Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #25587 > unrolled thread
| Started by | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-09-09 05:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-09-21 10:02 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 140 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Forth for education visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-09-09 05:16 -0700
Re: Forth for education Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2013-09-09 14:59 +0200
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-10 04:30 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-10 08:00 -1000
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-10 21:32 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-11 06:22 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-11 11:52 +0100
Re: Forth for education Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2013-09-11 14:40 +0200
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-12 08:10 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-12 14:20 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-14 22:47 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-14 17:47 -1000
Re: Forth for education stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-09-15 17:17 +0000
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-15 18:52 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-15 08:11 -1000
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-15 19:49 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-15 09:11 -1000
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-15 20:38 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-17 17:21 -0400
Re: Forth for education Spam@ControlQ.com - 2013-09-17 18:01 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-17 14:31 -1000
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-17 22:20 -0700
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-17 22:23 -0700
Re: Forth for education Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-09-18 21:56 +0200
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-18 02:57 -0500
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-18 09:41 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-18 15:35 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-18 21:02 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-18 15:42 -1000
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 15:48 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-20 11:26 -1000
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 20:35 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-19 13:45 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 16:18 -0400
Re: Forth for education Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-20 14:06 -0700
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-20 17:08 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-20 12:00 -1000
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 20:10 -0400
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-20 23:23 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-21 13:09 -0400
Re: Forth for education Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-09-23 01:55 -0700
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-23 11:40 -0500
Re: Forth for education albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-09-23 17:45 +0000
Re: Forth for education anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-09-23 18:47 +0000
Re: Forth for education albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-09-24 17:00 +0000
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-23 14:51 -0500
Re: Forth for education albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-09-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-24 12:02 -0500
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-21 05:21 -0500
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-21 14:15 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-21 08:52 -1000
Re: Forth for education Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-21 14:23 -0700
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-22 04:53 -0500
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-22 19:00 -0700
Re: Forth for education Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2013-09-22 21:22 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-23 08:13 -1000
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-25 04:25 -0400
Re: Forth for education visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-09-24 21:38 -0700
Re: Forth for education Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-09-23 12:07 -0400
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-23 11:50 -0500
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-25 03:58 -0400
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 09:32 -0400
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-27 19:35 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-28 01:08 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-28 01:09 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-25 03:21 -0400
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-25 04:00 -0500
Re: Forth for education Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-09-25 09:26 -0700
Re: Forth for education visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-09-25 15:14 -0700
Re: Forth for education Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 07:51 -0400
Re: Forth for education visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-09-26 23:36 -0700
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-21 14:40 -0400
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-21 04:46 -0500
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-18 11:41 -0500
Re: Forth for education Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-09-18 22:08 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-18 21:10 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-18 16:20 -1000
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 16:39 -0400
Re: Forth for education Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 12:47 +0100
Re: Forth for education Spam@ControlQ.com - 2013-09-19 11:30 -0400
Re: Forth for education Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 16:48 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 16:51 -0400
Re: Forth for education Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-21 15:19 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-25 03:31 -0400
Re: Forth for education hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-09-18 21:12 -0700
Re: Forth for education Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 01:02 -0700
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-21 15:26 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 17:09 -0400
Re: Forth for education anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-09-19 11:28 +0000
Re: Forth for education Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 18:30 -0700
