Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #56164 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-23 02:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-05-11 20:59 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-03-23 02:17 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 00:27 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-23 11:50 +0000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-23 12:34 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 10:56 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM mentificium@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 05:25 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 19:23 -0400
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM john <anon@example.com> - 2017-05-03 10:54 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM mentificium@gmail.com - 2017-05-04 05:28 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 17:46 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 18:49 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-03-24 22:09 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 20:47 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-25 10:49 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 12:39 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 02:07 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-10 11:23 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-10 16:29 -1000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-11 13:39 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-11 16:01 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-11 21:41 -1000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-12 03:18 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-12 19:12 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 19:15 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:01 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-16 17:59 -0400
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 16:57 -0400
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-26 02:28 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 17:44 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-13 00:21 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:15 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-13 00:30 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-13 04:43 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-13 12:51 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-13 08:47 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 09:57 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-13 18:26 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-13 10:59 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:36 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-14 00:33 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 12:04 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-14 11:45 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-14 12:02 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 14:22 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-05-14 23:08 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 14:12 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-14 12:25 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-14 14:48 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-15 00:24 -0400
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 00:14 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 00:17 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 00:30 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 09:54 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 02:27 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-05-15 00:24 -0400
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-15 09:53 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-15 16:31 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 11:43 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 15:47 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 20:06 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 12:05 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-16 15:00 +0000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 10:52 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-16 19:33 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-16 21:11 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-16 21:25 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-17 07:48 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 10:50 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 19:27 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 11:42 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 20:22 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 13:01 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 13:01 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 14:09 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 07:00 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 22:15 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 22:21 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 08:04 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:10 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 08:19 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:29 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 08:44 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 01:13 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 10:02 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 01:29 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 11:34 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 03:56 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-18 09:44 +0000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-18 09:42 +0000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 03:59 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-18 13:01 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:26 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-18 09:37 +0000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-18 08:16 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-18 11:04 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 19:41 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-16 21:05 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 11:21 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 20:32 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 19:35 