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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #60699 > unrolled thread

When forth powered desktop pc?

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

Contents

  When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 09:01 -0700
    Re: When forth powered desktop pc? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 19:39 +0300
      Re: When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 12:57 -0700
        Re: When forth powered desktop pc? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 10:17 +0300
          Re: When forth powered desktop pc? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-06-14 22:39 +1000
            Re: When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 08:10 -0700
          Re: When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 08:08 -0700
    Re: When forth powered desktop pc? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-06-13 20:13 +0000
      Re: When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 19:32 -0700
        Re: When forth powered desktop pc? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-06-14 20:00 -0400
          Re: When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 11:14 -0700
            Re: When forth powered desktop pc? minforth@arcor.de - 2017-06-15 11:57 -0700
              Re: When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 06:47 -0700
            Re: When forth powered desktop pc? Konstantin Tcholokachvili <tcholoka@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 07:26 -0700
              Re: When forth powered desktop pc? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-16 07:42 -0700

#60699 — When forth powered desktop pc?

when?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#60702

On 13/06/2017 19:01, gavino himself wrote:
> when?

When you pay someone to make it.

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

#60705

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 12:39:42 PM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 13/06/2017 19:01, gavino himself wrote:
> > when?
> 
> When you pay someone to make it.

IM no g144 expert! nor colorforth!

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

#60711

On 06/13/17 22:57, gavino himself wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 12:39:42 PM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
>> On 13/06/2017 19:01, gavino himself wrote:
>>> when?
>>
>> When you pay someone to make it.
> 
> IM no g144 expert! nor colorforth!

Exactly.  That's why you PAY SOMEONE who *is* an expert.

Although, in the many years you've been posting here, you surely could
have learned nuclear physics or anything else you had a mind to learn.

Even Forth.

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

#60719

Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 06/13/17 22:57, gavino himself wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 12:39:42 PM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2017 19:01, gavino himself wrote:
> >>> when?
> >>
> >> When you pay someone to make it.
> >
> > IM no g144 expert! nor colorforth!
>
> Exactly.  That's why you PAY SOMEONE who *is* an expert.
>
> Although, in the many years you've been posting here, you surely could
> have learned nuclear physics or anything else you had a mind to learn.
>
> Even Forth.

Gavino is a libertarian.  Learning Forth would put him at the bottom of the
food chain.

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

#60731

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:38:42 AM UTC-4, HAA wrote:
> Ron Aaron wrote:
> > On 06/13/17 22:57, gavino himself wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 12:39:42 PM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
> > >> On 13/06/2017 19:01, gavino himself wrote:
> > >>> when?
> > >>
> > >> When you pay someone to make it.
> > >
> > > IM no g144 expert! nor colorforth!
> >
> > Exactly.  That's why you PAY SOMEONE who *is* an expert.
> >
> > Although, in the many years you've been posting here, you surely could
> > have learned nuclear physics or anything else you had a mind to learn.
> >
> > Even Forth.
> 
> Gavino is a libertarian.  Learning Forth would put him at the bottom of the
> food chain.

I am not I am an objectivist, since Gary Johnson is basically a democrat.
A real free market person is against all marrige not just gay.
Get government to stop regulating things and just enforce property and free production and trade.
Thorium atomic, no climate change, big cheap houses, women fixed at 10 and charged 500k for kid
I am a liberal, deregulate!

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

#60730

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 3:17:36 AM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 06/13/17 22:57, gavino himself wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 12:39:42 PM UTC-4, Ron Aaron wrote:
> >> On 13/06/2017 19:01, gavino himself wrote:
> >>> when?
> >>
> >> When you pay someone to make it.
> > 
> > IM no g144 expert! nor colorforth!
> 
> Exactly.  That's why you PAY SOMEONE who *is* an expert.
> 
> Although, in the many years you've been posting here, you surely could
> have learned nuclear physics or anything else you had a mind to learn.
> 
> Even Forth.

What are you doing lately with forth ron?  do you run any e commerce kinda wesbites?
What do you think of werc.cat-v.org?
https://shirakumo.github.io/radiance-homepage/
happstack.com?

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

#60706

On 6/13/2017, gavino himself wrote:

> when?

(use srfi-1)
(use srfi-41) ;; streams

(for-each print
  (stream->list 9
    (stream-map
      (lambda(i s) (format "~a. ~a" i s))
      (stream-scan + 0 (stream-from 1))
      (list->stream
        (circular-list
          (string-intersperse
            (flatten (zip '("When" "get" "of") '("Gavin S." "brain" "man?")))
            " "))))))


0. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
1. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
3. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
6. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
10. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
15. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
21. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
28. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
36. When Gavin S. get brain of man?

