Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55968 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-20 09:58 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-24 17:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 212 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 09:58 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 10:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-20 18:08 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 12:19 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 05:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 15:04 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 11:22 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 01:34 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-25 17:27 +1100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 00:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 01:02 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 01:05 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 12:11 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 15:53 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-26 22:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:30 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 09:34 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! mhx@iae.nl - 2017-03-25 03:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-27 10:56 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 10:07 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! mhx@iae.nl - 2017-03-27 16:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-27 18:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-27 17:21 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-28 01:16 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-28 03:36 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-28 01:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-28 12:57 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-28 03:51 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:29 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 03:33 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 05:17 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 09:42 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 09:49 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:12 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:43 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 14:11 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-21 16:46 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 12:32 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 10:57 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 14:10 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 12:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 15:29 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-22 03:23 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-07 09:26 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 10:10 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:42 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-22 13:10 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 06:38 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-22 15:24 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-22 08:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 13:55 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-25 17:41 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 07:43 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 08:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:01 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-22 18:31 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-23 08:05 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-23 13:47 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 15:31 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-23 10:25 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 18:07 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:45 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 03:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-03 05:57 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 12:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 12:26 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:02 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 16:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:35 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 18:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-04 10:14 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:44 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-04 12:32 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 06:49 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! crc <charles.childers@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 04:50 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-04 13:14 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-05 11:19 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 04:16 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-05 12:35 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-03 13:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-03 17:04 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 07:29 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 02:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-04 05:08 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-04 06:34 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-04 11:17 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-05-03 19:03 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 18:12 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 13:49 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:58 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-22 20:55 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 18:05 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 15:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 10:29 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 04:00 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 08:01 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-22 14:02 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-22 20:59 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 12:14 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-23 14:45 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-23 12:24 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 10:55 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-27 17:24 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-29 10:49 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-28 15:05 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 19:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 06:43 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-30 10:37 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-29 19:34 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-23 10:36 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 11:33 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-23 14:58 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 22:32 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 17:10 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-25 07:31 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-07 08:50 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-20 17:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:09 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-03 10:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 07:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-03 