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 11:06 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 19:30 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 12:02 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-17 20:41 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:17 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-17 20:58 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 10:46 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-18 08:43 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 16:00 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 01:47 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 13:03 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 17:51 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-21 07:51 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 00:11 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-21 17:46 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 10:34 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-21 20:57 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-18 04:08 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 10:51 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 05:15 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 14:51 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 09:18 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-18 21:15 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 19:49 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-05-19 07:10 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-19 07:42 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:59 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 18:48 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-19 12:40 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 20:57 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-20 03:42 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 02:00 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 10:15 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 13:34 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 02:01 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-20 13:18 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-19 17:06 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:31 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-19 17:02 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:18 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 09:34 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-18 16:40 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-18 08:12 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 02:30 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 18:57 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 14:01 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-05-21 19:55 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 11:57 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 12:41 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:02 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 14:43 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 16:32 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 18:46 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-22 07:05 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:45 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-23 22:02 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 01:00 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-05-24 14:07 +0100
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 22:14 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-05-16 18:48 -1000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 15:06 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 12:16 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 12:18 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:58 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 03:32 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-12 19:29 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:25 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-13 13:25 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-05-15 05:45 +0000
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 06:54 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 00:32 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 19:25 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-16 21:15 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 21:34 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:39 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-05-15 12:38 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-05-15 17:32 -0500
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> - 2017-05-16 10:06 +0200
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:51 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:50 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:47 -0700
Re: comp.lang.forth is THE PROBLEM Bill Zimmerly <billzimmerly@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 20:59 -0700
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 18:48 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <pf-dnf61dd2ES4bEnZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #59364 |
On 5/16/17 1:05 AM, Gerry Jackson wrote: [Silly posturing deleted] >> On Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 3:18:13 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >>> There are three types of compilation involved >>> 1) Host compilation >>> 2) Clone compilation (target CPU same as host and memory matches) >>> 3) Cross compilation (target CPU is not host CPU) >>> >>> In the third case you have to simulate *everything* when dealing >>> with both the definition and execution of defining words. It's not >>> easy. You also have to extend the normal Forth compiler by at least >>> two time frames. Forth cross compilers are much more complicated >>> and much more subtle than they appear to be. Stephen has been building cross compilers for a long time, and has learned how complicated and subtle they are. > I don't think you can draw the conclusion that "he doesn't know how to > write a cross-compiler" from the above, after all he has been > successfully selling them for a long time. But I do agree that the > paragraph about the third case seems odd. ISTM that simulation of the > target processor is only necessary if the cross compiler needs to > actually execute target code - and why would you