-- 
When the Israeli bombers and torpedo-planes were sent to attack and destroy the
ship, the Jewish commander, seeing that it was an American vessel, had
misgivings and reported to the High Command, which simply repeated the orders
to attack and sink the Liberty. www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Bit_of_Good_News.html

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

#60709

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:13:58 PM UTC-4, Robert L. wrote:
> On 6/13/2017, gavino himself wrote:
> 
> > when?
> 
> (use srfi-1)
> (use srfi-41) ;; streams
> 
> (for-each print
>   (stream->list 9
>     (stream-map
>       (lambda(i s) (format "~a. ~a" i s))
>       (stream-scan + 0 (stream-from 1))
>       (list->stream
>         (circular-list
>           (string-intersperse
>             (flatten (zip '("When" "get" "of") '("Gavin S." "brain" "man?")))
>             " "))))))
> 
> 
> 0. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 1. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 3. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 6. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 10. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 15. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 21. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 28. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 36. When Gavin S. get brain of man?
> 
> -- 
> When the Israeli bombers and torpedo-planes were sent to attack and destroy the
> ship, the Jewish commander, seeing that it was an American vessel, had
> misgivings and reported to the High Command, which simply repeated the orders
> to attack and sink the Liberty. www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Bit_of_Good_News.html

can forth outperform php ruby python java c?

ada?

gnoga.com
swi prolog?

is forth the best?

is it really simpler?

gforth?

I dont think I can learn coloforth...

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

#60764

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:

> can forth outperform php ruby python java c?

Outperform?  Unlikely.

All high-level languages are converted to assembly.  (Actually, it's
converted to the processor's binary instruction format, but this is
usually referred to as "assembly" since no one programs in binary.)
So, the best outcome is the most optimized assembly for the given
task.  A good compiler will generate very optimized assembly.  If you
have two high-level languages whose compilers generate excellently
optimized assembly, how can one outperform the other?  They'll both
basically generate the exact same code for the same task.  I.e., you're
limited by the assembly language of the microprocessor, if you have a
good optimizing compiler for your high-level language.  If you don't
have a good optimizing compiler, then you're limited by the compiler or
your ability to code efficiently.

> is forth the best?

The best is the language which most accurately and easily expresses the
problem you're attempting to solve via your program.  This can be
measured in various ways.  One way is called the "code density" of
a language.  There are all sorts of metrics to measure code density,
e.g., "function points."

> is it really simpler?

In certain aspects, Forth really is simpler than the C language.  That's
not a good thing.  Simplicity can mean much more work for you.  In
Forth, you must keep track of items on a stack, i.e., stack juggling.
C does much of this for you and hides much of it too.  So, the question
you should ask is: "is it really easier?"  I'd argue that *NOT* having
to handle certain types of simplicity makes the language simpler, as in
less work.  Let's call that being easier.  Personally, one reason I
don't like assembly is because of the simplicity.  There is no easy way
to implement variables in many assembly languages.  The variable may be
in memory where you need to reference it by a memory address, or it may
be in a register where you need to reference it by a register name, or
it may be on the stack where you need to reference it by an offset to
another register, usually.  There is no unified method to access a
variable in assembly, i.e., you can't access it by name no matter where
the value is located, unlike a high-level language.  Arguably, assembly
is simpler, but it's not easier.  Whereas, with a high-level language
like C, variables are available.  Variables make my life easier, hence
simpler.

> I dont think I can learn coloforth...

Why?  Unavailable?  Too complex?  Colorblind?  Low IQ?  Handicapped?
Medicated?  What?


Rod Pemberton
-- 
The Paris Agreement is irrelevant. A carbon tax is futile. The only
solution is technology. Please tell Elon Musk that he is not being a
technology visionary.

