Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #57064 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-11 13:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-14 11:26 +1000 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 77 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 13:49 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 17:11 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:40 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 18:17 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 15:26 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 19:11 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-11 13:13 -1000
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 06:11 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-11 13:12 -1000
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 16:38 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 16:46 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 17:17 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 17:45 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 04:27 -0500
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 06:13 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-14 10:23 -1000
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 20:17 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 17:35 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 20:43 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 17:47 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 18:36 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:35 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-12 17:27 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-13 03:06 +0200
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-12 21:06 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 20:00 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 06:44 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-13 15:44 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 14:04 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 11:08 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 13:23 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-14 22:42 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-14 22:38 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-15 13:44 +0200
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 10:28 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-14 22:24 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-15 13:54 +0200
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:02 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:40 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 10:28 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 22:12 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 23:37 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 15:31 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 20:43 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 18:14 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 21:49 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-04-16 20:20 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-16 20:41 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-04-17 09:03 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-16 20:49 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-04-17 09:25 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-17 16:32 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-17 22:19 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-18 13:51 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 02:15 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-19 10:54 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-19 11:03 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-17 12:37 -1000
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 17:18 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-16 09:07 +0100
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 23:26 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:47 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 19:53 -0400
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 19:03 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:45 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-12 01:15 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:51 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 18:47 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 01:19 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:57 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-12 09:14 +0000
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:00 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-04-13 10:15 +1000
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-04-13 13:17 +1000
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 06:46 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 05:59 -0700
Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-04-14 11:26 +1000
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 23:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ock6jn$33k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57081 |
On 4/11/2017 8:47 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:43:59 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: >> On 4/11/2017 8:35 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:17:17 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: >>>> On 4/11/2017 7:38 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It was free to vote or not, and 21 forthers are not too small >>>>> compared to c.l.f. You should not remind me of statistics, since this >>>>> is an area of my practical interest :) >>>> >>>> You may know something of statistics, but I doubt you know very much >>>> about surveys. >>>> >>>> You asked some people to respond to a survey which some did. But the >>>> survey means nothing without interpretation. So anyone can interpret >>>> the results as they choose. >>>> >>> >>> This is why I'm asking interpretation here. >> >> I don't see any special significance to your data. It was a small group >> self-selected and the questions don't have a lot of context. I can >> assign at least three different interpretations to the four people who >> selected "We will wait and see". >> >> That's the trouble with polls. The intended meaning of the questions >> can be very different from the meaning understood by the subjects. >> >> -- >> >> Rick C > > List your question/answers and I will create a new survey. You are confused. I don't have a survey. The survey is yours. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d798fa3-28d9-4d00-b9d5-43490b1c44b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57090 |
среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 6:26:43 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: > On 4/11/2017 8:47 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:43:59 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: > >> On 4/11/2017 8:35 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >>> среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:17:17 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: > >>>> On 4/11/2017 7:38 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> It was free to vote or not, and 21 forthers are not too small > >>>>> compared to c.l.f. You should not remind me of statistics, since this > >>>>> is an area of my practical interest :) > >>>> > >>>> You may know something of statistics, but I doubt you know very much > >>>> about surveys. > >>>> > >>>> You asked some people to respond to a survey which some did. But the > >>>> survey means nothing without interpretation. So anyone can interpret > >>>> the results as they choose. > >>>> > >>> > >>> This is why I'm asking interpretation here. > >> > >> I don't see any special significance to your data. It was a small group > >> self-selected and the questions don't have a lot of context. I can > >> assign at least three different interpretations to the four people who > >> selected "We will wait and see". > >> > >> That's the trouble with polls. The intended meaning of the questions > >> can be very different from the meaning understood by the subjects. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Rick C > > > > List your question/answers and I will create a new survey. > > You are confused. I don't have a survey. The survey is yours. If you unhappy with presented information, you should suggest a survey adequate from your point of view. I did a certain work, you are about to accept results or suggest your improvements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 19:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocmefu$4bl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57188 |
On 4/12/2017 7:47 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 6:26:43 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: >> On 4/11/2017 8:47 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:43:59 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: >>>> On 4/11/2017 8:35 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>>>> среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:17:17 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: >>>>>> On 4/11/2017 7:38 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It was free to vote or not, and 21 forthers are not too small >>>>>>> compared to c.l.f. You should not remind me of statistics, since this >>>>>>> is an area of my practical interest :) >>>>>> >>>>>> You may know something of statistics, but I doubt you know very much >>>>>> about surveys. >>>>>> >>>>>> You asked some people to respond to a survey which some did. But the >>>>>> survey means nothing without interpretation. So anyone can interpret >>>>>> the results as they choose. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is why I'm asking interpretation here. >>>> >>>> I don't see any special significance to your data. It was a small group >>>> self-selected and the questions don't have a lot of context. I can >>>> assign at least three different interpretations to the four people who >>>> selected "We will wait and see". >>>> >>>> That's the trouble with polls. The intended meaning of the questions >>>> can be very different from the meaning understood by the subjects. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Rick C >>> >>> List your question/answers and I will create a new survey. >> >> You are confused. I don't have a survey. The survey is yours. > > If you unhappy with presented information, you should suggest a survey adequate from your point of view. I did a certain work, you are about to accept results or suggest your improvements. You posted the results of your poll and asked for comments. Nowhere did you suggest I would be obligated to help you with the design of a new poll. > Comments? Remember that? If you don't care for my comments feel free to ignore them. You are under no obligation to help me improve my comments. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33653519-dae8-4e1b-97c5-a8143c87c55a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57076 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-5, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:17:17 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: > > On 4/11/2017 7:38 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > > You may know something of statistics, but I doubt you know very much > > about surveys. > > > > You asked some people to respond to a survey which some did. But the > > survey means nothing without interpretation. So anyone can interpret > > the results as they choose. > > > > This is why I'm asking interpretation here. You're a little bit confused. I have some experience here. I surveyed four men on the street once with a simple one-question survey: Question: "Would you like to be punched in the face?" Their answers: 3 to "No" 1 to "Yes" Of course I was astounded. Did these answers suggest that 1/4th of American men secretly desire to be punched? But then I received this explanation for the 'yes': I want you to punch me SO THAT I CAN THEN BEAT THE EVER-LIVING SHIT OUT OF YOU, ASSHOLE This is when I learned an important lesson about surveys, public polls, etc., which I'm happy to impart to you: ambiguity is not in the answer, but in the question. I believed myself to only be asking if people would like a punch in the face--nothing but that. This gentleman believed somehow that I would be the one punching him and that he would then have an opportunity to retaliate -- none of that was in the question! If you dig into public opinion analysis, you'll find it's always like this. How this bears on standards is obvious: how much of an annoyance are the changes in the standard? How desirable are the benefits? Leaving these factors out of your question don't result in a question that actually omits them--instead you have a question that silently includes different versions of them, depending on the answerer. A fun presentation that doesn't much relate to what I just said, Public Opinion for Libertarians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIlJwW4311Q
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edaefa22-e5bd-48ee-8668-c333470415b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57086 |
среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 5:03:13 UTC+3 пользователь Julian Fondren написал: > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:35:02 PM UTC-5, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 3:17:17 UTC+3 пользователь rickman написал: > > > On 4/11/2017 7:38 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > > > > You may know something of statistics, but I doubt you know very much > > > about surveys. > > > > > > You asked some people to respond to a survey which some did. But the > > > survey means nothing without interpretation. So anyone can interpret > > > the results as they choose. > > > > > > > This is why I'm asking interpretation here. > > You're a little bit confused. I have some experience here. I surveyed > four men on the street once with a simple one-question survey: > > Question: "Would you like to be punched in the face?" > > Their answers: > 3 to "No" > 1 to "Yes" > > Of course I was astounded. Did these answers suggest that 1/4th of > American men secretly desire to be punched? > > But then I received this explanation for the 'yes': > > I want you to punch me SO THAT I CAN THEN BEAT THE EVER-LIVING SHIT > OUT OF YOU, ASSHOLE I'm not surprised here at all! :))))) > This is when I learned an important lesson about surveys, public > polls, etc., which I'm happy to impart to you: ambiguity is not in the > answer, but in the question. I believed myself to only be asking if > people would like a punch in the face--nothing but that. This > gentleman believed somehow that I would be the one punching him and > that he would then have an opportunity to retaliate -- none of that > was in the question! If you dig into public opinion analysis, you'll > find it's always like this. Of course, it is clear. Direct questions rarely leads to adequate answers, because of too many stereotypes in people's mind. For your example, you thought you are suggesting just action, but indeed it was a whole situation with reasons and aftermaths. In the street, the question may be interpreted as 'if someone attacks you, will you run, defend or give him your money?'. In the martial arts training hall, interpretations will be different. I'm sure my trainer probably answer: 'of course yes, this will allow me to catch your hand and throw you away'. > How this bears on standards is obvious: how much of an annoyance are > the changes in the standard? How desirable are the benefits? Leaving > these factors out of your question don't result in a question that > actually omits them--instead you have a question that silently > includes different versions of them, depending on the answerer. There is an important note: all answers were listed based on threads already taken. I don't exclude any opinion appeared before (I hope). > A fun presentation that doesn't much relate to what I just said, > Public Opinion for Libertarians: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIlJwW4311Q Thanks, this is interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 01:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bfcf6ef-37fb-492c-abcf-38d23afc6e66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57072 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 12:38:55 AM UTC+1, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > This is useless unless we know (a) who conducted the study, and (b) who > > the participants were. I suspect Russians may have a different attitude > > toward industry standards than Americans and Europeans. > > a) Currently I'm an owner of that resource and this is my survey > b) This is unofficial forum of forthers in Russia. No bots allowed, all accounts must be approved manually > > Yes, in Russia standards means more than in USA/Europe. USSR technical school was based on the mandatory State Standards with detailed hierarchy and following Standards was a federal law (when applicable). However, content were not defined strict, with focus on requirements to issued documents. I.e. no statement like 'every program must use Alt-X to quit', but 'every input and output must be described'. State Standard 19.506-79 describes a required chapters for programming language documentation, but not forces any language features. Currently, any particular document with a status 'internal Standard of organization' means more in Russia, than any ANS. ISO, IEEE and some other Standards may be applied, but not ANS. > > > Much too small a group to be statistically significant. > > It was free to vote or not, and 21 forthers are not too small compared to c.l.f. You should not remind me of statistics, since this is an area of my practical interest :) If only acceptable result for you is '1000 forthers in Russia are waiting to start programming in Forth, and needs only new version of ANS', this is certainly not true. Thanks for this - interesting data. At least the best data I have seen for a long time. You triggered an interesting discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4ec85f5-b7f2-406c-a148-f42857329ac6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57120 |
среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 11:15:35 UTC+3 пользователь JUERGEN написал: > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 12:38:55 AM UTC+1, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > This is useless unless we know (a) who conducted the study, and (b) who > > > the participants were. I suspect Russians may have a different attitude > > > toward industry standards than Americans and Europeans. > > > > a) Currently I'm an owner of that resource and this is my survey > > b) This is unofficial forum of forthers in Russia. No bots allowed, all accounts must be approved manually > > > > Yes, in Russia standards means more than in USA/Europe. USSR technical school was based on the mandatory State Standards with detailed hierarchy and following Standards was a federal law (when applicable). However, content were not defined strict, with focus on requirements to issued documents. I.e. no statement like 'every program must use Alt-X to quit', but 'every input and output must be described'. State Standard 19.506-79 describes a required chapters for programming language documentation, but not forces any language features. Currently, any particular document with a status 'internal Standard of organization' means more in Russia, than any ANS. ISO, IEEE and some other Standards may be applied, but not ANS. > > > > > Much too small a group to be statistically significant. > > > > It was free to vote or not, and 21 forthers are not too small compared to c.l.f. You should not remind me of statistics, since this is an area of my practical interest :) If only acceptable result for you is '1000 forthers in Russia are waiting to start programming in Forth, and needs only new version of ANS', this is certainly not true. > > Thanks for this - interesting data. At least the best data I have seen for a long time. You triggered an interesting discussion. You are welcomed to suggest ideas, I can start a new survey, if you need a statistics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a097e386-70fe-4378-9f60-fbc7ff2d1804@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57064 |
