > > > Does this mean that you are going to encourage your employer Stephen Pelc to include the disambiguifiers in VFX?
> > > 
> > > We have completely different views of the world. MPE is a company - it exists for doing business and supporting customers. As such you could have given the answer yourself: MPE implements what customers and/or projects need - or what is expected/assumed to increase business. MPE might have implemented and used it in projects  - or not - or waiting for a business requuirement. It is the MPE decision how to go about it, but I am sure there have been sufficient discussions in the background and as part of his function as chair. And I assume  the same applies to all other Commercial Forth Compiler suppliers. The Forth world is free - so people can do and implement what they like. And talk about it or not.
> > 
> > That is fine with me --- I don't stop people from making money --- but I think that you are the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> 
> When I wrote that, I thought it was Stephen Pelc that I was responding to, rather than just his salesman.
> 
> Still though, I think this quote shows very well why Stephen Pelc is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee which supposedly represents the Forth community.
> 
> Does the Forth community want FIND to be ambiguous? No, they don't!
> 
> Stephen Pelc wants FIND to be ambiguous. This is so that, when people write ANS-Forth programs under VFX and assume that FIND works in the unique VFX way, their programs won't work under SwiftForth or Gforth in which FIND works in different ways. The VFX programmers become trapped in vendor lock-in --- they thought that they were programming in ANS-Forth, but they were actually programming in VFX-specific Forth --- they can't port their programs to other ANS-Forth systems, but are stuck with VFX.
> 
> How about making LITERAL (also 2LITERAL and FLITERAL) vectored? ANS-Forth doesn't do this. Because of this, it is impossible for a cross-compiler to use the built-in outer-interpreter and support literal values in TARG mode colon words. Does the Forth community want this limitation? No, they don't! Stephen Pecl wants this limitation because this largely prevents ANS-Forth programmers from writing a cross-compiler in competition with MPE.
> 
> Stephen Pelc is the worst qualified person in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee because he is financially motivated to sabotage the standard. He wants to prevent people from writing ANS-Forth programs that are competitive with MPE products --- this is why he wants the standard to be crippled --- he is financially motivated to work against the Forth community, which he considers to be competition, rather than to work for the Forth community.

Woa is there a problem in gforth?  Where Is Bernd?

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

#55649 — The only problem we Forthers have is ...

polymorph self wrote:
>     The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found
> something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and
> each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach
> than you". He'll hate you for that.
>
>     Bernd Paysan

What a great game!  Here's another.

The only problem we Forthers have is ... finding gavino a language that promises more.

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

#55658 — Re: The only problem we Forthers have is ...

On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 6:55:50 PM UTC-5, HAA wrote:
> polymorph self wrote:
> >     The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has found
> > something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS degree, and
> > each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much better approach
> > than you". He'll hate you for that.
> >
> >     Bernd Paysan
> 
> What a great game!  Here's another.
> 
> The only problem we Forthers have is ... finding gavino a language that promises more.

Who are you?

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

#55802 — Re: The only problem we Forthers have is ...

polymorph self wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 6:55:50 PM UTC-5, HAA wrote:
> > polymorph self wrote:
> > >     The only problem we Forthers have is that each time someone tells us he has
> > > found something new, we answer: "Oh, I know three guys, none of them has a CS
> > > degree, and each one invented this independently 10 years ago, but they had a much
> > > better approach than you". He'll hate you for that.
> > >
> > >     Bernd Paysan
> >
> > What a great game!  Here's another.
> >
> > The only problem we Forthers have is ... finding gavino a language that promises more.
>
> Who are you?

A forther who imagines he's a comedian.  You?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web