Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #56541 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-01 12:10 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-04-08 01:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 202 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 12:10 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-01 17:06 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 16:37 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 19:21 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 17:16 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:26 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:51 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 18:50 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 19:18 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 21:29 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 22:01 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-02 21:46 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 21:54 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:26 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 08:34 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-01 18:47 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:28 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 04:02 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:39 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-02 15:44 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:56 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:16 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 21:38 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 16:42 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-08 12:41 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 17:31 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 22:03 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:39 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-01 22:56 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:32 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:45 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-02 22:03 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:31 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:35 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:37 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 19:11 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:58 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-02 22:06 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-03 10:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 01:21 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-04-02 13:58 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 11:16 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 19:38 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-02 22:10 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-02 22:02 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 23:48 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 23:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 10:23 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-03 15:56 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-03 20:57 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-03 08:08 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 19:22 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 22:46 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 20:38 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:07 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 00:17 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:41 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-07 20:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 00:15 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 21:45 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-04 02:08 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-07 20:19 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 17:33 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-08 18:45 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 19:03 +0000
Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 08:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-06 03:02 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 15:46 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-07 18:59 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:37 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:31 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 21:45 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-07 20:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:31 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-08 03:01 -0700
Starting Forth (was: Is there a free version ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 12:34 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 15:53 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-09 09:36 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-07 20:30 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 17:51 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 01:22 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 23:01 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-08 23:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:18 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 23:05 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 03:11 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-09 12:24 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-09 14:16 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 13:50 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-10 06:19 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-10 11:20 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 18:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:42 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-11 15:26 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 10:24 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:42 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 11:28 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-09 07:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 14:30 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 16:53 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-09 14:44 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-09 08:19 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 00:26 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 21:39 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 07:47 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 21:51 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:18 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-10 11:41 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-10 07:57 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 12:27 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 15:57 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-04-11 