Re: Forth for education "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-19 22:51 +0000
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 14:06 -0400
Re: Forth for education Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 19:56 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-12 08:03 -1000
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-11 08:59 -1000
Re: Forth for education albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-09-12 10:48 +0000
Re: Forth for education Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-09-12 08:17 -0500
Re: Forth for education "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-13 12:48 +0000
Re: Forth for education Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-09-13 06:33 -0700
Re: Forth for education m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2013-09-13 07:25 -0700
Re: Forth for education visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-09-13 21:20 -0700
Re: Forth for education "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-15 09:04 +0000
Re: Forth for education mhx@iae.nl - 2013-09-15 02:57 -0700
Forth is not interactive "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-20 03:32 +0000
Re: Forth is not interactive rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-20 01:20 -0400
Re: Forth is not interactive Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 23:41 -0700
Re: Forth is not interactive "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-19 21:45 -1000
Re: Forth is not interactive "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 04:09 -0400
Re: Forth is not interactive "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-19 22:21 -1000
WJ, aka William James [was Re: Forth is not interactive] "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-20 10:55 +0100
Re: WJ, aka William James [was Re: Forth is not interactive] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 06:17 -0700
Re: WJ, aka William James [was Re: Forth is not interactive] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-20 13:19 -0400
Re: WJ, aka William James [was Re: Forth is not interactive] "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-20 19:45 +0100
Re: WJ, aka William James [was Re: Forth is not interactive] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-20 14:53 -0400
Re: Forth is not interactive Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 01:20 -0700
Re: Forth is not interactive Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 02:35 -0700
Re: Forth is not interactive Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 02:39 -0700
Re: Forth is not interactive mhx@iae.nl - 2013-09-21 04:05 -0700
Re: Forth is not interactive albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-09-21 12:43 +0000
Re: Forth for education stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-09-12 14:04 +0000
Re: Forth for education "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-09-15 18:00 +1000
Re: Forth for education voidvolker@gmail.com - 2013-09-14 10:41 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-14 10:53 -1000
Re: Forth for education "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-19 22:33 +0000
Re: Forth for education visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-09-19 17:17 -0700
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 17:44 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-20 23:58 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-20 19:49 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-21 20:33 +0100
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-25 03:49 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-09-25 09:42 +0100
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 09:39 -0400
Re: Forth for education Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 10:40 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-09-26 08:51 -1000
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-20 22:50 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-21 14:27 -0400
Re: Forth for education rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-21 15:33 -0400
Re: Forth for education "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> - 2013-09-25 03:37 -0400
Re: Forth for education Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2013-09-21 10:02 +0100
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-09 05:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Forth for education |
| Message-ID | <fd0099d9-4240-4ac1-bba5-53f3fcba2d31@googlegroups.com> |
How can I best use Forth for education? I’m not a Forth evangelist, but find that using Forth to solve certain specific problems helps make engineers and technicians more adept. I’m looking for things that are exceptionally useful that can be passed on to students to make their courses and careers less daunting. I am using Forth (along with C and Python) in university courses and labs for Electrical Engineers, Engineering Tech and Networking students. These students are not programmers but may have had Java. They do use Matlab/Octave , Minitab/R , Multisim and various FPGA simulation tools (Editors, simulators, ets). I find there is a much greater appreciation of C, Forth, and Python by these students than there is for Java. From past semesters, I have data showing that those students who use RPN calculators finish their exams earlier and with less errors. It is very easy to get parenthesis counts wrong on complex equations using infix. and easy to demonstrate the differences between infix, and RPN. Compared to cell phone applications or hand calculators, when explaining binary, octal, and hex based numbers, Forth has an advantage for the technical and networking students as a number is easily seen as just a number and the representation is all that changes. Being able to do logical operations is extremely helpful in helping the students comprehend how they work.. In FPGA courses, the stack machine is an easy ALU to design in an introductory course and using Forth to write assemblers and simulators to test the design without having to run full simulations and generate new files to download and test on the hardware is a big time saver. Interactively, the students can generate a Forth assembler for a 4 or 8 bit FPGA ALU in a single class. What are other opportunities that I can take advantage of?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-09 14:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <l0kh54$735$1@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de> |
| In reply to | #25587 |
Introduce them to Forth in their lab and with their problems. I am in an optics / biophysics lab and my colleagues are mostly facing small electronics problems around their experiments. While talking in the institute kitchen, they often consider their problems as hard and think that the solution may take one or two weeks. This is the perfect moment to show them the interactive hardware testing facilities and support them to solve their issue in two days... Matthias