13:07 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 16:03 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-20 14:08 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 17:51 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-20 13:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! bruehlconsult@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 17:22 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-20 19:12 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 02:30 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! minforth@arcor.de - 2017-03-21 02:47 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-21 05:56 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 16:07 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-21 14:28 -1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-28 11:30 +1000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-21 16:42 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-21 22:56 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2017-03-22 04:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-23 00:57 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 02:32 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 10:00 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 06:46 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-24 14:41 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 15:32 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-25 23:10 +0000
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 17:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-25 18:08 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-26 08:30 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-26 08:50 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 15:14 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 08:32 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:21 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 15:31 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 09:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-27 11:52 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 18:41 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-27 12:58 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 12:07 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-28 20:06 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-29 14:54 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 19:13 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 21:18 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 10:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 21:53 +0300
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-27 22:29 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 16:03 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-31 09:28 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:36 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-31 19:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-01 09:23 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-01 11:55 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 14:15 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 12:55 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-07 12:08 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-07 09:04 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 21:35 +0200
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-04-01 20:35 -0400
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 11:52 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 16:31 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 20:54 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 21:13 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-05 16:06 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-31 09:42 +0100
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:52 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 20:26 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-27 04:55 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-27 08:49 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 13:35 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 14:23 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 15:28 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-30 23:20 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 02:29 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-31 03:20 -0700
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-31 03:38 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-24 09:17 -0500
Re: Make Forth Small Again! hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 17:52 -0700
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af28d6f2-f151-438d-a1c5-9485f79b41a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56325 |
> > Just one post above. You point looks clear enough - 'there are MPE > > and Forth Inc, they are big and smart and they are supporting > > standard. You may contribute or get out'. > > So, having incorrectly accused me of saying it, now you pretend I said > it by putting it in quotes. Not cool. Give me your interpretation. > > Explanation is very easy. If you want to rewrite C#, Microsoft can > > say 'use C# as is or get out'. Can you write your own C# compiler? > > For most programmers answer is 'no'. But if you attempt to behave > > the same manner with Forth, the answer will be 'yes, we can rewrite, > > so YOU may sitting still with your toys, and we will go to advance > > with our vision'. > > I know of at least 3 C# compilers. Mono, dotgnu and roslyn. At least 3 with... how many programmers? When I search for it, I see number from 3-4 millions to 7-8 millions. Even if we add some other compilers, not listed here, we still have 1 compiler per 1 Million programmers. I can suppose we have thousands Forth programmers in the world (and this is optimistic, if we will count only active users with practical results). How many Forth systems we can see now? Tens, if we will count only actual for now. So we have one Forth per 10 - 100 programmers! Ok, one per 1000. This still means Forth is 1000+ times likely to be rewritten by our demands than C#. > > I repeat this several times :) I know this USA-specific trick to > > looks smart in any case. > > I am not an American, and this kind of pointless snottery adds nothing > to your argument. No matter, USA business culture is just harder leading this way. In Russia, professionals are more closely watching on any kind of boasting. It is too roughly to claim 'we are the best on the market!'. Discussing features and disadvantages looks more honest and professional. So when I see 'we are smartest guys here', I'm clearly identify that as boasting and trickery. Try to talk with Chinese, they are more strict in such questions. > >> I get that you're not happy & like to think of yourself as a bit > >> of a guru, but beyond that, what's your point? > > > > It is your big mistake :) You are thinking there are a place for > > gurus, but this is completely wrong. No gurus in serious activity, > > just teams and cross approvement. > > Standards (cough). Teams love 'em. You have no teams to standartize their activity. > > Freedom is not replacing one lord to another, so attempts to rule is > > archaic. While Forth Inc is sitting in the far corner, other > > programmers may think and work. If you think YOU are a guru and can > > write a complete tutorial for everyone, this is really laughable. > > Help others as they really need (not as you imagine) or step aside. > > > > Step aside? I'm in your way? Wow, I must be more influential than I thought. Every time when someone tries to call for some discussion, other people brings ANS as a final argument - sooner or later. What kind of requests we can see here? 'Straight, small', I can add 'easy' or 'plain'. This is not because other programmers are so stupid and can't understand the content of Standard. They are too strong to stay at this sandbox and suggest a way out, to more freedom while keeping common ideas. Again, everyone may choose to be a part of problem or a part of solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 08:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obaf0a$7mf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56357 |