13:24 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 01:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 23:37 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 16:59 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 17:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:32 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 12:09 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 12:18 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 15:54 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 01:47 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:39 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 02:33 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-11 04:12 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:14 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:02 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:24 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:09 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 21:37 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 15:59 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? john <anon@example.com> - 2017-04-12 17:12 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:19 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:54 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 21:12 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:19 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:27 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:32 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:49 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 21:37 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:53 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:25 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:27 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:52 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:53 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 03:51 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:22 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-13 15:59 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:07 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:58 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 02:54 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 18:29 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-09 07:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 08:04 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-09 23:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:00 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-10 09:21 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:49 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-10 10:26 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 03:10 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:55 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-07 12:41 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:48 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-07 21:21 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-04-08 03:28 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 02:39 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 12:45 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 00:26 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 14:38 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:20 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 16:17 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-08 12:49 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 01:01 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 10:06 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-09 19:37 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 16:09 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 17:26 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-09 22:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 22:44 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 18:47 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-10 10:18 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 16:14 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 18:11 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-11 03:21 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:02 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 04:42 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 13:51 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 14:04 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-08 09:10 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-08 12:50 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 21:31 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-07 20:50 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 22:04 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-07 21:22 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:37 -0400
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 20:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oc9car$ss5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56552 |
On 4/1/2017 4:37 PM, Darin Murphy wrote: > > Thanks for replying so quickly. Octal was the only word missing in > gforth in that chapter, but there were other issues with gforth > following chapter 7. The number examples: 12,345, 12/31/80 and > 999-6784 both cause "Undefined Word" error in gForth. Only 12. > will create a double on the stack. The number example $200.00 > creates the double 131072 0 on TOS. The only example that works > is 12. or 0. Also in the later chapters there are other > compatibilities and missing words too, but I don't have time > right now to pick through all of them. Has anyone looked at the text in Starting Forth regarding these issues? I can't find anyplace in the text where they ask you to enter 12,345, The only place I find 12/31/80 is where they are talking about *output*, not input. The book does talk about entering 999-6784 on the command line. After digging around in the standard and in Starting Forth, I realized the book doesn't say these examples can be entered in *any* system. ************** Some Forth implementations (including SwiftForth) will convert any number that contains the following characters as a double number: + , - . / : ************** So this particular shortcoming is about the book, not the Forths. Is there a way to load in some code that will make the examples work? I would also mention that the PDF copy of Starting Forth containing links to go to the various chapters does not take you to the chapters in the document, they take you to the webpage on the Forth Inc web site. I expect this is well known, but I wasn't aware of it. There is another PDF copy of the book, but it simply has no links at all. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 01:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZRWFA.375279$314.116657@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #56829 |