Den tisdag 11 april 2017 kl. 22:49:31 UTC+2 skrev Ilya Tarasov: > 12 Mar 2010 a short survey was started at: > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2510 > > Summary (not in exact order, but grouped by professionals/hobbyists) > > Question was; what you will do with new Standard? > > Professionals: > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > 2. Will try to adopt - 1 vote > 3. My projects has highest priority - 5 votes > 4. We will wait and see - 4 votes > > Hobbyists: > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > 2. Will try to adopt - 9 votes > 3. My expectations has highest priority - 2 votes > > Comments? Rather natural conservatism. Since it do exist a standard why not stick to it until there are reasons not to?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 01:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee0d1e3d-9615-48c5-b87f-6e0583e9fdcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57064 |
On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 21:49:31 UTC+1, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > 12 Mar 2010 a short survey was started at: > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2510 > > Summary (not in exact order, but grouped by professionals/hobbyists) > > Question was; what you will do with new Standard? > > Professionals: > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > 2. Will try to adopt - 1 vote > 3. My projects has highest priority - 5 votes > 4. We will wait and see - 4 votes > > Hobbyists: > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > 2. Will try to adopt - 9 votes > 3. My expectations has highest priority - 2 votes > > Comments? It doesn't say very much IMO. The majority of Forth systems would be say 80%V compliant (with core) without even trying. Full core compliancy may be possible with an additional "2012 harness" written in high-level code. Therefore, what it says to me is that users are not necessarily refusing to adopt the standard, just that they don't see it as that big of a deal. That seems like a reasonable attitude. If you are designing an air quality monitor to sit on top of a pole at the side of the motorway with, say, a minimum 10 year operational expectancy then does compliance to the/any standard really matter, as long as it works? However, if you're part of a multi-person team writing a system to monitor an airport, as Forth Inc. did, then it most certainly matters. Most folks these days are using Forth for the air quality monitors. Or Suduko :-) Nobody is building airport monitoring systems in Forth anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0f49c52-71aa-4229-8b47-28cd35b5fbd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57121 |
среда, 12 апреля 2017 г., 11:19:37 UTC+3 пользователь Mark Wills написал: > On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 21:49:31 UTC+1, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > 12 Mar 2010 a short survey was started at: > > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2510 > > > > Summary (not in exact order, but grouped by professionals/hobbyists) > > > > Question was; what you will do with new Standard? > > > > Professionals: > > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > > 2. Will try to adopt - 1 vote > > 3. My projects has highest priority - 5 votes > > 4. We will wait and see - 4 votes > > > > Hobbyists: > > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > > 2. Will try to adopt - 9 votes > > 3. My expectations has highest priority - 2 votes > > > > Comments? > > It doesn't say very much IMO. The majority of Forth systems would > be say 80%V compliant (with core) without even trying. Full core > compliancy may be possible with an additional "2012 harness" written > in high-level code. Therefore, what it says to me is that users are > not necessarily refusing to adopt the standard, just that they > don't see it as that big of a deal. > > That seems like a reasonable attitude. If you are designing an air > quality monitor to sit on top of a pole at the side of the motorway > with, say, a minimum 10 year operational expectancy then does > compliance to the/any standard really matter, as long as it works? > > However, if you're part of a multi-person team writing a system to > monitor an airport, as Forth Inc. did, then it most certainly matters. > > Most folks these days are using Forth for the air quality monitors. > > Or Suduko :-) > > Nobody is building airport monitoring systems in Forth anymore. For a team of 5-6 programmers, we are narrowing used core words as much as possible. For a team, mixed organization matrix usually recommended - this means you have a dedicated programmer for critical parts or for GUI etc. With properly planned project, programmers are not tend to use 'strange' or 'rare' words just to show their skills. For leading programmers, building an additional functionality is simple enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 09:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr12.111406@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #57064 |
Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> writes:
>12 Mar 2010 a short survey was started at:
>http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2510
>
>Summary (not in exact order, but grouped by professionals/hobbyists)
>
>Question was; what you will do with new Standard?
>
>Professionals:
>1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes
>2. Will try to adopt - 1 vote
>3. My projects has highest priority - 5 votes
>4. We will wait and see - 4 votes
>
>Hobbyists:
>1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes
>2. Will try to adopt - 9 votes
>3. My expectations has highest priority - 2 votes
>
>Comments?
I assume that Forth-2012 is meant. For programmers, sounds like
sensible attitudes. Since we strove not to break existing programs,
there is no hurry in using Forth-2012 in programs. In any case, first
system implementors need to implement the new features before
programmers can make use of them.