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-10 04:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w26slfzf0e5s1z@-> |
| In reply to | #25587 |
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:16:53 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: > How can I best use Forth for education? > Don't? Forth has many issues that were resolved by other high-level languages. Other languages have defined syntax. Other languages have structured programming concepts built into the language. Other languages have object oriented concepts built into the language. Other languages keep track of variable names without requiring the user to do so. > I’m not a Forth evangelist, but find that using Forth to solve certain > specific problems helps make engineers and technicians more adept. I'm astounded! ... Like what? Forth is an unstructured programming language. I.e., without conscious application of structured coding principles, of which many programmers are completely unaware, it results in "spaghetti code", just like the code most programmers created for BASIC. Forth is not a true object-oriented language either, although it has some characteristics of OOP. > I’m looking for things that are exceptionally useful that can be > passed on to students to make their courses and careers less daunting. > Have them learn structured programming first on a language which doesn't allow unstructured coding, e.g., Pascal. The problem with Pascal, of course, is that it doesn't allow low-level access to the machine, the objects used by the language, unlike Forth or C. Early Pascal also didn't have pointers. Unfortunately, C allows a variety of unstructured mechanisms, but you can just declare that off limits. I.e., goto, the unstructured (block-less) version of switch(), multiple exits and returns, multiple entry via Duff's device, and constructed co-routines, etc. You'll also want a language to teach them object oriented concepts. > In FPGA courses, the stack machine is an easy ALU to design in an > introductory course and using Forth to write assemblers and simulators > to test the design without having to run full simulations and generate > new files to download and test on the hardware is a big time saver. C is usually implemented as a single-stack machine. Forth is usually implemented as a dual-stack machine. Why did you choose Forth for that? ... > What are other opportunities that I can take advantage of? > I suspect I'm the only one here to have implemented basic C compilers, and a Forth interpreter. So, apparently, I'm the wrong person to answer this question since this is a pro-Forth newsgroup, and my response is clearly anti-Forth, but what do I know... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-10 08:00 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <UPadnc2MjZqrw7LPnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25603 |
On 9/9/13 10:30 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:16:53 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: > >> How can I best use Forth for education? >> ... >> I’m not a Forth evangelist, but find that using Forth to solve certain >> specific problems helps make engineers and technicians more adept. > > I'm astounded! ... Like what? Like the ability to work interactively with hardware under development without the necessity for complex and expensive emulators and debuggers. This was the primary reason that it was adopted for Open Firmware in the 80's, and remains a major motivating factor for many companies and individuals using it in engineering. > Forth is an unstructured programming language. I.e., without conscious > application of structured coding principles, of which many programmers > are completely unaware, it results in "spaghetti code", just like > the code most programmers created for BASIC. I'm completely baffled by this remark. Forth was developed about the time Djkstra was writing papers about structured programming, and adheres far more strictly to structured programming practice than most languages. > Forth is not a true object-oriented language either, although it has > some characteristics of OOP. > >> I’m looking for things that are exceptionally useful that can be >> passed on to students to make their courses and careers less daunting. >> > > Have them learn structured programming first on a language which doesn't > allow unstructured coding, e.g., Pascal. The problem with Pascal, of > course, is that it doesn't allow low-level access to the machine, > the objects used by the language, unlike Forth or C. Early Pascal > also didn't have pointers. > > Unfortunately, C allows a variety of unstructured mechanisms, but you can > just declare that off limits. I.e., goto, the unstructured (block-less) > version of switch(), multiple exits and returns, multiple entry via Duff's > device, and constructed co-routines, etc. It is possible to violate structured programming principles in Forth, but it's difficult, since Forth doesn't offer any of the things you site above. Straightforward Forth programming is entirely structured. > You'll also want a language to teach them object oriented concepts. There are plenty of OOP-based languages. But a lot of programming, especially in engineering applications, is fundamentally procedural, and forcing OOP leads to inefficiencies. Students should learn multiple approaches. >> In FPGA courses, the stack machine is an easy ALU to design in an >> introductory course and using Forth to write assemblers and simulators >> to test the design without having to run full simulations and generate >> new files to download and test on the hardware is a big time saver. > > C is usually implemented as a single-stack machine. > > Forth is usually implemented as a dual-stack machine. > > Why did you choose Forth for that? ... Because there are many advantages to a dual-stack machine and inherently interactive programming. >> What are other opportunities that I can take advantage of? >> > > I suspect I'm the only one here to have implemented basic C > compilers, and a Forth interpreter. So, apparently, I'm the wrong > person to answer this question since this is a pro-Forth newsgroup, > and my response is clearly anti-Forth, but what do I know... What you lack is experience using Forth in applications, with a mind that's open to seeing its advantages. The way to appreciate Forth is by using it, not by implementing it, particularly if your implementation is far from optimal. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-10 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d34c96e-d56b-4d85-85f3-7379a3a1eb72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25612 |