On 3/26/2017 23:14, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> Just one post above. You point looks clear enough - 'there are >>> MPE and Forth Inc, they are big and smart and they are >>> supporting standard. You may contribute or get out'. >> >> So, having incorrectly accused me of saying it, now you pretend I >> said it by putting it in quotes. Not cool. > > Give me your interpretation. > You didn't understand the first time round; I have no expectation that you'll do any better this time. What I have already said in this thread before to you; People & companies (on behalf of their end users) seek standards. Those people come together, co-operatively and agreeing to abide by a set of mutually acceptable rules, to make standards if they don't exist, and to promote their benefits once they do. The audience is those that have a need. No-one is forced to adopt them, support them, promote them or contribute to them. MPE, Forth Inc and a number of other Forth system providers think it is useful to continue to develop the standard, and I'm with them on that. Interpret it as you wish. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 13:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a97af35-6314-40d3-a1c1-b65770e63bc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56373 |
> > Give me your interpretation. > > > > You didn't understand the first time round; I have no expectation that > you'll do any better this time. What I have already said in this thread > before to you; > > People & companies (on behalf of their end users) seek standards. Those > people come together, co-operatively and agreeing to abide by a set of > mutually acceptable rules, to make standards if they don't exist, and to > promote their benefits once they do. The audience is those that have a > need. No-one is forced to adopt them, support them, promote them or > contribute to them. MPE, Forth Inc and a number of other Forth system > providers think it is useful to continue to develop the standard, and > I'm with them on that. > > Interpret it as you wish. This is not an expectation. I wrote there are not enough Forth activity in the world to think about standartization. I see no 'vendors' and 'customers' to discuss rules. Commitee activity completely misses real life, and latest requests for easier and smaller Forth shows it is no longer needed to repeat words like 'cooperation', 'promotion' etc. Two programmers on full time in Forth Inc.? Two volunteers in ANS committee? Maybe these guys can just talk to each other?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 15:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obb7jb$r5a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56357 |
On 3/26/2017 23:14, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> Explanation is very easy. If you want to rewrite C#, Microsoft >>> can say 'use C# as is or get out'. Can you write your own C# >>> compiler? For most programmers answer is 'no'. But if you attempt >>> to behave the same manner with Forth, the answer will be 'yes, we >>> can rewrite, so YOU may sitting still with your toys, and we will >>> go to advance with our vision'. >> I know of at least 3 C# compilers. Mono, dotgnu and roslyn. > At least 3 with... how many programmers? When I search for it, I see > number from 3-4 millions to 7-8 millions. Even if we add some other > compilers, not listed here, we still have 1 compiler per 1 Million > programmers. > > I can suppose we have thousands Forth programmers in the world (and > this is optimistic, if we will count only active users with practical > results). How many Forth systems we can see now? Tens, if we will > count only actual for now. So we have one Forth per 10 - 100 > programmers! Ok, one per 1000. This still means Forth is 1000+ times > likely to be rewritten by our demands than C#. > As a complete aside, and since you're into some very impressive goalpost shifting there with ratios of programmers to compilers, did you know that there's an international C# standard? https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm. There's also Microsoft's "de facto" standard https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=7029. It's a similar state of affairs to Forth with Forth201x and ANS FORTH; they aren't in lockstep (ECMA covers v2 and MS is up to v5). Sometimes there are even competing standards for the same technology. There are currently 3 standards for modelling object storage; Amazon S3 (de facto), OpenStack Swift (another de facto but less popular) and CDMI (de jure, an ISO standard). In the long term, the outcomes are possibly that one will dominate the market and two will die; or, one will dominate and the other two will accommodate themselves to the reality and become like it; or products will appear that support all three, since they are not mutually incompatible and are in the main different APIs for similar functionality. Whichever way that turns out, the example serves to demonstrate that there's room for plenty more Forth standards -- like ANS, Forth 201x, Hughs' Straight Forth and perhaps even one of your efforts. However, I place Hugh's Straight Forth in the doomed category. It has little support or promotion beyond Hugh's posts here, no product (that's generally a fatal mistake) and it appears to be significantly incomplete and in places ill thought through. It also requires Hugh to do all the work. This shouldn't stop innovation (and it won't; humans are notoriously irrational and do the strangest things, especially when challenged). Look at Perl or Ruby or Linux; wildly successful and totally unstandardised except for the single implementation from one benevolent dictator's keyboard. You or Hugh or I could do the same, but that takes an implementation of something, usefulness beyond scoring points on Usenet, and the kind of monomaniacal focus and effort that I'm afraid none of us has. One closer to home example. Ron Aaron (who posts here) is one such benevolent dictator, and his 8th (http://8th-dev.com/index.html) exists, is well marketed and from a tech perspective, is good quality, extensive in scope & is well documented. Even with these considerable advantages (and forgive me here Ron), I do not think that it is going to set the tech heather alight. It will be successful, no doubt, but it's not going to become a de facto or even de jure standard any time soon. Notwithstanding that, it will far outstrip Straight Forth in the amount of code written and number of practitioners, by a factor of infinity. Hence I prefer making my contributions in small pieces and cooperatively with others. Together we magnify each other's work. It ends up being better thought through, better tested in the field, more authoritative, more formally specified, and hence considerably more impressive & worthy of consideration than a single individual's efforts. Perhaps that's why you and Hugh find ANS Forth and FOrth201x scary. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 09:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a38a780b-5db2-4038-a911-097048b3d0a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56386 |