rickman wrote: > > Has anyone looked at the text in Starting Forth regarding these issues? > I can't find anyplace in the text where they ask you to enter 12,345, > The only place I find 12/31/80 is where they are talking about *output*, > not input. The book does talk about entering 999-6784 on the command > line. After digging around in the standard and in Starting Forth, I > realized the book doesn't say these examples can be entered in *any* > system. > > > ************** > > Some Forth implementations (including SwiftForth) will convert any > number that contains the following characters as a double number: > + , - . / : > > ************** > > So this particular shortcoming is about the book, not the Forths. Is > there a way to load in some code that will make the examples work? > > > I would also mention that the PDF copy of Starting Forth containing > links to go to the various chapters does not take you to the chapters in > the document, they take you to the webpage on the Forth Inc web site. I > expect this is well known, but I wasn't aware of it. There is another > PDF copy of the book, but it simply has no links at all. > Hey Rickman, The numbers I am referring are located in 7. A Number of Kinds of Numbers, under Number Formatting — Double-length Unsigned. For instance the UD. word in GForth and the UD. word that your instructed to create to convert 12,345 return the error that 12, is not a defined word. Later down in the chapter it saids: Now let's say we have a phone number on the stack, expressed as a double-length unsigned integer. For example, we may have typed in: 999-6784 (remember that the hyphen tells NUMBER to treat this as a double-length value). We want to define a word that will format this value back as a phone number. This number too will return an error message in Gforth. Now as I was telling Mrs. Conklin/Rather, I'm not upset or trying to cause any trouble by bringing this information up, only that I think that if there was a Forth created, say for education that worked 100% with "Starting Forth", that it would really help new comers (perhaps not experienced programmers) to learn and enjoy Forth for themselves. Take care now, Darin Murphy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 21:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oc9eo8$2ru$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56830 |
On 4/7/2017 9:16 PM, Darin Murpy wrote: > rickman wrote: >> >> Has anyone looked at the text in Starting Forth regarding these issues? >> I can't find anyplace in the text where they ask you to enter 12,345, >> The only place I find 12/31/80 is where they are talking about *output*, >> not input. The book does talk about entering 999-6784 on the command >> line. After digging around in the standard and in Starting Forth, I >> realized the book doesn't say these examples can be entered in *any* >> system. >> >> >> ************** >> >> Some Forth implementations (including SwiftForth) will convert any >> number that contains the following characters as a double number: >> + , - . / : >> >> ************** >> >> So this particular shortcoming is about the book, not the Forths. Is >> there a way to load in some code that will make the examples work? >> >> >> I would also mention that the PDF copy of Starting Forth containing >> links to go to the various chapters does not take you to the chapters in >> the document, they take you to the webpage on the Forth Inc web site. I >> expect this is well known, but I wasn't aware of it. There is another >> PDF copy of the book, but it simply has no links at all. >> > > Hey Rickman, > > The numbers I am referring are located in 7. A Number of Kinds of > Numbers, under Number Formatting — Double-length Unsigned. > > For instance the UD. word in GForth and the UD. word that your > instructed to create to convert 12,345 return the error that 12, is not > a defined word. Later down in the chapter it saids: > > Now let's say we have a phone number on the stack, expressed as a double-length unsigned integer. For example, we may have typed in: > > 999-6784 > > (remember that the hyphen tells NUMBER to treat this as a double-length > value). We want to define a word that will format this value back as a > phone number. > > This number too will return an error message in Gforth. > > Now as I was telling Mrs. Conklin/Rather, I'm not upset or trying to > cause any trouble by bringing this information up, only that I think > that if there was a Forth created, say for education that worked 100% > with "Starting Forth", that it would really help new comers (perhaps not > experienced programmers) to learn and enjoy Forth for themselves. I get what you are saying, but Ms. Conklin has already indicated why they don't want to improve or promote the book, Starting Forth. It is not professional looking enough for the business aspects of Forth, Inc. They have a couple of books that they offer which are more in line with their ideas. I seriously doubt anyone is going to develop a special Forth just for Starting Forth. But once you are done with that and the other books you are reading, maybe you could come up with a package which can be loaded into one of the existing forths to make it adequately compatible for someone to use Starting Forth (other than chapter 3 perhaps)? I haven't read the entire thread in detail, but the two things I found you discuss were the missing word OCTAL and the lack of accepting some of the special characters in double numbers. Ignoring chapter 3, what else have you found? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 16:42 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <NtudnRTFzeWA03XFnZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #56830 |
On 4/7/17 3:16 PM, Darin Murpy wrote: > rickman wrote: >> >> Has anyone looked at the text in Starting Forth regarding these issues? >> I can't find anyplace in the text where they ask you to enter 12,345, >> The only place I find 12/31/80 is where they are talking about *output*, >> not input. The book does talk about entering 999-6784 on the command >> line. After digging around in the standard and in Starting Forth, I >> realized the book doesn't say these examples can be entered in *any* >> system. >> >> >> ************** >> >> Some Forth implementations (including SwiftForth) will convert any >> number that contains the following characters as a double number: >> + , - . / : >> >> ************** Note the caveat, "*Some* Forth implementations...." >> So this particular shortcoming is about the book, not the Forths. Is >> there a way to load in some code that will make the examples work? >> >> >> I would also mention that the PDF copy of Starting Forth containing >> links to go to the various chapters does not take you to the chapters in >> the document, they take you to the webpage on the Forth Inc web site. I >> expect this is well known, but I wasn't aware of it. There is another >> PDF copy of the book, but it simply has no links at all. >> > > Hey Rickman, > > The numbers I am referring are located in 7. A