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

#60789

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:59:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
> gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > can forth outperform php ruby python java c?
> 
> Outperform?  Unlikely.
> 
> All high-level languages are converted to assembly.  (Actually, it's
> converted to the processor's binary instruction format, but this is
> usually referred to as "assembly" since no one programs in binary.)
> So, the best outcome is the most optimized assembly for the given
> task.  A good compiler will generate very optimized assembly.  If you
> have two high-level languages whose compilers generate excellently
> optimized assembly, how can one outperform the other?  They'll both
> basically generate the exact same code for the same task.  I.e., you're
> limited by the assembly language of the microprocessor, if you have a
> good optimizing compiler for your high-level language.  If you don't
> have a good optimizing compiler, then you're limited by the compiler or
> your ability to code efficiently.
> 
> > is forth the best?
> 
> The best is the language which most accurately and easily expresses the
> problem you're attempting to solve via your program.  This can be
> measured in various ways.  One way is called the "code density" of
> a language.  There are all sorts of metrics to measure code density,
> e.g., "function points."
> 
> > is it really simpler?
> 
> In certain aspects, Forth really is simpler than the C language.  That's
> not a good thing.  Simplicity can mean much more work for you.  In
> Forth, you must keep track of items on a stack, i.e., stack juggling.
> C does much of this for you and hides much of it too.  So, the question
> you should ask is: "is it really easier?"  I'd argue that *NOT* having
> to handle certain types of simplicity makes the language simpler, as in
> less work.  Let's call that being easier.  Personally, one reason I
> don't like assembly is because of the simplicity.  There is no easy way
> to implement variables in many assembly languages.  The variable may be
> in memory where you need to reference it by a memory address, or it may
> be in a register where you need to reference it by a register name, or
> it may be on the stack where you need to reference it by an offset to
> another register, usually.  There is no unified method to access a
> variable in assembly, i.e., you can't access it by name no matter where
> the value is located, unlike a high-level language.  Arguably, assembly
> is simpler, but it's not easier.  Whereas, with a high-level language
> like C, variables are available.  Variables make my life easier, hence
> simpler.
> 
> > I dont think I can learn coloforth...
> 
> Why?  Unavailable?  Too complex?  Colorblind?  Low IQ?  Handicapped?
> Medicated?  What?
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton
> -- 
> The Paris Agreement is irrelevant. A carbon tax is futile. The only
> solution is technology. Please tell Elon Musk that he is not being a
> technology visionary.

colorforth run on amd64?
any web browser in colorforth?
MY iq is high but I have never done much real programming...mostly bash n awk

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

#60790

Am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2017 20:14:37 UTC+2 schrieb gavino himself:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:59:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
> > gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > can forth outperform php ruby python java c?
> > 
> > Outperform?  Unlikely.
> > 
> > All high-level languages are converted to assembly.  (Actually, it's
> > converted to the processor's binary instruction format, but this is
> > usually referred to as "assembly" since no one programs in binary.)
> > So, the best outcome is the most optimized assembly for the given
> > task.  A good compiler will generate very optimized assembly.  If you
> > have two high-level languages whose compilers generate excellently
> > optimized assembly, how can one outperform the other?  They'll both
> > basically generate the exact same code for the same task.  I.e., you're
> > limited by the assembly language of the microprocessor, if you have a
> > good optimizing compiler for your high-level language.  If you don't
> > have a good optimizing compiler, then you're limited by the compiler or
> > your ability to code efficiently.
> > 
> > > is forth the best?
> > 
> > The best is the language which most accurately and easily expresses the
> > problem you're attempting to solve via your program.  This can be
> > measured in various ways.  One way is called the "code density" of
> > a language.  There are all sorts of metrics to measure code density,
> > e.g., "function points."
> > 
> > > is it really simpler?
> > 
> > In certain aspects, Forth really is simpler than the C language.  That's
> > not a good thing.  Simplicity can mean much more work for you.  In
> > Forth, you must keep track of items on a stack, i.e., stack juggling.
> > C does much of this for you and hides much of it too.  So, the question
> > you should ask is: "is it really easier?"  I'd argue that *NOT* having
> > to handle certain types of simplicity makes the language simpler, as in
> > less work.  Let's call that being easier.  Personally, one reason I
> > don't like assembly is because of the simplicity.  There is no easy way
> > to implement variables in many assembly languages.  The variable may be
> > in memory where you need to reference it by a memory address, or it may
> > be in a register where you need to reference it by a register name, or
> > it may be on the stack where you need to reference it by an offset to
> > another register, usually.  There is no unified method to access a
> > variable in assembly, i.e., you can't access it by name no matter where
> > the value is located, unlike a high-level language.  Arguably, assembly
> > is simpler, but it's not easier.  Whereas, with a high-level language
> > like C, variables are available.  Variables make my life easier, hence
> > simpler.
> > 
> > > I dont think I can learn coloforth...
> > 
> > Why?  Unavailable?  Too complex?  Colorblind?  Low IQ?  Handicapped?
> > Medicated?  What?
> > 
> > 
> > Rod Pemberton
> > -- 
> > The Paris Agreement is irrelevant. A carbon tax is futile. The only
> > solution is technology. Please tell Elon Musk that he is not being a
> > technology visionary.
> 
> colorforth run on amd64?
> any web browser in colorforth?
> MY iq is high but I have never done much real programming...mostly bash n awk

I think you got bash-ed somewhere, too, posting tons of awk-ward questions
in prograsmmer forums. low eq perhaps, too?