want to do that? The > only reasons I can think of are: > 1) to plug a software simulation into a target board because the target > processor isn't available. I wouldn't regard that as part of the cross > compiler itself. Or > 2) to execute the CREATE part of CREATE ... DOES> words to build target > data structures. This is unnecessary as the host can simply emulate the > behaviour of the target system which is much simpler. > > Perhaps I'm missing something? The real objective is to get an interactive target, using an umbilical, so you're executing target code on the real target processor. In real projects, that's usually an early step, especially nowadays when there are cheap target boards and you rarely are faced with a custom board early in the project. Both MPE and FORTH, Inc. run umbilicals to the target. I haven't used MPE's, but I've used SwiftX quite a lot. Really the "look and feel" of programming a target is almost undetectably different from exercising code on a resident Forth, with the host acting like a completely transparent "dumb terminal". Getting the cross compiler running on a brand new processor involves the extra complexity Stephen mentions, but we don't actually run a full simulator of the target CPU. We just concentrate on getting the umbilical working as soon as possible. >>> Being on a standards committee is a thankless task and >>> I, for one, am grateful for the time they spend on the task even if I >>> don't always like the result. I am reminded of a statement in a Standard >>> Pascal book: " ... is fed up with people who complain about the wording >>> of the draft, and expect him or someone else to find a solution for them >>> to criticise next time" It is, in fact, much more difficult than it appears from the outside. A TC is delighted to have people come and participate in person, because after even one meeting they understand the task better, and are more productive. >> If they are fed up with getting no respect, they could just spend less >> time braying about how they are the rulers of the world > > I must have missed those posts. :-) > --- this would free up about 12 hours per day --- they could put this > time to good use by writing code-libraries in Forth that are useful, so > that they would gradually gain respect. >> >> Writing code-libraries does take time --- this fact I know from >> experience! --- you know it too! >> > > Yes, and probably the members of the Forth 200X committee don't have > that time. In fact, most of them spend their time programming for a living. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth D. Rather FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8de09cd-0ec8-4b40-93c9-a244e89a1589@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59416 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:48:31 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 3:18:13 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > >>> There are three types of compilation involved > >>> 1) Host compilation > >>> 2) Clone compilation (target CPU same as host and memory matches) > >>> 3) Cross compilation (target CPU is not host CPU) > >>> > >>> In the third case you have to simulate *everything* when dealing > >>> with both the definition and execution of defining words. It's not > >>> easy. You also have to extend the normal Forth compiler by at least > >>> two time frames. Forth cross compilers are much more complicated > >>> and much more subtle than they appear to be. > > Stephen has been building cross compilers for a long time, and has > learned how complicated and subtle they are. This is not a confidence builder! This is just hand-waving and hot air. If you know so much about cross-compilers, why did ANS-Forth fail to make LITERAL 2LITERAL and FLITERAL deferred words so the behavior of the outer-interpreter could be changed? This would allow a cross-compiler to support literal numbers in TARG words. If you know so much about cross-compilers, why did ANS-Forth make FIND and tick ambiguous? Were the Forth programmers of the 1990s clamoring for ambiguity? They didn't want FIND to work in the obvious way, like it did in Forth-83? Most likely, you purposely sabotaged ANS-Forth to make writing cross-compilers difficult, because Forth Inc. and MPE make most of their money selling cross-compilers. The only other explanation is that you are just plain stupid, and you know nothing about cross-compilers. This is pure obfuscation: "Forth cross compilers are much more complicated and much more subtle than they appear to be." Stephen Pelc is trying to convince Forth programmers that they can't write their own cross-compiler, and they have to pay him money for a cross-compiler. Stephen Pelc is the worst possible candidate in the world to be on the Forth-200x committee because he is financially motivated to sabotage the Forth community. He jumped onto the Forth-200x bandwagon for the purpose of dragging his feet. He considers the Forth community to be his enemy --- he is deeply afraid of Forth programmers --- he will do everything in his power to undermine the Forth community.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4c6cea8-c90f-4b12-9087-fdb035bead01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59161 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 5:44:00 AM UTC-4, Andrew Haley wrote: > JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> wrote: > > > > Heil H. - your arrogance is beyond description. Or are you God in > > disguise? Or just the incarnation of the devil. How do you dare to > > set the standard about what people are proud about? You main > > accomplishment is to piss at people and piss off people here and > > most probably at home. > > Oh dear, Juergen, come on. You rise much too quickly to this > provocation. Just think of our resident nutcase[s] as crazy drunkards > yelling at the moon, and pass on quickly by. > > Andrew. andrew ris eanove and wirte code n books dont insult its pointless show world what ou can do and do better in forth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c12d5aba-2b71-4c66-850f-653b80327a17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59156 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 12:30:32 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote: > Heil H. - your arrogance is beyond description. Or are you God in disguise? I have never declared myself to be the "leading expert" of Forth. I don't pretend to be God. > Or just the incarnation of the devil. I