Number of Kinds of > Numbers, under Number Formatting — Double-length Unsigned. > > For instance the UD. word in GForth and the UD. word that your > instructed to create to convert 12,345 return the error that 12, is not > a defined word. Later down in the chapter it saids: > > Now let's say we have a phone number on the stack, expressed as a double-length unsigned integer. For example, we may have typed in: > > 999-6784 > > (remember that the hyphen tells NUMBER to treat this as a double-length > value). We want to define a word that will format this value back as a > phone number. > > This number too will return an error message in Gforth. This is a good example where Starting Forth is really not in agreement with *any* standard. I'm not sure what edition you're using, but the only truly Standard way to enter a double integer is with a decimal point at the trailing end of the string. Different systems may use a decimal point elsewhere to make a float, and may not allow any other punctuation. And European Forths commonly accept a comma in a number for decimal places, since that's standard practice in Europe. Starting Forth was written by Leo Brodie in 1980-81, published in 1982. At the time, Leo worked for FORTH, Inc., who paid for the work. Since the early 70's FORTH, Inc. had followed the practice of allowing punctuation to cause numbers to be converted as doubles. In those days virtually all processors had 16-bit cells, so couldn't even handle things like most zip codes, let alone phone numbers, as single-cell values, so this was very convenient. However, as Forth became more popular in the mid-to-late 80's, other developers didn't follow this practice, and no standard has ever used that rule. Forth, Inc. still accepts embedded punctuation because many of our users have followed this practice for so long they would be very upset if we didn't! > Now as I was telling Mrs. Conklin/Rather, I'm not upset or trying to > cause any trouble by bringing this information up, only that I think > that if there was a Forth created, say for education that worked 100% > with "Starting Forth", that it would really help new comers (perhaps not > experienced programmers) to learn and enjoy Forth for themselves. Are there any educational C compilers that slavishly follow Kernigan & Ritchie's original 1988 book on C? Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth D. Rather FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 12:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-fydnQM1KMUwvXTFnZ2dnUU7-QudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #56830 |
Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> wrote: > > The numbers I am referring are located in 7. A Number of Kinds of > Numbers, under Number Formatting -- Double-length Unsigned. > > For instance the UD. word in GForth and the UD. word that your > instructed to create to convert 12,345 return the error that 12, is not > a defined word. Later down in the chapter it saids: > > Now let's say we have a phone number on the stack, expressed as a double-length unsigned integer. For example, we may have typed in: > > 999-6784 > > (remember that the hyphen tells NUMBER to treat this as a double-length > value). We want to define a word that will format this value back as a > phone number. > > This number too will return an error message in Gforth. $ ~/SwiftForth/bin/linux/sf SwiftForth i386-Linux 3.6.4 21-Mar-2017 12,345 ud. ud. ? 12,345 d. 12345 ok 999-6784 d. 9996784 ok I'm pretty sure this will work on everything Forth, Inc. has ever shipped. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f48379fc-a07d-4d50-adf9-66d327de19f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56541 |
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:10:44 AM UTC-7, Darin Murphy wrote: > nearly finished with "Starting Forth". I like taking my time > to make sure I understand things very well and have already made > a much of small trivial programs outside of the book, including > one that was a tiny rogue game using a only 1 dimensional array > as the screen buffer. It was a blast! "Starting Forth" is a classic, so everybody reads that --- it is not very good though --- I don't know of any Forth books that are any good. I didn't know what structs were after reading "Starting Forth" --- I didn't learn about structs until I learned C, and then I brought the concept back with me to Forth --- there are no books from Forth Inc. that describe structs, most likely because Elizabeth Rather doesn't know what structs are. I would avoid anything from Forth Inc.. You will pick up very bad habits, such as passing data between functions in global variables. You will be taught CREATE DOES> as the primary way to build data-structures, but this assumes that they will be built at compile-time --- most of the time you need to build them at run-time. The best way to learn Forth is to write Forth programs --- you have already done that with your game --- if you post your code I will comment on it for you. It is a mistake to rely too much on books. You end up being able to post code snippets from books, and claiming to be a big expert, but not being able to write programs of your own. Don't turn into this person: On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is > far more useful than the FSL version: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 22:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <854d0343-ca2f-4082-bf51-5efa8387b62e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56557 |
> It is a mistake to rely too much on books. You end up being able to post code snippets from books, and claiming to be a big expert, but not being able to write programs of your own. Don't turn into this person: > > On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is > > far more useful than the FSL version: > > > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; As a novice-level exercise for brave Darin --- write a better array definer than Elizabeth Rather is capable of writing --- explain why it is better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 01:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obq2pm$p6i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56567 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com Wrote in message: > > It is a mistake to rely too much on books. You end up being able to post code snippets from books, and claiming to be a big expert, but not being able to write programs of your own. Don't turn into this person: >> >> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is >> > far more useful than the FSL version: >> > >> > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT >> > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER >> > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; > > As a novice-level exercise for brave Darin --- write a better array definer than Elizabeth Rather is capable of writing --- explain why it is better. > Thanks for your suggestion Hugh. Currently I'm at "Chapter 10. I/O and You". I just checked and Chapter 11 talks about both "CREATE" and "DOES>", so I'll look into creating my version of an array definer when I finish it. Whew it's an incredible journey learning Forth, a lot more than any of the other languages I've studied, and I know that Forth my First and most used language. The second will be Assembly for the ARM processor. Once I've learned enough Forth to be able to get myself in trouble, LOL!!!, I'll be studying ARM Assembly. Those two will be a powerful combo indeed. I did learn 8086 Assembly many years ago, so I understand how binary, bit masking, LShifts/RShifting, Binary Logic, things like that work, just need to understand how ARM Assembly does them. Anyway, Thanks again Hugh for all of your guidance and suggestions. Take care now, -- Darin Murphy ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87vaqn5p4f.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #56570 |
Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> writes: > Once I've learned enough Forth... I'll be studying ARM > Assembly. Those two will be a powerful combo indeed. I did learn 8086 > Assembly many years ago... If you've done Forth and an assembly language already, instead of another assembler (it won't be that much different than the first) I'd try out a higher level language as the next step of your journey. Python is a popular choice these days, or Scheme if you want something with more purity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 12:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obr93l$l0g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56571 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> Wrote in message: > Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> writes: >> Once I've learned enough Forth... I'll be studying ARM >> Assembly. Those two will be a powerful combo indeed. I did learn 8086 >> Assembly many years ago... > > If you've done Forth and an assembly language already, instead of > another assembler (it won't be that much different than the first) I'd > try out a higher level language as the next step of your journey. > Python is a popular choice these days, or Scheme if you want something > with more purity. > Thank you Paul for the suggestion, but I have already studied Python, Javascript and Scheme. Actually, I've studied many different programming languages in my search over the last 37 years to find the, simplest, most extensible, easiest to understand and efficient language . So far Assembly and Forth are it. While Python is very easy to pick up, it is way to inflexible, inextensible, and very, very slow. Javascript, while dominating the internet, is extremely popular and far faster than Python, is still very messy unless you keep to strick practices, also outside of nodeJ is restricted to webpages. Scheme while a "pure" functional language, far more flexible and extensible with it's Macro, than either Javascript or Python it too has its issues, like enforcing parenthesis everywhere, due to it's "polish notation", making it really difficult to type/read, and can be very bloated, very quickly. Finally none of the three you mention can be easily built from assembly to a working OS, Compiler/Interpreter, Assembler, that takes up little space, be easy to pickup/use, and can be completely transformed into whatever language is needed to solve the problem. I understand every language has it's trade off, but the only issue with Forth is it's lack of popularity and libraries, which isn't the fault of the language itself. Forth can be whatever it needs to be period. You can make it object-oriented, functional, even Declarative if you put the time and effort in it. It can run on just about any hardware that has more than a kilobyte or 2 of memory. It is easy to learn and read, unless your trying to make it as cryptic, compared to languages like C, C++, Objective C, even though it's far more flexible, adaptable and extensible and if built for it can also be just as fast, while taking up less space. The only con I can see with Forth is due to it's lack of popularity, which to me means nothing, lack of libraries, again to me means nothing, turmoil in it's ranks of advocators, which has nothing with the language. Now there is still a lot I have to learn about Forth, but I will learn it because I've seen, walked and played in the grass on the side for the last 37 and it's not greener. Take care now. -- Darin Murphy ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 12:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obr9qd$m79$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56593 |
Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> Wrote in message: >> Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> writes: >>> Once I've learned enough Forth... I'll be studying ARM >>> Assembly. Those two will be a powerful combo indeed. I did learn 8086 >>> Assembly many years ago... >> >> If you've done Forth and an assembly language already, instead of >> another assembler (it won't be that much different than the first) I'd >> try out a higher level language as the next step of your journey. >> Python is a popular choice these days, or Scheme if you want something >> with more purity. >> > > Thank you Paul for the suggestion, but I have already studied > Python, Javascript and Scheme. Actually, I've studied many > different programming languages in my search over the last 37 > years to find the, simplest, most extensible, easiest to > understand and efficient language . So far Assembly and Forth > are it. While Python is very easy to pick up, it is way to > inflexible, inextensible, and very, very slow. Javascript, while > dominating the internet, is extremely popular and far faster than > Python, is still very messy unless you keep to strick practices, > also outside of nodeJ is restricted to webpages. Scheme while a > "pure" functional language, far more flexible and extensible with > it's Macro, than either Javascript or Python it too has its > issues, like enforcing parenthesis everywhere, due to it's > "polish notation", making it really difficult to type/read, and > can be very bloated, very quickly. Finally none of the three you > mention can be easily built from assembly to a working OS, > Compiler/Interpreter, Assembler, that takes up little space, be > easy to pickup/use, and can be completely transformed into > whatever language is needed to solve the problem. I understand > every language has it's trade off, but the only issue with Forth > is it's lack of popularity and libraries, which isn't the fault > of the language itself. Forth can be whatever it needs to be > period. You can make it object-oriented, functional, even > Declarative if you put the time and effort in it. It can run on > just about any hardware that has more than a kilobyte or 2 of > memory. It is easy to learn and read, unless your trying to make > it as cryptic, compared to languages like C, C++, Objective C, > even though it's far