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/9/13 10:30 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:16:53 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: > >> I’m not a Forth evangelist, but find that using Forth to solve certain > >> specific problems helps make engineers and technicians more adept. > > > I'm astounded! ... Like what? > > Like the ability to work interactively with hardware under development > without the necessity for complex and expensive emulators and debuggers. When Dirk said "specific problems," this was confusing. Forth's advantage over languages such as C is interactive development, which is a good thing no matter what problem it is that you are solving. Interactive development is what Dirk really needs for education, as students learn best when they get immediate feedback. > > Forth is an unstructured programming language. I.e., without conscious > > application of structured coding principles, of which many programmers > > are completely unaware, it results in "spaghetti code", just like > > the code most programmers created for BASIC. > > I'm completely baffled by this remark. Forth was developed about the > time Djkstra was writing papers about structured programming, and > adheres far more strictly to structured programming practice than most > languages. Forth doesn't have a GOTO, so you can't really write spaghetti code like in in the old line-number BASICs of the early 1980s. It is possible to write ugly code in any language, but that is the programmer's fault, not the language's fault --- hopefully this is what Dirk is teaching his students to avoid! > > Forth is not a true object-oriented language either, although it has > > some characteristics of OOP. OOP is not generally needed on micro-controllers, which is what Dirk seems to be primarily interested in. My own language will have closures, which I think are more important. I will have a crude form of OOP roughly comparable to what I currently have in the novice package, but I'm not interested in providing anything more than inheritance. OOP is a good thing, but it is not the solution-to-everything that it was touted as back in the 1990s. I think a lot of programmers get overly excited by fancy concepts such as OOP with a lot of computer-sciency jargon. That high-level stuff isn't inherently bad, but I try to keep things simple if I can --- I only get involved in complicated approaches if I am pretty sure that a simple approach won't work. > What you lack is experience using Forth in applications, with a mind > that's open to seeing its advantages. The way to appreciate Forth is by > using it, not by implementing it, particularly if your implementation is > far from optimal. This is what I've said 100 times already, but nobody ever listens --- people need to write Forth application programs and get a few years experience doing this, before they delve into writing their own Forth system. This was why I wrote the novice package --- to help people write application programs. The world is full of programmers who have written an inefficient Forth system as a science-fair project, but have never written a single Forth application --- and claim to be great Forth experts as a result --- they are really making a negative contribution to the Forth world. This is one of the first times in which I agreed with everything that Elizabeth Rather wrote --- this was pretty basic stuff though --- all of this was well known 30 years ago, and no experienced Forther really disagrees with any of it (some may disagree about OOP, but they are mostly programming for GUI OS's which isn't really what Forth is for).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-11 06:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w28seze70e5s1z@-> |
| In reply to | #25616 |
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:32:32 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather > wrote: >> On 9/9/13 10:30 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> > On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:16:53 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I?m not a Forth evangelist, but find that using Forth to solve >> >> certain specific problems helps make engineers and technicians >> >> more adept. >> >> > I'm astounded! ... Like what? >> >> Like the ability to work interactively with hardware under development >> without the necessity for complex and expensive emulators and debuggers. > > When Dirk said "specific problems," this was confusing. Forth's > advantage over languages such as C is interactive development, which is > a good thing no matter what problem it is that you are solving. > Most BASIC's were interpreted too. It was nice that "extra" steps like compilation and linking weren't required, but C can be used for interactive development too. Compiling and linking is quick for small files. On this machine, it's usually done before I can type another key after 'enter' on this four year old machine. The code size of many applications hasn't increased as fast as processing speed. Yes, it would've taken some time on a 1Mhz 6502, three decades ago. Anyway, once the program becomes large, you just need to break the code into multiple small files, compile a small part, relink all the parts. It's simple, quick, albeit not as convenient. I know I've mentioned this to both Hugh and Ms. Rather before... As for the need for "complex and expensive emulatore and debuggers", all you need for C is printf() to debug. No joke. I implemented about half of a rudimentary x86 PC operating system this way quite rapidly. Like Forth, C provides necessary low-level access to code an OS. Forget about the debugger, the only time, one time, that I ever had to use one was for a 1MLoc active of 5Mloc, multiple parallel process application. It was needed to follow data passed between separate processes since there was no other way to do that. >> > Forth is an unstructured programming language. I.e., without >> > conscious application of structured coding principles, of which >> > many programmers are completely unaware, it results in "spaghetti >> > code", just like the code most programmers created for BASIC. >> >> I'm completely baffled by this remark. Forth was developed about the >> time Djkstra was writing papers about structured programming, and >> adheres far more strictly to structured programming practice than most >> languages. > > Forth doesn't have a GOTO, so you can't really write spaghetti code > like in in the old line-number BASICs of the early 1980s. > It doesn't have a GOTO ? It's true that it doesn't have an explicitly named GOTO . However, most interpreter based Forth's have BRANCH . Just what do you think that does? Many of them have AHEAD and AGAIN too which are simple wrappers around BRANCH or it's equivalent if not present. And, the assembly language Forth's just use the host's jump instruction. Rod Pemberton -- Fences are great. I need a fence. You can use them to post signs: "Blind people have the right to bear arms! Why wouldn't we?" "Sorry officer, I can't call off the dogs. Those aren't MY dogs..." "I believe in the cross. Cross-hairs on target... nailed to wood." "Would you like to see a free-range, pitbull hunt? I would! Run." "Laser dot. Scope. Win 308. C4 vertebra. Spoonfed for life."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-11 11:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l0pi26$gjr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25617 |