don't declare people to be Forth experts in exchange for them declaring me to be the "leading expert" --- I don't ask anybody to sell their soul. People can declare themselves to be Forth experts --- I recommend that they write code-libraries in Forth to prove themselves as Forth experts --- if they don't write code-libraries, then they are just blowing hot air. > How do you dare to set the standard about what people are proud about? I didn't write the ANS-Forth standard --- you have me confused with somebody else --- I don't tell Forth programmers (such as the author of the rquotations) that they are non-standard wanna-bees who have nothing to be proud of. How is it possible for any Forth programmer to have a shred of pride, when they are required to accept somebody else as their leading expert? You'll have to explain this to me, because I don't know how such a thing would be possible. I can have respect for other Forth programmers (the ones who actually write Forth code), but this doesn't mean that I grant those people "leading expert" status --- I don't have to agree with everything they say, in order to respect them --- I don't demand that they get on their knees for me either. In this world, I have found that people just do what they want to do. I don't stop them, and I don't allow them to stop me. So long as nobody declares him or herself to be the "leading expert," it is possible for people to learn from each other, or even develop a standard that everybody can be happy with. > You main accomplishment is to piss at people and piss off people here and most probably at home. My main accomplishment in regard to Forth was writing MFX. I'm also proud of the novice-package, especially STRING-STACK.4TH. What Forth code have you ever written? I may not be from Missouri, but you'll have to show me the code for me to believe that it exists. I've not seen any code form you on comp.lang.forth, but only a stream of hate-filled diatribes against me --- you become so emotional that you likely piss your own trousers every time that you post a message --- you are aiming at me, and you hit yourself! You get a paycheck from Stephen Pelc. What exactly do you do to earn this paycheck?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3620d3e4-e3a1-4409-8209-a3712af3f350@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59140 |
On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 8:44:48 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 12:42:01 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > On 5/11/17 11:01 AM, Cecil Bayona wrote: > > > On 5/11/2017 3:39 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:29:52 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather > > >> wrote: > > >>> On 5/9/17 11:07 PM, The Beez wrote: > > >>>> IMHO the problem with Forth in general has always been that people > > >>>> are TALKING more about Forth than DOING things with Forth. E.g. the > > >>>> number of OO discussions are countless, but who has presented any > > >>>> REAL code in OO? > > >>> > > >>> Whenever I teach a course in Forth, I always tell people to check out > > >>> c.l.f. Most report they just don't have time for that sort of thing. > > >>> That is certainly true of Leon and our other staff. > > >> > > >> You insult all Forth programmers by describing yourself as the > > >> "leading expert" of Forth, which implies that all Forth programmers > > >> are inferior to you. > > >> > > >> When you teach your course in Forth, how many of those students become > > >> Forth programmers? None! You turn them off from Forth with your > > >> arrogance. You can't name any student of your novice class that has > > >> become a Forth programmer --- all of them thought that you were a > > >> low-grade moron because you were teaching them to use PAD for holding > > >> strings, and all of them went back to programming in C --- all of them > > >> spent the rest of their lives telling the other C programmers that > > >> they learned Forth from the "leading expert" in Forth, and found Forth > > >> to be utterly stupid. > > >> > > > > > > None might be a tad much, I would assume that some go back to where they > > > came from and use Forth in projects, we really don't know for a fact as > > > to what happens to the student. > > > > Actually, most of them continued to use Forth in projects, at least for > > a time. Ray Duncan was one of my earlier students. Leon Wagner, Brad > > Rodriguez, many more have had long careers in Forth. > > You routinely brag about your association with people who have accomplishments --- you have made a career out of bragging about your association with Charles Moore --- but none of these people brag about being associated with you. > > Ray Duncan of Laboratory Microsystems Inc. sold UR/Forth. This had very good support for strings --- my own <CSTR etc. is loosely based on UR/Forth's string package --- you put PAD in ANS-Forth because that is really the entirety of your knowledge of strings, and now you describe my STRING-STACK.4TH as being useless. > > As for Brad Rodriguez, he has accomplishments in Forth --- I've never heard of him bragging about his association with you. > > I've never heard of anybody who has accomplishments in Forth bragging about their association with you --- instead, you have twits and creeps such as Julien Fondren and Rick Collins --- your novice class at Forth Inc. drives intelligent people away from Forth. Forth gods please write books and show off apps!! I feel forth can do even more than it already has. Insulting is useless. Please lets keep a professional intellectual atmousphere. New ideas can then be discussed civilly toward and end of better working apps. I am sure you would be embaressed if Chuck Moore was in here seeing these holy wars not small code doing much work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 03:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a6c1eb2-ca43-40fc-a802-b7d985633734@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59098 |