more flexible, adaptable and extensible and > if built for it can also be just as fast, while taking up less > space. The only con I can see with Forth is due to it's lack of > popularity, which to me means nothing, lack of libraries, again > to me means nothing, turmoil in it's ranks of advocators, which > has nothing with the language. Now there is still a lot I have to > learn about Forth, but I will learn it because I've seen, walked > and played in the grass on the side for the last 37 and it's not > greener. Take care now. > -- > Darin Murphy > > > ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ > Oh! Sorry Paul, I forgot one of con of Forth and that's it lacks updated Tutorials for complete beginners, other than "Starting Forth", which is okay. "Starting Forth" worked flawlessly for me up to Chapter 7, and only there had an issue with having numbers like 12,345 ; 555-555-1212 ; and 10/31/80. It was useful enough for me to understand the stack, how to manipulate it, how the interpreter/compiler works, fixed point arithmetic, how to change the base, how to build my own words from scratch, how loops work, conditional branching, basically the basis of programming. Now I'm learning deeper parts of Forth and loving it. Take care now. -- Darin Murphy ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 22:03 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <KcudnajjLe5PnH_FnZ2dnUU7-UHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #56596 |
On 4/2/17 6:45 AM, Darin Murphy wrote: > Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> Wrote in message: >> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> Wrote in message: >>> Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Once I've learned enough Forth... I'll be studying ARM >>>> Assembly. Those two will be a powerful combo indeed. I did learn 8086 >>>> Assembly many years ago... >>> >>> If you've done Forth and an assembly language already, instead of >>> another assembler (it won't be that much different than the first) I'd >>> try out a higher level language as the next step of your journey. >>> Python is a popular choice these days, or Scheme if you want something >>> with more purity. >>> >> >> Thank you Paul for the suggestion, but I have already studied >> Python, Javascript and Scheme. Actually, I've studied many >> different programming languages in my search over the last 37 >> years to find the, simplest, most extensible, easiest to >> understand and efficient language . So far Assembly and Forth >> are it. While Python is very easy to pick up, it is way to >> inflexible, inextensible, and very, very slow. Javascript, while >> dominating the internet, is extremely popular and far faster than >> Python, is still very messy unless you keep to strick practices, >> also outside of nodeJ is restricted to webpages. Scheme while a >> "pure" functional language, far more flexible and extensible with >> it's Macro, than either Javascript or Python it too has its >> issues, like enforcing parenthesis everywhere, due to it's >> "polish notation", making it really difficult to type/read, and >> can be very bloated, very quickly. Finally none of the three you >> mention can be easily built from assembly to a working OS, >> Compiler/Interpreter, Assembler, that takes up little space, be >> easy to pickup/use, and can be completely transformed into >> whatever language is needed to solve the problem. I understand >> every language has it's trade off, but the only issue with Forth >> is it's lack of popularity and libraries, which isn't the fault >> of the language itself. Forth can be whatever it needs to be >> period. You can make it object-oriented, functional, even >> Declarative if you put the time and effort in it. It can run on >> just about any hardware that has more than a kilobyte or 2 of >> memory. It is easy to learn and read, unless your trying to make >> it as cryptic, compared to languages like C, C++, Objective C, >> even though it's far more flexible, adaptable and extensible and >> if built for it can also be just as fast, while taking up less >> space. The only con I can see with Forth is due to it's lack of >> popularity, which to me means nothing, lack of libraries, again >> to me means nothing, turmoil in it's ranks of advocators, which >> has nothing with the language. Now there is still a lot I have to >> learn about Forth, but I will learn it because I've seen, walked >> and played in the grass on the side for the last 37 and it's not >> greener. Take care now. >> -- >> Darin Murphy >> >> >> ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ >> > > Oh! Sorry Paul, I forgot one of con of Forth and that's it lacks > updated Tutorials for complete beginners, other than "Starting > Forth", which is okay. "Starting Forth" worked flawlessly for me > up to Chapter 7, and only there had an issue with having numbers > like 12,345 ; 555-555-1212 ; and 10/31/80. It was useful enough > for me to understand the stack, how to manipulate it, how the > interpreter/compiler works, fixed point arithmetic, how to change > the base, how to build my own words from scratch, how loops work, > conditional branching, basically the basis of programming. Now > I'm learning deeper parts of Forth and loving it. Take care now. "Forth Application Techniques" is aimed at complete beginners in Forth, but assumes basic computer knowledge (meaning of "cell", "byte", "memory address", etc.). It is much more consistent with current Forths (Forth94 and later). Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 20:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? |
| Message-ID | <ocon6f$1br7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56593 |
On 4/2/2017, Darin Murphy wrote: > While Python is very easy to pick up, it is way to > inflexible way too inflexible Understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 20:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? |
| Message-ID | <oconef$1c9v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56593 |
On 4/2/2017, Darin Murphy wrote: > lack of libraries, again > to me means nothing In other words, you are are not interested in programming a computer; you are interested only in programming embedded controllers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 20:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? |
| Message-ID | <oconho$1ce3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56593 |
On 4/2/2017, Darin Murphy wrote: > like enforcing parenthesis everywhere, due to it's > "polish notation" Not "it's", but "its". Understand? It's amazing that you are unaware that Forth uses reverse Polish notation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 19:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? |
| Message-ID | <2aa763f5-af4b-4796-8220-ea0bc0058af0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57262 |