I find it interesting that you repeatedly portrayed Russian Fora as
being infested by standard fanatics, but that is not reflected in this
survey.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 17:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f66a9e18-660f-4c8c-9e31-8d7aa7f73e78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57133 |
> > I find it interesting that you repeatedly portrayed Russian Fora as > being infested by standard fanatics, but that is not reflected in this > survey. It was one of survey goals. Indeed, standard fanatics just produce a lot of noise and trying to block a practical activity, other than based on standard. Their goals are unclear, because they appears to not to write any program.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 10:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ocmfvu$1t9d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57064 |
Ilya Tarasov wrote: > 12 Mar 2010 a short survey was started at: > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2510 > > Summary (not in exact order, but grouped by professionals/hobbyists) > > Question was; what you will do with new Standard? > > Professionals: > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > 2. Will try to adopt - 1 vote > 3. My projects has highest priority - 5 votes > 4. We will wait and see - 4 votes > > Hobbyists: > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > 2. Will try to adopt - 9 votes > 3. My expectations has highest priority - 2 votes > > Comments? Which "new Standard"? There's the 'draft proposed 200x' that's ongoing, unreleased and subject to change, and there's the released 'Forth 2012' whose status as a standard is at best in doubt. Without something definitive for participants to vote on, you may as well be asking 'Do you believe in God?'. In that case, the results are much as expected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 13:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ocmqlb$bev$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57193 |
HAA wrote: > Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > 12 Mar 2010 a short survey was started at: > > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2510 > > > > Summary (not in exact order, but grouped by professionals/hobbyists) > > > > Question was; what you will do with new Standard? > > > > Professionals: > > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > > 2. Will try to adopt - 1 vote > > 3. My projects has highest priority - 5 votes > > 4. We will wait and see - 4 votes > > > > Hobbyists: > > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > > 2. Will try to adopt - 9 votes > > 3. My expectations has highest priority - 2 votes > > > > Comments? > > Which "new Standard"? There's the 'draft proposed 200x' that's ongoing, > unreleased and subject to change, and there's the released 'Forth 2012' > whose status as a standard is at best in doubt. Without something definitive > for participants to vote on, you may as well be asking 'Do you believe in God?'. > In that case, the results are much as expected. Just noticed the survey was taken in 2010 and it wasn't a typo :(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6b79038-3a0e-487c-ae09-a9dceffd5290@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57206 |
четверг, 13 апреля 2017 г., 6:18:07 UTC+3 пользователь HAA написал: > HAA wrote: > > Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > 12 Mar 2010 a short survey was started at: > > > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2510 > > > > > > Summary (not in exact order, but grouped by professionals/hobbyists) > > > > > > Question was; what you will do with new Standard? > > > > > > Professionals: > > > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > > > 2. Will try to adopt - 1 vote > > > 3. My projects has highest priority - 5 votes > > > 4. We will wait and see - 4 votes > > > > > > Hobbyists: > > > 1. Will switch to it immediately - 0 votes > > > 2. Will try to adopt - 9 votes > > > 3. My expectations has highest priority - 2 votes > > > > > > Comments? > > > > Which "new Standard"? There's the 'draft proposed 200x' that's ongoing, > > unreleased and subject to change, and there's the released 'Forth 2012' > > whose status as a standard is at best in doubt. Without something definitive > > for participants to vote on, you may as well be asking 'Do you believe in God?'. > > In that case, the results are much as expected. > > Just noticed the survey was taken in 2010 and it wasn't a typo :( So what? Yes, it is 7 years ago, so we can look at results and evaluate is it was mistake or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25fb9e80-1d80-4bb0-941d-3512062d4102@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57193 |
четверг, 13 апреля 2017 г., 3:16:03 UTC+3 пользователь HAA написал: > Which "new Standard"? There's the 'draft proposed 200x' that's ongoing, > unreleased and subject to change, and there's the released 'Forth 2012' > whose status as a standard is at best in doubt. Without something definitive > for participants to vote on, you may as well be asking 'Do you believe in God?'. > In that case, the results are much as expected. RuFS - Russian Forth Standard. Even in this case, with participation for most active users and ability to optimize it to real demands, a half of programmers told 'we rather architect our own modification if needed'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 11:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ocp8ib$2v2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57230 |
Ilya Tarasov wrote: > ???????, 13 ?????? 2017 ?., 3:16:03 UTC+3 ???????????? HAA ???????: > > Which "new Standard"? There's the 'draft proposed 200x' that's ongoing, > > unreleased and subject to change, and there's the released 'Forth 2012' > > whose status as a standard is at best in doubt. Without something definitive > > for participants to vote on, you may as well be asking 'Do you believe in God?'. > > In that case, the results are much as expected. > > RuFS - Russian Forth Standard. Even in this case, with participation for most active > users and ability to optimize it to real demands, a half of programmers told 'we rather > architect our own modification if needed'. Yes because traditionally Forth programmers are more intimate with the workings of the language and have the means to change it. Such is the expectation of Forth users, vendors feel obliged to offer sources for those who want them.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web