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 7:31:58 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > I prefer making my contributions in small pieces and cooperatively > with others. Together we magnify each other's work. It ends up being > better thought through, better tested in the field, more authoritative, > more formally specified, and hence considerably more impressive & worthy > of consideration than a single individual's efforts. Perhaps that's why > you and Hugh find ANS Forth and FOrth201x scary. Originally it was supposed to be Forth-200x --- now it is Forth-2010x --- in only three years it will be Forth-2020x. I don't think the Forth-200x committee have any intention of ever concluding Forth-200x. They enjoy being on the committee and lording over the Forth-200x mailing-list sycophants. Also, all of the mailing-list sycophants enjoy debating idiotic ideas (recognizes) endlessly, pretending to be great leaders that common Forth programmers such as myself depend entirely upon for their wisdom. All of this leadership posturing is so much fun that nobody involved has any desire to bring it to a conclusion. Also, as a practical matter, if Forth-200x were concluded, then Forth Inc. would be expected to make SwiftForth compliant with Forth-200x. Unfortunately, Forth Inc. doesn't employ any programmers who are capable of doing this. When ANS-Forth became the standard in 1994, Forth Inc. had to hire Rick van Norman to write SwiftForth for them. His version-1 came out in 1997 as was so bug-ridden as to be completely unusable. Version-2, which I purchased, was also bug-ridden. Now version-3 is usable, but it is grossly inefficient --- it has the quality level of a $30 shareware Forth system --- I don't think Forth Inc. is capable of upgrading SwiftForth to be Forth-200x compliant, so they want the tedious debates about recognizers and Paysan-faked quotations to continue forever. Forth-200x will never be concluded --- it is like a zombie that has flat-line neural activity, but yet continues stumbling forward.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obbfr7$rau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56390 |
On 3/27/2017 11:04 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 7:31:58 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >> I prefer making my contributions in small pieces and cooperatively >> with others. Together we magnify each other's work. It ends up being >> better thought through, better tested in the field, more authoritative, >> more formally specified, and hence considerably more impressive & worthy >> of consideration than a single individual's efforts. Perhaps that's why >> you and Hugh find ANS Forth and FOrth201x scary. > > Originally it was supposed to be Forth-200x --- now it is Forth-2010x --- in only three years it will be Forth-2020x. > > I don't think the Forth-200x committee have any intention of ever concluding Forth-200x. They enjoy being on the committee and lording over the Forth-200x mailing-list sycophants. Also, all of the mailing-list sycophants enjoy debating idiotic ideas (recognizes) endlessly, pretending to be great leaders that common Forth programmers such as myself depend entirely upon for their wisdom. All of this leadership posturing is so much fun that nobody involved has any desire to bring it to a conclusion. > > Also, as a practical matter, if Forth-200x were concluded, then Forth Inc. would be expected to make SwiftForth compliant with Forth-200x. Unfortunately, Forth Inc. doesn't employ any programmers who are capable of doing this. When ANS-Forth became the standard in 1994, Forth Inc. had to hire Rick van Norman to write SwiftForth for them. His version-1 came out in 1997 as was so bug-ridden as to be completely unusable. Version-2, which I purchased, was also bug-ridden. Now version-3 is usable, but it is grossly inefficient --- it has the quality level of a $30 shareware Forth system --- I don't think Forth Inc. is capable of upgrading SwiftForth to be Forth-200x compliant, so they want the tedious debates about recognizers and Paysan-faked quotations to continue forever. > > Forth-200x will never be concluded --- it is like a zombie that has flat-line neural activity, but yet continues stumbling forward. > I believe is cost a bit of money to submit a new standard, so that might be a reason for never finishing. Now if the standard is so wonderful and improved it should be worth the money. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 18:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obbimu$799$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56392 |
On 3/27/2017 17:52, Cecil Bayona wrote: > On 3/27/2017 11:04 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 7:31:58 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >>> I prefer making my contributions in small pieces and cooperatively >>> with others. Together we magnify each other's work. It ends up being >>> better thought through, better tested in the field, more authoritative, >>> more formally specified, and hence considerably more impressive & worthy >>> of consideration than a single individual's efforts. Perhaps that's why >>> you and Hugh find ANS Forth and FOrth201x scary. >> >> Originally it was supposed to be Forth-200x --- now it is Forth-2010x >> --- in only three years it will be Forth-2020x. >> Those calendar code snippets you posted are obviously paying dividends. >> >> Forth-200x will never be concluded --- it is like a zombie that has >> flat-line neural activity, but yet continues stumbling forward. >> > I believe is cost a bit of money to submit a new standard, so that might > be a reason for never finishing. Now if the standard is so wonderful and > improved it should be worth the money. > Submitting to ISO will cost at least $30k, plus a lot of effort. Right now I suspect those involved have better things to do with the cash & time. No standard is ever finished. Or worshipped, for that matter. Unlike the Bible* or the Koran* which subscribe to an absolute and fixed form of truth, standards don't do absolutes and are continually on the move. Development will stop when no-one is interested, not because it needs to be finalised, written on gold plates* and placed in the Ark of the Covenant*. *I'm an equal opportunity blasphemer. 10 points extra if you get the gold plates reference. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 12:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <obbjmm$avc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56393 |