Den torsdag 13 april 2017 kl. 22:37:17 UTC+2 skrev Robert L.: > On 4/2/2017, Darin Murphy wrote: > > > like enforcing parenthesis everywhere, due to it's > > "polish notation" > > Not "it's", but "its". > > Understand? > > It's amazing that you are unaware that Forth uses > reverse Polish notation. Polish notation use parenthesis, but revers Polish notation doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 12:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obrado$jd7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56570 |
On 4/2/2017 1:39 AM, Darin Murphy wrote: > hughaguilar96@gmail.com Wrote in message: >>> It is a mistake to rely too much on books. You end up being able to post code snippets from books, and claiming to be a big expert, but not being able to write programs of your own. Don't turn into this person: >>> >>> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>> Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is >>>> far more useful than the FSL version: >>>> >>>> : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT >>>> DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER >>>> 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; >> >> As a novice-level exercise for brave Darin --- write a better array definer than Elizabeth Rather is capable of writing --- explain why it is better. >> > > Thanks for your suggestion Hugh. Currently I'm at "Chapter 10. I/O > and You". I just checked and Chapter 11 talks about both "CREATE" > and "DOES>", so I'll look into creating my version of an array > definer when I finish it. Whew it's an incredible journey > learning Forth, a lot more than any of the other languages I've > studied, and I know that Forth my First and most used language. > The second will be Assembly for the ARM processor. Once I've > learned enough Forth to be able to get myself in trouble, LOL!!!, > I'll be studying ARM Assembly. Those two will be a powerful combo > indeed. I did learn 8086 Assembly many years ago, so I understand > how binary, bit masking, LShifts/RShifting, Binary Logic, things > like that work, just need to understand how ARM Assembly does > them. Anyway, Thanks again Hugh for all of your guidance and > suggestions. Take care now, It has been a very long time since I read "Starting Forth". With the help of folks in this group I created a small library of array creating words that I use each time I write a significant program in Forth. However, I am not so fluent in the language that I recall the details of how these library words work. So each time I end up improving my documentation, lol. Hugh may seem at times as mad as a hatter, but he *is* very knowledgeable in Forth. He has written a "novice" package which would be good material for you to go through after you have finished your books. You may not want to use every feature in his library, but from what he says it seems like it shows many useful features and can show you how real code is written, not just teaching examples. Just a thought. I assume every other comment in his novice package isn't a slam against Forth, Inc. Elizabeth Rather or the Forth technical committee. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 22:06 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <KcudnavjLe4dn3_FnZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #56598 |
On 4/2/17 6:58 AM, rickman wrote: > On 4/2/2017 1:39 AM, Darin Murphy wrote: >> hughaguilar96@gmail.com Wrote in message: >>>> It is a mistake to rely too much on books. You end up being able to >>>> post code snippets from books, and claiming to be a big expert, but >>>> not being able to write programs of your own. Don't turn into this >>>> person: >>>> >>>> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather >>>> wrote: >>>>> Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application >>>>> Techniques that I think is >>>>> far more useful than the FSL version: >>>>> >>>>> : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT >>>>> DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER >>>>> 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; >>> >>> As a novice-level exercise for brave Darin --- write a better array >>> definer than Elizabeth Rather is capable of writing --- explain why >>> it is better. >>> >> >> Thanks for your suggestion Hugh. Currently I'm at "Chapter 10. I/O >> and You". I just checked and Chapter 11 talks about both "CREATE" >> and "DOES>", so I'll look into creating my version of an array >> definer when I finish it. Whew it's an incredible journey >> learning Forth, a lot more than any of the other languages I've >> studied, and I know that Forth my First and most used language. >> The second will be Assembly for the ARM processor. Once I've >> learned enough Forth to be able to get myself in trouble, LOL!!!, >> I'll be studying ARM Assembly. Those two will be a powerful combo >> indeed. I did learn 8086 Assembly many years ago, so I understand >> how binary, bit masking, LShifts/RShifting, Binary Logic, things >> like that work, just need to understand how ARM Assembly does >> them. Anyway, Thanks again Hugh for all of your guidance and >> suggestions. Take care now, > > It has been a very long time since I read "Starting Forth". With the > help of folks in this group I created a small library of array creating > words that I use each time I write a significant program in Forth. > However, I am not so fluent in the language that I recall the details of > how these library words work. So each time I end up improving my > documentation, lol. > > Hugh may seem at times as mad as a hatter, but he *is* very > knowledgeable in Forth. He has written a "novice" package which would > be good material for you to go through after you have finished your > books. You may not want to use every feature in his library, but from > what he says it seems like it shows many useful features and can show > you how real code is written, not just teaching examples. Just a thought. > > I assume every other comment in his novice package isn't a slam against > Forth, Inc. Elizabeth Rather or the Forth technical committee. From what I've seen of it, it seems to be attempting to generalize imaginary application requirements, none of which have been relevant in any of the applications I've worked on in the last 40 years. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 10:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a997b32-fa13-40e4-96bb-5d4c411460fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56646 |