> rich assortment of useful tools. For embedded systems I like Forth to be > simple and close to the hardware, for desktop I want Forth to be rich in > useful tools in libraries. Agreed for embedded systems, but I have a note about desktop. I just finish a new mathematical research with great help of Forth, in this case it was just a Matlab replacement. No libraries were used, because of no libraries are exist for new modification of mathematic transformation. Most important things Ive got from Forth was interactive mode and fast direct graphics. I think it will consume more time to debug using C++/Delphi. So I'm not too Forth-dependent in mind, but in fact I always start to research with Forth. This side may be stronger with less effort to library development. Interactivity is a key feature, and libraries may come from other languages if needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 19:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of5jra$gvf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59111 |
On 5/12/2017 5:32 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> rich assortment of useful tools. For embedded systems I like Forth to be >> simple and close to the hardware, for desktop I want Forth to be rich in >> useful tools in libraries. > > Agreed for embedded systems, but I have a note about desktop. I just finish a new mathematical research with great help of Forth, in this case it was just a Matlab replacement. No libraries were used, because of no libraries are exist for new modification of mathematic transformation. Most important things Ive got from Forth was interactive mode and fast direct graphics. I think it will consume more time to debug using C++/Delphi. So I'm not too Forth-dependent in mind, but in fact I always start to research with Forth. This side may be stronger with less effort to library development. Interactivity is a key feature, and libraries may come from other languages if needed. > A problem with Forth is libraries not being available but if one works with Forth one will develop their own set of tools to use in their application domain after a while which speeds up development even more. I stay away from C++, Delphi can be reasonably good at debugging since it has optional runtime testing that can be enabled and it catches a lot of dumb mistakes. I still prefer Forth as the development strategies it encourages and its interactivity usually translates to few coding errors, one still has to get the algorithms right but its a big help in the testing phase so errors tend to get caught early on. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aed0abc6-fac6-4929-af3f-76fc377aed08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59136 |
суббота, 13 мая 2017 г., 3:29:38 UTC+3 пользователь Cecil - k5nwa написал: > On 5/12/2017 5:32 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >> rich assortment of useful tools. For embedded systems I like Forth to be > >> simple and close to the hardware, for desktop I want Forth to be rich in > >> useful tools in libraries. > > > > Agreed for embedded systems, but I have a note about desktop. I just finish a new mathematical research with great help of Forth, in this case it was just a Matlab replacement. No libraries were used, because of no libraries are exist for new modification of mathematic transformation. Most important things Ive got from Forth was interactive mode and fast direct graphics. I think it will consume more time to debug using C++/Delphi. So I'm not too Forth-dependent in mind, but in fact I always start to research with Forth. This side may be stronger with less effort to library development. Interactivity is a key feature, and libraries may come from other languages if needed. > > > > A problem with Forth is libraries not being available but if one works > with Forth one will develop their own set of tools to use in their > application domain after a while which speeds up development even more. > > I stay away from C++, Delphi can be reasonably good at debugging since > it has optional runtime testing that can be enabled and it catches a lot > of dumb mistakes. I still prefer Forth as the development strategies it > encourages and its interactivity usually translates to few coding > errors, one still has to get the algorithms right but its a big help in > the testing phase so errors tend to get caught early on. I see no major problem here. Yes, having libraries is good, but with small community it will takes too much effort. Direct way, when someone is forcing libraries development by proposing standards, is inefficient by the fact. If we will switch to projects, where all extensions will be applications, not libraries, life will be easier. If I want to calculate a sum of array, I don't need a library like 'gsumarray' or 'OpenArray', because effort to write it is laughable small. Moreover, having innatural limiting documents may block application delelopment instead of boosting. This is not so important when we try to write a program in common and well-known area. It is understandable when programmers want a library (just take a look on the eternal questions from Gavino about USB 3.0 and web-surfing). For a new area all languages has no libraries, and Forth features may highlight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 13:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of7isb$n4d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59177 |
On 5/13/2017 10:25 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > суббота, 13 мая 2017 г., 3:29:38 UTC+3 пользователь Cecil - k5nwa написал: >> On 5/12/2017 5:32 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> A problem with Forth is libraries not being available but if one works >> with Forth one will develop their own set of tools to use in their >> application domain after a while which speeds up development even more. >> >> I stay away from C++, Delphi can be reasonably good at debugging since >> it has optional runtime testing that can be enabled and it catches a lot >> of dumb mistakes. I still prefer Forth as the development strategies it >> encourages and its interactivity usually translates to few coding >> errors, one still has to get the algorithms right but its a big help in >> the testing phase so errors tend to get caught early on. > > I see no major problem here. Yes, having libraries is good, but with small community it will takes too much effort. Direct way, when someone is forcing libraries development by proposing standards, is inefficient by the fact. If we will switch to projects, where all extensions will be applications, not libraries, life will be easier. If I want to calculate a sum of array, I don't need a library like 'gsumarray' or 'OpenArray', because effort to write it is laughable small. Moreover, having innatural limiting documents may block application delelopment instead of boosting. > > This is not so important when we try to write a program in common and well-known area. It is understandable when programmers want a library (just take a look on the eternal questions from Gavino about USB 3.0 and web-surfing). For a new area all languages has no libraries, and Forth features may highlight. > Personally I like libraries that I write and no they are not bloated, but I find annoying here is that if you speak of libraries everyone start coming down on you as libraries are not the Forth way. That is being a hypocrite since everyone here that writes ANS Forth uses libraries, the Forth Standard calls for libraries, they call it word sets but they are libraries is every sense of the word. Charles Moore uses libraries, his microfiche of routines is a library mind you a very primitive one but it's a library or a collection of words to carry out a specific task for the purpose of reuse of code. As usual I ignore it and do as I please, as Forth is the ultimate personal expression of programming to be tweaked to ones need. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 05:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofbfa4$gp8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #59111 |
On 5/12/2017, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > Most important things Ive got from Forth was interactive mode Many languages are interactive: Ruby, Perl, Python, Scheme, Racket, Lisp, OCaml, ML, Tcl, etc. -- [Putin's] comments are in response to the ... Court's decision to overturn the sentence of ... [a Moslem] who brutally raped a ten year old boy.... The Supreme Court attributed their decision to ... [the Moslem's] "distress" and the fact that he and the boy did not speak the same language. europeancivilwar.com/putin-calls-out-western-europeans-for-insanity-child-rape-acceptance
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6bfb6caf-aa6a-4045-9377-5342f8f8c2a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59258 |
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:45:43 PM UTC+9, Robert L. wrote: > On 5/12/2017, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > > Most important things Ive got from Forth was interactive mode > > Many languages are interactive: Ruby, Perl, Python, Scheme, Racket, > Lisp, OCaml, ML, Tcl, etc. Python, perl, and Ruby are not interactive in the way that Forth is. I have not used Scheme, Racket, Ocaml, or ML, and I don't remember about TCL. Lisp is that beautiful language that is too beautiful for me to be comfortable with, but it is interactive in much the same way as Forth. And there's a reason for that. -- Joel Rees Random ranting: http://reiisi.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ofcdr4$21m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59303 |
On 2017-05-15 13:54:48 +0000, Joel Rees said: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:45:43 PM UTC+9, Robert L. wrote: >> On 5/12/2017, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> >>> Most important things Ive got from Forth was interactive mode >> >> Many languages are interactive: Ruby, Perl, Python, Scheme, Racket, >> Lisp, OCaml, ML, Tcl, etc. > > Python, perl, and Ruby are not interactive in the way that Forth is. > > I have not used Scheme, Racket, Ocaml, or ML, and I don't remember about > TCL. I have used Smalltalk, Racket (which is a superset of Scheme) and TCL (a really horrible language, IMHO). forth is more concise and quicker. to have the datatastack is a big win. to enter new definitions on the fly and try them out, step by step is even simpler than in lisp. In lisp evaluation is from inside to outside, so without a sophisticated source level debuger (which in turn needs slime which in turn needs emacs) its not simple to test a sequence of functions. results are not on Stack, so you need to define variables all the way. in forth you simply enter the word and inspect the result, then enter the next word - how wunderful simple this is! > > Lisp is that beautiful language that is too beautiful for me to > be comfortable with, but it is interactive in much the same way as Forth. > > And there's a reason for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87zied6yva.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #59303 |
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes: > Python, perl, and Ruby are not interactive in the way that Forth is. How is their interactivity different from Forth's?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14ca56a4-9081-4aba-8d66-710c940bbb3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59350 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:32:12 PM UTC+9, Paul Rubin wrote: > Joel Rees <joel.rees@somewhere> writes: > > Python, perl, and Ruby are not interactive in the way that Forth is. > > How is their interactivity different from Forth's? I was misremembering about Python, but see irb and perl -de1 (or REPL). (And maybe I was misremembering about Lisp, as well.) In other words, is the interpreter you interact with at the console the same interpreter that interprets your program? -- Joel Rees Random Rants: http://reiisi.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87vap06rvi.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #59410 |
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes: > In other words, is the interpreter you interact with at the console > the same interpreter that interprets your program? What do you mean by that? Of course it's the same interpreter, unless you mean something specific and different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 21:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcc35d64-4ab3-44a4-9def-a1c3978009b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59414 |
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:15:31 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes: > > In other words, is the interpreter you interact with at the console > > the same interpreter that interprets your program? > > What do you mean by that? Of course it's the same interpreter, unless > you mean something specific and different. irb is a program written in Ruby that accepts lines of input and evaluates them or waits for more lines to get a complete evaluate-able string. Pre-irb days Ruby had a tutorial that included the writing of a simple interactive shell like this. irb is not 'the Ruby interpreter'; Ruby, run interactively, simply consumes its input and then runs it. In the case of Perl you have either the Perl debugger, which is awful for interactive use, or a hackish Perl shell using PadWalker and other exotic tools such to supply a consistent environment for complete strings of Perl code. It's more common to just run perl -le 'code here'. bash is Perl's interactive mode. Python meanwhile has a culture of interactively-accessible docstrings and scripts written with idioms that allow them to be loaded into an interactive Python rather than run as a script. The technical distinctions really aren't the point though. Forth *feels* different from these other languages. I'd say that Erlang comes the closest, and its EShell is definitely a special environment where you can't even define functions in the normal way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <052fa8d3-f229-44f3-9abf-7de8b337830c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59258 |