on 11/09/2013 11:21:59, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: [snip] > > It doesn't have a GOTO ? It's true that it doesn't have an explicitly > named GOTO . However, most interpreter based Forth's have BRANCH . > Just what do you think that does? Many of them have AHEAD and AGAIN > too which are simple wrappers around BRANCH or it's equivalent if not > present. And, the assembly language Forth's just use the host's jump > instruction. > I'm not sure I understand your point here, since code generated by languages that allow conditional execution will use the host's jump instruction or an equivalent set of conditional instructions. Many languages do not have an explicit GOTO or labels; Forth is one of them. BRANCH is an implementation detail to use the host's jump, not a language feature. You can, if you so wish, implement GOTO and labels in Forth. It's an ugly beast. http://www.wilbaden.com/neil_bawd/goto.txt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-11 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <l0popl$ptp$1@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de> |
| In reply to | #25620 |
Alex McDonald schrieb: > You can, if you so wish, implement GOTO and labels in Forth. It's an ugly > beast. Perhaps --- -- - + ++ +++ local labels are more beautiful. They are relative to current location, if you define a Plus-Label, saved forward references pointing to it are resolved; if you define a Minus-Label, then its address is saved to be filled in as soon as a jump wants to reach it. Altough it is intended for Assembler usage as shown in this example for msp430, you can use those labels and explicit jumps between and around normal Forth words. Matthias \ A small example for a five channel LED PWM timer tick routine $29 constant P2OUT 8 variable led-pwm 0 variable led-timer 0 variable led-red 0 variable led-yellow 0 variable led-green 0 variable led-blue 0 variable led-uv : tick push.w r10 mov.w &led-timer r10 inc.w r10 cmp.w &led-pwm r10 jlo + clr.w r10 l+: cmp.w &led-red r10 jlo + bic.b #%1 &p2out jmp ++ l+: bis.b #%1 &p2out l+: cmp.w &led-yellow r10 jlo + bic.b #%10 &p2out jmp ++ l+: bis.b #%10 &p2out l+: cmp.w &led-green r10 jlo + bic.b #%100 &p2out jmp ++ l+: bis.b #%100 &p2out l+: cmp.w &led-blue r10 jlo + bic.b #%1000 &p2out jmp ++ l+: bis.b #%1000 &p2out l+: cmp.w &led-uv r10 jlo + bic.b #%10000 &p2out jmp ++ l+: bis.b #%10000 &p2out l+: mov.w r10 &led-timer pop.w r10 ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-12 08:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3ar3owu0e5s1z@-> |
| In reply to | #25620 |
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:52:54 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 11/09/2013 11:21:59, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: ... > [snip] > >> It doesn't have a GOTO ? It's true that it doesn't have an explicitly >> named GOTO . However, most interpreter based Forth's have BRANCH . >> Just what do you think that does? Many of them have AHEAD and AGAIN >> too which are simple wrappers around BRANCH or it's equivalent if not >> present. And, the assembly language Forth's just use the host's jump >> instruction. >> > > I'm not sure I understand your point here, [...] Well, what did you expect? You ignored and snipped all prior context... The point was "spaghetti code" can be written in interpreted Forths, contrary to the claims of Hugh and Ms. Rather, because most of them have a named equivalent of GOTO that is available to the user. > Many languages do not have an explicit GOTO or labels; ... > Many languages do not have an explicit GOTO or labels; > Forth is one of them. I stated that Forth doesn't have an explicit GOTO directly above. It's still in the quoted portion that you didn't snip. Do you always parrot what others say directly back to them? That seems like a very strange behavior to me. How do you rationalize doing that without a realization of doing so? Was it a conscious decision? If so, what for? If not, I have no problem letting that slide as a strange coincidence or Freudian-slip issue... Are you staring at register code too much? E.g., XCHG EAX, EDX. It should be MOV EAX, EDX or PUSH EDX. The latter frees up a register... lol. > BRANCH is an implementation detail to use the host's jump, not a > language feature. Is it accessable to the user? Is it available in quite a few Forths? If so, your word games are irrevelant to the discussion. ;-) > [link Wil Baden code] He's an interesting guy. He seemed to post more working and useful Forth code than most of the other c.l.f. notables, except maybe Gassenenko. I've seen a few similar posts to c.l.f on how to implement control-flow. I'm not sure if that was one of them. The more advanced methods that use POSTPONE CS-ROLL and a method to resolve nested branch addresses, I can't use in my Forth, or couldn't originally. So, they had to be reduced or translated to the older, simpler implementations, upfront. I could probably rewrite them now or with a bit more work... Rod Pemberton -- Fences are great. I need a fence. You can use them to post signs: "Blind people have the right to bear arms! Why wouldn't we?" "Sorry officer, I can't call off the dogs. Those aren't MY dogs..." "I believe in the cross. Cross-hairs on target... nailed to wood." "Would you like to see a free-range, pitbull hunt? I would! Run." "Laser dot. Scope. Win 308. C4 vertebra. Spoonfed for life."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-12 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l0sf2k$2mr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25641 |
on 12/09/2013 13:10:24, "Rod Pemberton" wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:52:54 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com>
> > wrote:
>> on 11/09/2013 11:21:59, "Rod Pemberton" wrote:
> wrote: ...
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> It doesn't have a GOTO ? It's true that it doesn't have an explicitly
>>> named GOTO . However, most interpreter based Forth's have BRANCH .
>>> Just what do you think that does? Many of them have AHEAD and AGAIN
>>> too which are simple wrappers around BRANCH or it's equivalent if not
>>> present. And, the assembly language Forth's just use the host's jump
>>> instruction.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand your point here, [...]
>
> Well, what did you expect?
>
> You ignored and snipped all prior context...
>
> The point was "spaghetti code" can be written in interpreted Forths,
> contrary to the claims of Hugh and Ms. Rather, because most of them
> have a named equivalent of GOTO that is available to the user.
Count me with them, in that case, because you're way off base.
There is no named equivalent in Forth of GOTO that is available to the
user. BRANCH alone (if available) is insufficent, since it takes
knowledge of how control flow has been implemented.
Here's an example from my Forth; the word is BRA.