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 1:06:30 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 4/2/17 6:58 AM, rickman wrote: > > On 4/2/2017 1:39 AM, Darin Murphy wrote: > >> hughaguilar96@gmail.com Wrote in message: > >>>> It is a mistake to rely too much on books. You end up being able to > >>>> post code snippets from books, and claiming to be a big expert, but > >>>> not being able to write programs of your own. Don't turn into this > >>>> person: > >>>> > >>>> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application > >>>>> Techniques that I think is > >>>>> far more useful than the FSL version: > >>>>> > >>>>> : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > >>>>> DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > >>>>> 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; > >>> > >>> As a novice-level exercise for brave Darin --- write a better array > >>> definer than Elizabeth Rather is capable of writing --- explain why > >>> it is better. > >> > >> Thanks for your suggestion Hugh. ... > > Hugh may seem at times as mad as a hatter, but he *is* very > > knowledgeable in Forth. He has written a "novice" package which would > > be good material for you to go through after you have finished your > > books. You may not want to use every feature in his library, but from > > what he says it seems like it shows many useful features and can show > > you how real code is written, not just teaching examples. Just a thought. I can never tell whether Rickman's comments are supposed to be sarcastic or humorous --- and I don't care --- I just wish that he would go away. > From what I've seen of it, it seems to be attempting to generalize > imaginary application requirements, none of which have been relevant in > any of the applications I've worked on in the last 40 years. The novice package is all about general-purpose data-structures. All programs need this, and have for 30 years. Going back 40 years (to the 1970s) however, this wasn't done very much (it was only done on mini-computers such as the DEC PDP-11 that had 64KB or even 128KB but cost tens of thousands of dollars). Elizabeth Rather's background in programming is COBOL that didn't support code libraries. Also, in the 1970s personal computers hadn't been invented yet, but micro-controllers of the day had such a small amount of memory and lack of addressing modes that they couldn't support code-libraries. It seems to be news to you, but the world has changed since the 1970s --- Charles Moore's design decisions prior to getting kicked out of Forth Inc. in 1982 ceased to be relevant in the late 1980s (the Commodore-64 had 64KB of RAM and could support pretty big and complicated programs) --- ANS-Forth that came out in 1994 was basically 1970s technology; it was a weird anachronism with no practical value. Also, it seems to be news to you that the array isn't the only data-structure available. You said: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Virtually every Forth application needs some kind of array structures. The reason that some general-purpose one might be "little used" is because it's so easy to make a version that does *exactly* what the application needs rather than some generic definition. ... The objective is to master the toolset and be able to think clearly about exactly what kind of arrays will be useful in your application and then build exactly that kind. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Arrays are only useful in certain programs. They are almost always built at compile-time. Darin's game is an example; his array represents the screen. My LowDraw.4th program is another example (actually the only novice-package example of using an array); my array held all the probabilities for all the possible poker hands. It is not a coincidence that LowDraw.4th was my first-ever ANS-Forth program --- this is pretty novice-level programming --- I was starting out with something easy. Most programs build a data-structure at run-time. It is not known at compile-time how big the data-structure will be. My LIST.4TH and ASSOCIATION.4TH are for this purpose. It is possible that arrays could be built at run-time (I have LIST>ARRAY that creates an array of pointers to nodes in the list) --- this might be useful if the data is to be sorted by multiple keys (one array for each key) --- if the data is to be sorted by only one key though, then ASSOCIATION.4TH would be a better choice (it provides ordered access; it is an LLRB tree internally). Programming is all about data! People need data-structures! This has been true for 30+ years, and will continue to be true forever. You and your sycophants can tell me every day that I'm utterly incompetent as a Forth programmer --- you are just making yourself look foolish --- my public-domain novice-package is certainly intermediate-level Forth, and my work experience in Forth is arguably advanced-level. This is you making a slight upgrade to a code snippet from the "Starting Forth" book, and screwing it up: On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is > far more useful than the FSL version: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; You really aren't any good at Forth programming!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 01:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obvabs$5hi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56673 |
On 4/3/2017 1:49 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 1:06:30 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather > wrote: >> On 4/2/17 6:58 AM, rickman wrote: >>> On 4/2/2017 1:39 AM, Darin Murphy wrote: >>>> hughaguilar96@gmail.com Wrote in message: >>>>>> It is a mistake to rely too much on books. You end up being >>>>>> able to post code snippets from books, and claiming to be a >>>>>> big expert, but not being able to write programs of your >>>>>> own. Don't turn into this person: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. >>>>>> Rather wrote: >>>>>>> Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth >>>>>>> Application Techniques that I think is far more useful >>>>>>> than the FSL version: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT DOES> ( n -- >>>>>>> a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" >>>>>>> CELLS + ; >>>>> >>>>> As a novice-level exercise for brave Darin --- write a better >>>>> array definer than Elizabeth Rather is capable of writing --- >>>>> explain why it is better. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your suggestion Hugh. ... >>> Hugh may seem at times as mad as a hatter, but he *is* very >>> knowledgeable in Forth. He has written a "novice" package which >>> would be good material for you to go through after you have >>> finished your books. You may not want to use every feature in >>> his library, but from what he says it seems like it shows many >>> useful features and can show you how real code is written, not >>> just teaching examples. Just a thought. > > I can never tell whether Rickman's comments are supposed to be > sarcastic or humorous --- and I don't care --- I just wish that he > would go away. I was being sincere which I am sure bothers you as much as if I were being sardonic. Oddly enough, I don't actually wish you would go away. I only wish you could be a bit more normal and not express your obsessions about every little slight being a conspiracy and your compulsions to constantly attack a few (or is it most) people here. There is no doubt in my mind that you are insane, but that isn't really saying a lot in this group. lol -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web