On 3/27/2017 12:41 PM, Alex wrote: > On 3/27/2017 17:52, Cecil Bayona wrote: >> On 3/27/2017 11:04 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 7:31:58 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >>>> I prefer making my contributions in small pieces and cooperatively >>>> with others. Together we magnify each other's work. It ends up being >>>> better thought through, better tested in the field, more authoritative, >>>> more formally specified, and hence considerably more impressive & >>>> worthy >>>> of consideration than a single individual's efforts. Perhaps that's why >>>> you and Hugh find ANS Forth and FOrth201x scary. >>> >>> Originally it was supposed to be Forth-200x --- now it is Forth-2010x >>> --- in only three years it will be Forth-2020x. >>> > > Those calendar code snippets you posted are obviously paying dividends. > >>> >>> Forth-200x will never be concluded --- it is like a zombie that has >>> flat-line neural activity, but yet continues stumbling forward. >>> >> I believe is cost a bit of money to submit a new standard, so that might >> be a reason for never finishing. Now if the standard is so wonderful and >> improved it should be worth the money. >> > > Submitting to ISO will cost at least $30k, plus a lot of effort. Right > now I suspect those involved have better things to do with the cash & time. > > No standard is ever finished. Or worshipped, for that matter. Unlike the > Bible* or the Koran* which subscribe to an absolute and fixed form of > truth, standards don't do absolutes and are continually on the move. > Development will stop when no-one is interested, not because it needs to > be finalised, written on gold plates* and placed in the Ark of the > Covenant*. > > *I'm an equal opportunity blasphemer. 10 points extra if you get the > gold plates reference. > Book of Mormons written on gold plates. $30K is a lot more than what I anticipated, maybe in the neighborhood of $5k, that is a lot of money. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2af71170-f431-483d-846e-d003b8b47ce8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56393 |
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > No standard is ever finished. Or worshipped, for that matter. Unlike the > Bible* or the Koran* which subscribe to an absolute and fixed form of > truth, standards don't do absolutes and are continually on the move. > Development will stop when no-one is interested, not because it needs to > be finalised, written on gold plates* and placed in the Ark of the > Covenant*. Actually, the whole point of ANS-Forth was to prevent any further development of Forth. ANS-Forth has not been "continually on the move" --- it can't change --- none of the mistakes can ever be fixed. I have a document describing Straight Forth. It is not finished, but I could finish it fairly easily. I don't want to release Straight Forth however until I have a full compiler written --- I don't want to be like Elizabeth Rather who got ANS-Forth rubber-stamped by ANSI in 1994 but didn't have a compiler written until 1997, and didn't have a usable compiler written until version-3 --- if I release it without extensive testing there might be bugs in it, and then it would be very difficult to fix those bugs because standards are, by their nature, pretty much unchangeable. Even if I had the money, I wouldn't get ISO or ANSI certification. I can't call it "Forth" and get certification as the standard, because I'm not the inventor of Forth. > *I'm an equal opportunity blasphemer. 10 points extra if you get the > gold plates reference. I don't blasphemy people's religion --- that is extremely offensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxaudioresearch@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bccdcde7-5988-4c8b-9d7b-2cf29155af51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56399 |
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 3:07:22 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > > No standard is ever finished. Or worshipped, for that matter. Unlike the > > Bible* or the Koran* which subscribe to an absolute and fixed form of > > truth, standards don't do absolutes and are continually on the move. > > Development will stop when no-one is interested, not because it needs to > > be finalised, written on gold plates* and placed in the Ark of the > > Covenant*. > > Actually, the whole point of ANS-Forth was to prevent any further development of Forth. ANS-Forth has not been "continually on the move" --- it can't change --- none of the mistakes can ever be fixed. > > I have a document describing Straight Forth. It is not finished, but I could finish it fairly easily. I don't want to release Straight Forth however until I have a full compiler written --- I don't want to be like Elizabeth Rather who got ANS-Forth rubber-stamped by ANSI in 1994 but didn't have a compiler written until 1997, and didn't have a usable compiler written until version-3 --- if I release it without extensive testing there might be bugs in it, and then it would be very difficult to fix those bugs because standards are, by their nature, pretty much unchangeable. > > Even if I had the money, I wouldn't get ISO or ANSI certification. I can't call it "Forth" and get certification as the standard, because I'm not the inventor of Forth. > > > *I'm an equal opportunity blasphemer. 10 points extra if you get the > > gold plates reference. > > I don't blasphemy people's religion --- that is extremely offensive. I may be wrong Hugh but I believe because Chuck Moore put Forth in the public domain you can call your language Forth. Heaven knows everybody else did. :-) I shall refrain from blaspheming about blaspheming. BF Indemnification Reader agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the poster and its affiliates, licensors and suppliers harmless from any liability, loss, claim and expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, related to a Usenet reader's use or implementation of any and/or all parts of this post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67268e04-d62f-4304-a721-8d6b45bd0313@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56401 |
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 1:07:02 PM UTC-7, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 3:07:22 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > Even if I had the money, I wouldn't get ISO or ANSI certification. I can't call it "Forth" and get certification as the standard, because I'm not the inventor of Forth. > > I may be wrong Hugh but I believe because Chuck Moore put Forth in the public domain you can call your language Forth. Heaven knows everybody else did. :-) The story here is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to sue FIG for pirating Forth Inc.'s MicroForth and also for using the name "Forth" to describe it. She wanted the Forth language to be proprietary to Forth Inc. so nobody could program in Forth except by buying a Forth Inc. compiler. Charles Moore refused to allow this. He talked to the FIG people and made an agreement with them that they could continue to distribute FIG-Forth (it really was essentially a pirated version of MicroForth), but they couldn't upgrade it --- they definitely couldn't continue pirating every compiler that Forth Inc. released --- they would just distribute FIG-Forth as an introduction to Forth, but not as something that would actually be useful. At the time, there were several people selling a commercial Forth system. Their product was not directly pirated from any Forth Inc. compiler; they just took the concept of Forth, but wrote their code from scratch. Elizabeth Rather also wanted to sue them for stealing the "look and feel" of Forth (only a few years later Apple would successfully sue for people stealing the "look and feel" of the Macintosh). Charles Moore refused to allow this too. Charles Moore wanted the Forth language to be in the public-domain. He didn't want to sue people to stop them from programming in Forth. He felt confident that his own programming skill would put his Forth systems in the lead forever. This was an irreconcilable difference between Charles Moore and Elizabeth Rather, so they split up, and Charles Moore abandoned Forth Inc.. If Charles Moore had stayed at Forth Inc., he would have likely fixed a lot of the problems in PolyForth. He really did have strong programming skill, so given time, he would have got rid of the expedient hacks and made