: ahead ( c: -- orig ) \ jump forwards
(comp-only) compilation> ( -- xt ) drop
postpone bra mark> mark-if ;
: then ( c: orig -- ) \ resolve the forward jump
(comp-only) compilation> ( -- xt ) drop
mark-if ?pairs >resolve ;
Another example from Win32Forth; a bare BRANCH will just get you into
trouble.
NCODE BRANCH br-next c;
NCODE _THEN next c;
: AGAIN ?COMP 1 ?PAIRS COMPILE BRANCH <RESOLVE ; IMMEDIATE
: THEN ?COMP 2 ?PAIRS COMPILE _THEN >RESOLVE ; IMMEDIATE
[snip]
>> BRANCH is an implementation detail to use the host's jump, not a
>> language feature.
>
> Is it accessable to the user? Is it available in quite a few Forths?
> If so, your word games are irrevelant to the discussion. ;-)
Use of BRANCH immediately makes your code dependent on a specific
implementation. You can't write portable Forth with it. Your assertion
that <"spaghetti code" can be written in interpreted Forths> is only
correct if you're a very smart bear and are targetting one specific
Forth; but smart bears don't use GOTO or write spaghetti code or
deliberately restrict their app to a single implementation.
That's why we have ANS Forth. No, BRANCH is not available in ANS Forth.
[snip]
>> [link Wil Baden code]
>
> He's an interesting guy.
Was. Neil Bawd (Wil Baden was an anagrammatic pseudonym for his Forth
stuff) died several years back. The code he shows doesn't use BRANCH yet
manages to implement a GOTO and LABEL.
I don't think he was a fan of GOTO. The link demonstrates the power of
Forth in developing new control structures in Forth alone. There are
other articles he wrote where he demonstrated how to remove branches and
create structured (i.e. GOTOless) code.
[snip]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-14 22:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3fl1hj90e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25643 |
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:20:19 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 12/09/2013 13:10:24, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:52:54 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> >> > wrote: .. >> The point was "spaghetti code" can be written in interpreted Forths, >> contrary to the claims of Hugh and Ms. Rather, because most of them >> have a named equivalent of GOTO that is available to the user. > > Count me with them, in that case, because you're way off base. > Well, I disagree, but there is no point in continuing since you are clearly set in your perspective. Ditto for Ms. Rather. >>> [link Wil Baden code] >> >> He's an interesting guy. > > Was. Nobel. Fox. ... I won't insert an "everyone around here is dying comment." We all know Forth is a dying language. I also won't incite more hostilities by pointing out that ME, Hugh, gavino, and perhaps Mark and Marcel, are going to be some of the only ones who know Forth who are still living a few years from now... > Neil Bawd (Wil Baden was an anagrammatic pseudonym for his > Forth stuff) Well, I said interesting... But, like GOTO, it seems you have it the wrong way around. See "Who is Neil Bawd" section here: http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/dad/ > I don't think he was a fan of GOTO. Despite Knuth's supposed claims to the contrary, explicit GOTO's are completely unecessary as a standalone language element. Structured code eliminates all need for an explicit GOTO in a high-level language. > The link demonstrates the power of Forth in developing new control > structures in Forth alone. Why do you think that is important? For some of my C code, I only use a very small portion of the flow control available in C. C has the same control flow that is available in Forth, or less. I.e., most of C's flow control is entirely unnecessary, therefore Forth's must be too. If it's unnecessary, can it be that important? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-14 17:47 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <WbudndOtOrtIsKjPnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25668 |
On 9/14/13 4:47 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:20:19 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> on 12/09/2013 13:10:24, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:52:54 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> >>> > wrote: > .. > >>> The point was "spaghetti code" can be written in interpreted Forths, >>> contrary to the claims of Hugh and Ms. Rather, because most of them >>> have a named equivalent of GOTO that is available to the user. >> >> Count me with them, in that case, because you're way off base. > > Well, I disagree, but there is no point in continuing since > you are clearly set in your perspective. Ditto for Ms. Rather. My perspective, at least, is one derived from 30 years of writing Forth applications and teaching other people to do so. Yours is, um, less (as far as Forth goes). >>>> [link Wil Baden code] >>> >>> He's an interesting guy. >> >> Was. > > Nobel. Fox. ... > > I won't insert an "everyone around here is dying comment." > We all know Forth is a dying language. I also won't incite > more hostilities by pointing out that ME, Hugh, gavino, and > perhaps Mark and Marcel, are going to be some of the only ones > who know Forth who are still living a few years from now... I know a lot of young Forth programmers in our customer organizations. None seem to be interested in clf, however. A few of them have checked in here, and been appalled at the lack of application-oriented discussions. >> Neil Bawd (Wil Baden was an anagrammatic pseudonym for his >> Forth stuff) > > Well, I said interesting... But, like GOTO, it seems you have > it the wrong way around. See "Who is Neil Bawd" section here: > > http://www.boston-baden.com/hazel/dad/ > >> I don't think he was a fan of GOTO. > > Despite Knuth's supposed claims to the contrary, explicit GOTO's are > completely unecessary as a standalone language element. Structured > code eliminates all need for an explicit GOTO in a high-level language. We agree. That's why there is no published GOTO equivalent in any Forth standard. >> The link demonstrates the power of Forth in developing new control >> structures in Forth alone. > > Why do you think that is important? For some of my C code, I only use > a very small portion of the flow control available in C. C has the > same control flow that is available in Forth, or less. I.e., most > of C's flow control is entirely unnecessary, therefore Forth's must be > too. If it's unnecessary, can it be that important? Well, the published structures are the various DO ... LOOP combinations, BEGIN ... WHILE ... REPEAT, BEGIN ... UNTIL, BEGIN ... AGAIN, IF ... ELSE ... THEN (ELSE optional). That's not a lot. The fact that some of the indefinite loop elements can be combined in more flexible ways is an extra element of flexibility that is, in my experience, rarely used. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5235eb3d.280545989@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #25670 |