I see no statement to answer here. Forth is interactive, easy to write and fast enough, so I use it. I use Tcl when required by other software with embedded tcl engine. For other languages I see no tasks around, and there is no reason to switch to them from Forth just because 'it is interactive too'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06754fe8-a891-4e24-881e-a48a5b85bcdf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #59313 |
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:39:17 AM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > I see no statement to answer here. Forth is interactive, easy to write and fast enough, so I use it. I use Tcl when required by other software with embedded tcl engine. For other languages I see no tasks around, and there is no reason to switch to them from Forth just because 'it is interactive too'. I'm not opposed to Scheme/Lisp or the many derivatives, such as Python, Ruby, etc.. All of these work well on desktop-computers, which is why they are popular. None of these are appropriate for use on a micro-controller, because they all rely on GC which doesn't work in hard real-time (they could be used in soft real-time programs though). None of these work well as the basis for a Forth cross-compiler, because Forth supports compile-time code that is written in Forth, so the cross-compiler pretty much has to be written in Forth too (in STAPL the compile-time code is written in Scheme rather than Forth, which is kind of weird). Scheme/Lisp can be used as the basis for a cross-compiler --- this has been done several times with good success --- this would be appropriate for a language such as C or Pascal that don't support compile-time code, so it doesn't matter if the cross-compiler is written in a different language. Anyway, I don't respond to RobertL (aka WJ aka WAXMAN) --- he is just a troll trying to start a flame-war --- why should I defend Forth against Ruby or whatever, when I don't want a war between the languages?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 17:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofda46$cau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59325 |
On 5/15/2017 2:38 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:39:17 AM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> I see no statement to answer here. Forth is interactive, easy to write and fast enough, so I use it. I use Tcl when required by other software with embedded tcl engine. For other languages I see no tasks around, and there is no reason to switch to them from Forth just because 'it is interactive too'. > > I'm not opposed to Scheme/Lisp or the many derivatives, such as Python, Ruby, etc.. All of these work well on desktop-computers, which is why they are popular. > > None of these are appropriate for use on a micro-controller, because they all rely on GC which doesn't work in hard real-time (they could be used in soft real-time programs though). > > None of these work well as the basis for a Forth cross-compiler, because Forth supports compile-time code that is written in Forth, so the cross-compiler pretty much has to be written in Forth too (in STAPL the compile-time code is written in Scheme rather than Forth, which is kind of weird). > > Scheme/Lisp can be used as the basis for a cross-compiler --- this has been done several times with good success --- this would be appropriate for a language such as C or Pascal that don't support compile-time code, so it doesn't matter if the cross-compiler is written in a different language. > > Anyway, I don't respond to RobertL (aka WJ aka WAXMAN) --- he is just a troll trying to start a flame-war --- why should I defend Forth against Ruby or whatever, when I don't want a war between the languages? > Robert is on my kill list that is now working, his signatures are horrible, such hatred for Jews, I've know quite a few in my day and they are people just like everyone else, where you find good persons and some bad persons, the same can be said about just about every group. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Klimas <klimas@w3group.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-16 10:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ofebn9$3p7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59325 |
On 2017-05-15 19:38:27 +0000, hughaguilar96@gmail.com said: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 8:39:17 AM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> I see no statement to answer here. Forth is interactive, easy to write >> and fast enough, so I use it. I use Tcl when required by other software >> with embedded tcl engine. For other languages I see no tasks around, >> and there is no reason to switch to them from Forth just because 'it is >> interactive too'. > > I'm not opposed to Scheme/Lisp or the many derivatives, such as Python, > Ruby, etc.. All of these work well on desktop-computers, which is why > they are popular. I guess popularity in this field has something to do with the ability to successfully develop applications as a beginner and then they stuck with it. Too much work has be done to make a language change. > > None of these work well as the basis for a Forth cross-compiler, > because Forth supports compile-time code that is written in Forth, so > the cross-compiler pretty much has to be written in Forth too (in STAPL > the compile-time code is written in Scheme rather than Forth, which is > kind of weird). This is one of the striking features of Forth. Forth from low level (assembly) to high level and still be inside of Forth with absolutely no dependencies (C, libraries, editor, ..)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web