PolyForth a viable Forth system. As it was, the Forth Inc. "programmers" were just maintaining his old code from the 1970s and not upgrading it or fixing any of the problems. They acted as if it were written on tablets of stone and brought down from Mt. Sinai, and no aspect could ever be modified. PolyForth was better than GW-BASIC, but compared badly to QBASIC. Ray Duncan's UR/Forth compared very well to Borland Turbo C in terms of speed, program size and features. Of course, the C programmers ignored UR/Forth and loudly proclaimed PolyForth to be the state of the art in Forth, and said that this proved that Forth was a toy language like QBASIC but not as good. The people who benefited the most from ANS-Forth were the C programmers, as ANS-Forth caused essentially all of the Forth programmers to abandon Forth and switch to C. ANS-Forth killed UR/Forth by making it non-standard, and UR/Forth was the only Forth system that compared favorably to C, so the C programmers benefited greatly by having UR/Forth killed. Anyway, you are right that I can use the word "Forth" for my system --- Charles Moore put Forth in the public-domain, and he is not going to sue me. I can't get ISO or ANSI certification however, claiming that my Straight Forth is the one-and-only Forth standard, because I'm not the inventor of Forth --- they only allow that if the inventor's name appears on the document as a supporter --- of course, I could do what Elizabeth Rather did with ANS-Forth: just lie and claim that Charles Moore is a supporter, and just hope that Charles Moore doesn't sue for libel, but I'm not a liar so I won't do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obec2p$p2s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56428 |
On 3/28/2017 19:30, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: [Complete fantasy insanity & dribbling snipped] > I can't get ISO or ANSI certification however, claiming that my > Straight Forth is the one-and-only Forth standard, because I'm not > the inventor of Forth --- they only allow that if the inventor's name > appears on the document as a supporter --- of course, I could do what > Elizabeth Rather did with ANS-Forth: just lie and claim that Charles > Moore is a supporter, and just hope that Charles Moore doesn't sue > for libel, but I'm not a liar so I won't do that. You getting certified by a medical professional is a lot more likely, because what you write here about ISO or ANSI processes or libel laws is so wrong, it isn't even wrong. It's complete & utter bollox. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 14:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obgaqh$t9n$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #56428 |
In article <67268e04-d62f-4304-a721-8d6b45bd0313@googlegroups.com>, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: >On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 1:07:02 PM UTC-7, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 3:07:22 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Even if I had the money, I wouldn't get ISO or ANSI certification. I ca= >n't call it "Forth" and get certification as the standard, because I'm not = >the inventor of Forth. >>=20 >> I may be wrong Hugh but I believe because Chuck Moore put Forth in the pu= >blic domain you can call your language Forth. Heaven knows everybody else = >did. :-) > >The story here is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to sue FIG for pirating Fort= >h Inc.'s MicroForth and also for using the name "Forth" to describe it. She= > wanted the Forth language to be proprietary to Forth Inc. so nobody could = >program in Forth except by buying a Forth Inc. compiler. > >Charles Moore refused to allow this. He talked to the FIG people and made a= >n agreement with them that they could continue to distribute FIG-Forth (it = >really was essentially a pirated version of MicroForth), but they couldn't = >upgrade it --- they definitely couldn't continue pirating every compiler th= >at Forth Inc. released --- they would just distribute FIG-Forth as an intro= >duction to Forth, but not as something that would actually be useful.=20 You should dig up the proper references and put this important information in wikipedia. (Not properly referenced material is prone to deletion.) Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14c85d88-863b-401f-861e-d79d98878937@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56450 |
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 5:54:15 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <67268e04-d62f-4304-a721-8d6b45bd0313@googlegroups.com>, > <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > >The story here is that Elizabeth Rather wanted to sue FIG for pirating Fort= > >h Inc.'s MicroForth and also for using the name "Forth" to describe it. She= > > wanted the Forth language to be proprietary to Forth Inc. so nobody could = > >program in Forth except by buying a Forth Inc. compiler. > > > >Charles Moore refused to allow this. He talked to the FIG people and made a= > >n agreement with them that they could continue to distribute FIG-Forth (it = > >really was essentially a pirated version of MicroForth), but they couldn't = > >upgrade it --- they definitely couldn't continue pirating every compiler th= > >at Forth Inc. released --- they would just distribute FIG-Forth as an intro= > >duction to Forth, but not as something that would actually be useful.=20 > > You should dig up the proper references and put this important > information in wikipedia. > (Not properly referenced material is prone to deletion.) Jeff Fox told me about this. It seems obvious that Elizabeth Rather considers the Forth community to be competition for Forth Inc. --- she originally tried to use lawsuits to prevent Forth from growing --- then she came up with ANS-Forth being the standard, but being purposely crippled to prevent Forth from growing. As for Wikipedia, you already told me to remove the reference to LC53 from the Wikipedia page on linear-congruential prngs. I did. I also removed the reference to ASSOCIATION.4TH from the page on LLRB trees, and some other references as well. I don't have any respect for Wikipedia editors --- you are a typical Wikipedia editor --- you're jerks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obbrsn$afn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56399 |
On 3/27/2017 20:07, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >> No standard is ever finished. Or worshipped, for that matter. >> Unlike the Bible* or the Koran* which subscribe to an absolute and >> fixed form of truth, standards don't do absolutes and are >> continually on the move. Development will stop when no-one is >> interested, not because it needs to be finalised, written on gold >> plates* and placed in the Ark of the Covenant*. > > Actually, the whole point of ANS-Forth was to prevent any further > development of Forth. ANS-Forth has not been "continually on the > move" --- it can't change --- none of the mistakes can ever be > fixed. Yet here we are, making changes to a Forth standard. > > I have a document describing Straight Forth. It is not finished, but > I could finish it fairly easily. Do it. > I don't want to release Straight > Forth however until I have a full compiler written --- I don't want > to be like Elizabeth Rather who got ANS-Forth rubber-stamped by ANSI > in 1994 but didn't have a compiler written until 1997, and didn't > have a usable compiler written until version-3 --- if I release it > without extensive testing there might be bugs in it, and then it > would be very difficult to fix those bugs because standards are, by > their nature, pretty much unchangeable. No, standards are only unchangeable in Hugh's Brain. Look, in the real world outside of your rantbubble, standards change all the time. Real example; the IETF's NFSv4 spec. RFC 3530 got superseded by RFC 7530. Nobody died. And standards don't stop bug fixes; that's seriously laughable. > Even if I had the money, I wouldn't get ISO or ANSI certification. I > can't call it "Forth" and get certification as the standard, because > I'm not the inventor of Forth. We know. > >> *I'm an equal opportunity blasphemer. 10 points extra if you get >> the gold plates reference. > > I don't blasphemy people's religion --- that is extremely offensive. > We know that too; you prefer being offensive to women their seventies. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f7686b7-b72f-49c8-b799-9e255ebc19c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56402 |