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:47:30 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote: >I know a lot of young Forth programmers in our customer organizations. >None seem to be interested in clf, however. A few of them have checked >in here, and been appalled at the lack of application-oriented discussions. Most of our clients are just appalled by clf. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 18:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l14s41$8ee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25681 |
on 15/09/2013 18:17:08, wrote: > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:47:30 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather" > <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >>I know a lot of young Forth programmers in our customer organizations. >>None seem to be interested in clf, however. A few of them have checked >>in here, and been appalled at the lack of application-oriented discussions. > > Most of our clients are just appalled by clf. > > Stephen > > This is one of these rare occasions when you are both well off target. I'd say to your clients; get off the internet. They're going to be appalled wherever they look, and they're obviously too stupid to recognise that you agreeing with them doesn't move the world forward in any particular direction. Or perhaps you're both using third party voices because it's easier to do and makes you feel like you're in the majority. You really mean that clf appalls you, but having an anonymous group of like minded appallees makes it sound weightier. Either get these clients and youg Forth programmers to contribute instead of acting like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells; or you and Elizabeth should check out and take a clf holiday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 08:11 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <L4qdncLWSIfUZajPnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25682 |
On 9/15/13 7:52 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 15/09/2013 18:17:08, wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:47:30 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather" >> <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> >>> I know a lot of young Forth programmers in our customer organizations. >>> None seem to be interested in clf, however. A few of them have checked >>> in here, and been appalled at the lack of application-oriented discussions. >> >> Most of our clients are just appalled by clf. >> >> Stephen >> >> > > This is one of these rare occasions when you are both well off target. > > I'd say to your clients; get off the internet. They're going to be > appalled wherever they look, and they're obviously too stupid to > recognise that you agreeing with them doesn't move the world forward in > any particular direction. > > Or perhaps you're both using third party voices because it's easier to do > and makes you feel like you're in the majority. You really mean that clf > appalls you, but having an anonymous group of like minded appallees makes > it sound weightier. > > Either get these clients and youg Forth programmers to contribute instead > of acting like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells; or you and Elizabeth should > check out and take a clf holiday. I have advocated that Forthers come to clf in every class I've taught and in many conversations. I keep hoping to broaden the discussions here from narrow quibbles about such issues as wordlist arcana and other implementation details and useless Forth vs. C wrangles into application-related issues that reflect how Forth is used in the real world. Both Stephen and I invest time in clf because we want to be there for the occasional newbie seeking information and assistance. I think we both differ from a lot of people here because we're in regular contact with professional Forth programmers whose business is using Forth in applications, which has also been a major focus of our professional lives. Professional Forthers, like other professional programmers, are working on projects against deadlines. They will spend time doing things that are helpful in their jobs, or that are entertaining (e.g. social websites). Too often, clf is neither. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 19:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l14vfe$tjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25686 |
on 15/09/2013 19:11:16, "Elizabeth D. Rather" wrote: > On 9/15/13 7:52 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: >> on 15/09/2013 18:17:08, wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:47:30 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather" >>> <erather@forth.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I know a lot of young Forth programmers in our customer organizations. >>>> None seem to be interested in clf, however. A few of them have checked >>>> in here, and been appalled at the lack of application-oriented discussions. >>> >>> Most of our clients are just appalled by clf. >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> >> >> This is one of these rare occasions when you are both well off target. >> >> I'd say to your clients; get off the internet. They're going to be >> appalled wherever they look, and they're obviously too stupid to >> recognise that you agreeing with them doesn't move the world forward in >> any particular direction. >> >> Or perhaps you're both using third party voices because it's easier to do >> and makes you feel like you're in the majority. You really mean that clf >> appalls you, but having an anonymous group of like minded appallees makes >> it sound weightier. >> >> Either get these clients and youg Forth programmers to contribute instead >> of acting like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells; or you and Elizabeth should >> check out and take a clf holiday. > > I have advocated that Forthers come to clf in every class I've taught > and in many conversations. I keep hoping to broaden the discussions > here from narrow quibbles about such issues as wordlist arcana and > other implementation details and useless Forth vs. C wrangles into > application-related issues that reflect how Forth is used in the real > world. It can do both. But my interests aren't your students