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

#60825

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:57:29 PM UTC-4, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2017 20:14:37 UTC+2 schrieb gavino himself:
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:59:24 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
> > > gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > can forth outperform php ruby python java c?
> > > 
> > > Outperform?  Unlikely.
> > > 
> > > All high-level languages are converted to assembly.  (Actually, it's
> > > converted to the processor's binary instruction format, but this is
> > > usually referred to as "assembly" since no one programs in binary.)
> > > So, the best outcome is the most optimized assembly for the given
> > > task.  A good compiler will generate very optimized assembly.  If you
> > > have two high-level languages whose compilers generate excellently
> > > optimized assembly, how can one outperform the other?  They'll both
> > > basically generate the exact same code for the same task.  I.e., you're
> > > limited by the assembly language of the microprocessor, if you have a
> > > good optimizing compiler for your high-level language.  If you don't
> > > have a good optimizing compiler, then you're limited by the compiler or
> > > your ability to code efficiently.
> > > 
> > > > is forth the best?
> > > 
> > > The best is the language which most accurately and easily expresses the
> > > problem you're attempting to solve via your program.  This can be
> > > measured in various ways.  One way is called the "code density" of
> > > a language.  There are all sorts of metrics to measure code density,
> > > e.g., "function points."
> > > 
> > > > is it really simpler?
> > > 
> > > In certain aspects, Forth really is simpler than the C language.  That's
> > > not a good thing.  Simplicity can mean much more work for you.  In
> > > Forth, you must keep track of items on a stack, i.e., stack juggling.
> > > C does much of this for you and hides much of it too.  So, the question
> > > you should ask is: "is it really easier?"  I'd argue that *NOT* having
> > > to handle certain types of simplicity makes the language simpler, as in
> > > less work.  Let's call that being easier.  Personally, one reason I
> > > don't like assembly is because of the simplicity.  There is no easy way
> > > to implement variables in many assembly languages.  The variable may be
> > > in memory where you need to reference it by a memory address, or it may
> > > be in a register where you need to reference it by a register name, or
> > > it may be on the stack where you need to reference it by an offset to
> > > another register, usually.  There is no unified method to access a
> > > variable in assembly, i.e., you can't access it by name no matter where
> > > the value is located, unlike a high-level language.  Arguably, assembly
> > > is simpler, but it's not easier.  Whereas, with a high-level language
> > > like C, variables are available.  Variables make my life easier, hence
> > > simpler.
> > > 
> > > > I dont think I can learn coloforth...
> > > 
> > > Why?  Unavailable?  Too complex?  Colorblind?  Low IQ?  Handicapped?
> > > Medicated?  What?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Rod Pemberton
> > > -- 
> > > The Paris Agreement is irrelevant. A carbon tax is futile. The only
> > > solution is technology. Please tell Elon Musk that he is not being a
> > > technology visionary.
> > 
> > colorforth run on amd64?
> > any web browser in colorforth?
> > MY iq is high but I have never done much real programming...mostly bash n awk
> 
> I think you got bash-ed somewhere, too, posting tons of awk-ward questions
> in prograsmmer forums. low eq perhaps, too?

Elon Musk should be tortured to death!! He is crony communist who stole billions nof tax money and then used financial system to keep patents and sell shares.  All of the money is owed the taxpayers and soalr city -10B failure.   Paypal semi scam by israel.   He is not a free market guy.  FAR from it.

Awk is awesome.
check this out   werc.cat-v.org

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

#60830

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 8:14:37 PM UTC+2, gavino himself wrote:
> colorforth run on amd64?

Yes, it's on the way: https://github.com/narke/Iridescence

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

#60831

On Friday, June 16, 2017 at 10:26:48 AM UTC-4, Konstantin Tcholokachvili wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 8:14:37 PM UTC+2, gavino himself wrote:
> > colorforth run on amd64?
> 
> Yes, it's on the way: https://github.com/narke/Iridescence

nice

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web