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 1:18:17 PM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > On 3/27/2017 20:07, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 10:41:37 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote: > >> No standard is ever finished. Or worshipped, for that matter. > >> Unlike the Bible* or the Koran* which subscribe to an absolute and > >> fixed form of truth, standards don't do absolutes and are > >> continually on the move. Development will stop when no-one is > >> interested, not because it needs to be finalised, written on gold > >> plates* and placed in the Ark of the Covenant*. > > > > Actually, the whole point of ANS-Forth was to prevent any further > > development of Forth. ANS-Forth has not been "continually on the > > move" --- it can't change --- none of the mistakes can ever be > > fixed. > > Yet here we are, making changes to a Forth standard. Forth-200x is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- ANS-Forth was just a marketing gimmick intended to make Forth Inc. appear to be more important than they are --- Forth-200x is another marketing gimmick intended to make ANS-Forth appear to be more important than it is. > >> *I'm an equal opportunity blasphemer. 10 points extra if you get > >> the gold plates reference. > > > > I don't blasphemy people's religion --- that is extremely offensive. > > We know that too; you prefer being offensive to women their seventies. How old was Elizabeth Rather when she first began claiming to be the "leading expert" on Forth, and claiming that the entire Forth community is dependent upon her to define Forth for us? Elizabeth Rather has been a salesperson for Forth Inc. since the 1970s --- she has been a pathological liar her entire life --- like all salespeople, she routinely claims to be the world's expert on the product that she is selling, and claims that everybody else is a non-standard wanna-bee, despite not actually knowing anything about the technical aspects of the product.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 21:53 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <obbmu0$n33$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56386 |
On 27/03/2017 17:31, Alex wrote: > One closer to home example. Ron Aaron (who posts here) is one such > benevolent dictator, Well, I like to consider myself benevolent, but I'm much more so with a dram of single-malt inside me. > and his 8th (http://8th-dev.com/index.html) exists, > is well marketed and from a tech perspective, is good quality, extensive > in scope & is well documented. Even with these considerable advantages > (and forgive me here Ron), I do not think that it is going to set the > tech heather alight. Alas, you are not breaking any news here; not even fake news. I didn't originally intend to market 8th at all... but that's another story. > It will be successful, no doubt, but it's not going > to become a de facto or even de jure standard any time soon. Now you're being a standardist! > Notwithstanding that, it will far outstrip Straight Forth in the amount > of code written and number of practitioners, by a factor of infinity. Indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 22:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obc02d$o30$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56397 |
On 3/27/2017 19:53, Ron Aaron wrote: > Well, I like to consider myself benevolent, but I'm much more so with a > dram of single-malt inside me. We all are. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1dc31777-68ed-4c2b-a366-442abb54d940@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56386 |
> > I can suppose we have thousands Forth programmers in the world (and > > this is optimistic, if we will count only active users with practical > > results). How many Forth systems we can see now? Tens, if we will > > count only actual for now. So we have one Forth per 10 - 100 > > programmers! Ok, one per 1000. This still means Forth is 1000+ times > > likely to be rewritten by our demands than C#. > > > > As a complete aside, and since you're into some very impressive goalpost > shifting there with ratios of programmers to compilers, did you know > that there's an international C# standard? > https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm. > There's also Microsoft's "de facto" standard > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=7029. It's a > similar state of affairs to Forth with Forth201x and ANS FORTH; they > aren't in lockstep (ECMA covers v2 and MS is up to v5). Yes, I remember my work for Intel/Microsoft when a group of researchers develop a special CPU core with MSIL acceleration. It happens more than 10 years ago, I was a leading lecturer for RTL design for Intel junior researchers. They successfully implements an FPGA prototype of accelerated CPU core, based on the ECMA-334. It is an answer on your question? In that project, where several forthers were involved, we compare efforts to write Forth an to modify Mono compiler. Software group was not able to add serious components or to change C# significantly, just to write back-end. In that case, ECMA-334 was a mandatory document, just because of no real alternatives. However many Forth utilities were created and used. > Sometimes there are even competing standards for the same technology. > There are currently 3 standards for modelling object storage; Amazon S3 > (de facto), OpenStack Swift (another de facto but less popular) and CDMI > (de jure, an ISO standard). In the long term, the outcomes are possibly > that one will dominate the market and two will die; or, one will > dominate and the other two will accommodate themselves to the reality > and become like it; or products will appear that support all three, > since they are not mutually incompatible and are in the main different > APIs for similar functionality. This is a kind of game forthers cannot afford. > Whichever way that turns out, the example serves to demonstrate that > there's room for plenty more Forth standards -- like ANS, Forth 201x, > Hughs' Straight Forth and perhaps even one of your efforts. > > However, I place Hugh's Straight Forth in the doomed category. It has > little support or promotion beyond Hugh's posts here, no product (that's > generally a fatal mistake) and it appears to be significantly incomplete > and in places ill thought through. It also requires Hugh to do all the > work. I don't want to make a final conclusion about Straight Forth. I just can see there are a trend to demand a new Forth, and designators are not Power, Optimized of Advanced, but Straight and Small. > One closer to home example. Ron Aaron (who posts here) is one such > benevolent dictator, and his 8th (http://8th-dev.com/index.html) exists, > is well marketed and from a tech perspective, is good quality, extensive > in scope & is well documented. Even with these considerable advantages > (and forgive me here Ron), I do not think that it is going to set the > tech heather alight. It will be successful, no doubt, but it's not going > to become a de facto or even de jure standard any time soon. Yes, this is a kind of example I can highlight too. AFAIK, Ron don't claiming he is an only source of perfect Forth and not argues about many individualists who don't want to contribute and make Forth better. > Notwithstanding that, it will far outstrip Straight Forth in the amount > of code written and number of practitioners, by a factor of infinity. > > Hence I prefer making my contributions in small pieces and cooperatively > with others. Together we magnify each other's work. It ends up being > better thought through, better tested in the field, more authoritative, > more formally specified, and hence considerably more impressive & worthy > of consideration than a single individual's efforts. Perhaps that's why > you and Hugh find ANS Forth and FOrth201x scary. Scary? Are you kidding? I have a team of forthers and we are tired making projects. Now we need to add a simple Forth VM into C# application (this is just our internal task, to improve overall features, not directly paid job). How do you think, do we need a word of wisdom, starting from 'our poor newbies, welcome to the bright world of Forth and let us guide you'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a17aa4f-cdcc-4e43-91d9-262e40ad91cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56495 |
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 2:07:45 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > Sometimes there are even competing standards for the same technology. > > There are currently 3 standards for modelling object storage; Amazon S3 > > (de facto), OpenStack Swift (another de facto but less popular) and CDMI > > (de jure, an ISO standard). In the long term, the outcomes are possibly > > that one will dominate the market and two will die; or, one will > > dominate and the other two will accommodate themselves to the reality > > and become like it; or products will appear that support all three, > > since they are not mutually incompatible and are in the main different > > APIs for similar functionality. > > This is a kind of game forthers cannot afford. Considering how few Forth programmers remain (and how old they are), a lot of competing standards is a bad idea. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw back in the days when the Berlin Wall was still standing. The Americans and the Russians had a joint project to send astronauts to the Moon --- when they arrived though, the first thing they did was build a wall to separate their landing site into halves. OTOH, I think it is possible to have two or more incompatible standards in use at the same time. ANS-Forth can be phased out gradually. ANS-Forth is rife with bad design and blatant blunders, but Forth programmers have become accustomed to working around the problems in ANS-Forth --- they are like drug addicts who are ruining their health, but don't want to stop suddenly --- they want to ease out of their bad habit gradually. Forth-83 lacked a lot of useful features: 1.) The ability to obtain and change attributes of words given the xt (immediate or not, which vocabulary, smudged or not, smudge-ready or not). 2.) LOCAL for marking the last word defined as smudge-ready, and END-MODULE for changing all the smudge-ready words into smudged words. 3.) Local variables that provide an address and are big enough that singles, doubles, floats, etc. can be stored in them. 4.) Quotations that access the parent function's local variables. 5.) All strings will be worked with on the string-stack. They will not be worked with in global variables (such as PAD or the <# buffer). The programmer will not work with address/count pairs on the data-stack, but will use string-stack functions. I think that it would be possible to define a Traditional Forth standard that is pretty much Forth-83, but with a few upgrades. What I listed above are obvious. There are some other features. All of these upgrades would be easy to define and easy to implement. Traditional Forth would provide the Forth community with a usable Forth standard for the first time. This is something that should have been done back in the 1980s. Nothing was ever done though. There will always be advanced Forth programmers who want to write a custom Forth system. The standard allows programs to be written that are portable, and can be maintained by novice-level programmers. Even if a person is advanced, he doesn't necessarily want to turn every program into a demonstration of his awesome skill. Most of the time, he just wants to write a working program, and he wants to write it in such a way that anybody can understand how it works and it works on any Forth system --- that is what a standard would be for. > > Whichever way that turns out, the example serves to demonstrate that > > there's room for plenty more Forth standards -- like ANS, Forth 201x, > > Hughs' Straight Forth and perhaps even one of your efforts. > > > > However, I place Hugh's Straight Forth in the doomed category. It has > > little support or promotion beyond Hugh's posts here, no product (that's > > generally a fatal mistake) and it appears to be significantly incomplete > > and in places ill thought through. It also requires Hugh to do all the > > work. > > I don't want to make a final conclusion about Straight Forth. I just can see there are a trend to demand a new Forth, and designators are not Power, Optimized of Advanced, but Straight and Small. Alex McDonald has been putting everything I do in the doomed category for a long time. He says that I have a "serious misunderstanding of how pointers work." When I write code to calculate the day-of-week, he calls it "peak stupid." He actually knows nothing about Straight Forth. Straight Forth is pretty close to Traditional Forth, but there are some differences: 1.) Straight Forth leaves the definition of a number undefined. I got this idea from Ilya Vasilyev. Some possibilities are: Fixed --- a 64-bit fixed-point number with an assumed unity of 2^32. Float --- an IEEE-754 float. Some programs will depend upon a particular definition of number (if they need the range of IEEE-754 floats, then they can't work on the Fixed version). For the most part, programs will be portable, but they may have different results in the least-significant digits. 2.) Straight Forth defines arrays and chains as part of the language. The expectation is that 98% of the programs will use these two data-structures, and only 2% will use custom data-structures. Arrays and chains can be defined in Traditional Forth because we do have quotations (Forth-83, ANS-Forth and Forth-200x all lack quotations). Straight Forth programs would tend to be pretty similar, because they all use the arrays and chains (mostly chains), whereas Traditional Forth programs would vary a lot --- wild variance has always been a traditional aspect of Forth programming. ANS-Forth was a total failure! I think it is possible to put together a Forth standard though --- something that allows portability of programs --- this wouldn't stop advanced programmers from writing custom systems, but it would allow 98% of the Forth programs to be standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web