interests, and it's me that's posting, not them. They (and you as their mentor) must create and contribute to their topics of interest. > > Both Stephen and I invest time in clf because we want to be there for > the occasional newbie seeking information and assistance. I think we > both differ from a lot of people here because we're in regular contact > with professional Forth programmers whose business is using Forth in > applications, which has also been a major focus of our professional > lives. Well, that's good; and I for one have appreciated your help, and recorded my appreciation here. > > Professional Forthers, like other professional programmers, are > working on projects against deadlines. They will spend time doing > things that are helpful in their jobs, or that are entertaining (e.g. > social websites). Too often, clf is neither. Don't blame clf because it isn't as you would wish for your students; blame them for not doing anything about it and their complete lack of contribution. Being appalled is not the answer. We can all do appalled. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 09:11 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <xMKdnSCGZNbFm6vPnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25688 |
On 9/15/13 8:49 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 15/09/2013 19:11:16, "Elizabeth D. Rather" wrote: ... >> Professional Forthers, like other professional programmers, are >> working on projects against deadlines. They will spend time doing >> things that are helpful in their jobs, or that are entertaining (e.g. >> social websites). Too often, clf is neither. > > Don't blame clf because it isn't as you would wish for your students; > blame them for not doing anything about it and their complete lack of > contribution. > > Being appalled is not the answer. We can all do appalled. The way the internet works (both newsgroups and web sites) is people go and hang out for a while, to see if it's something worth their time to participate in either for professional reasons, entertainment, or both. If it looks interesting and helpful, they'll stay and contribute. If not, they go away. There are some Forth discussions on Linkedin that are more professional in nature, and some of the participants occasionally hang out here as well. This thread in one example. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 20:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7cce4fe-0a38-47c3-9632-5bc8597c3def@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25686 |
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:11:21 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/15/13 7:52 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > > on 15/09/2013 18:17:08, wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:47:30 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather" > >> <erather@forth.com> wrote: > > >>> I know a lot of young Forth programmers in our customer organizations. > >>> None seem to be interested in clf, however. A few of them have checked > >>> in here, and been appalled at the lack of application-oriented discussions. > > >> Most of our clients are just appalled by clf. > > > This is one of these rare occasions when you are both well off target. > > > I'd say to your clients; get off the internet. They're going to be > > appalled wherever they look, and they're obviously too stupid to > > recognise that you agreeing with them doesn't move the world forward in > > any particular direction. Alex McDonald calls other people stupid??? LOL > I have advocated that Forthers come to clf in every class I've taught > and in many conversations. I keep hoping to broaden the discussions here > from narrow quibbles about such issues as wordlist arcana and other > implementation details and useless Forth vs. C wrangles into > application-related issues that reflect how Forth is used in the real world. Who is writing application programs in Forth??? I've never heard of this being done in the last 20 years, and it was only done sporadically prior to that. > Both Stephen and I invest time in clf because we want to be there for > the occasional newbie seeking information and assistance. If you are so concerned about the newbies, why haven't you ever provided them with basic application-programming support --- structs, arrays, linked lists, associations, etc.? Also, why haven't any of the Forth Inc. books provided any such information? I have never seen any evidence to indicate that you know how to implement this stuff. When I was learning Forth as a teenager in the early 1980s, I read all of the Forth Inc. books. Despite this, I didn't know what a struct was. It was only after learning C, that I found out about structs --- then I returned to Forth and implemented FIELD myself in Forth --- but except for learning basic programming in the C context, I wouldn't have ever known about this stuff which is necessary for writing even the most basic application program. Forth Inc. is really providing zero help for newbies! > I think we > both differ from a lot of people here because we're in regular contact > with professional Forth programmers whose business is using Forth in > applications, which has also been a major focus of our professional lives. I'm one of the very few people on this planet who have ever made a living programming in Forth. I have never met anybody in real life who has earned green money programming in Forth (other than my own coworkers). There are a handful of people on c.l.f. who claim to earn money as Forth programmers, but that is most likely just typical usenet baloney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-17 17:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3kqyorn0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25695 |
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 23:38:58 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > [snip] > > When I was learning Forth as a teenager in the early 1980s, I read all > of the Forth Inc. books. Despite this, I didn't know what a struct was. > It was only after learning C, that I found out about structs --- then I > returned to Forth and implemented FIELD myself in Forth --- but except > for learning basic programming in the C context, I wouldn't have ever > known about this stuff which is necessary for writing even the most > basic application program. Forth Inc. is really providing zero help for > newbies! > Sigh, here we go again... Every time I mention lack of syntax or language structure in Forth, I get ripped. A short while later someone who programs in Forth cites the exact issue by example. This time it happened to be Hugh. Are you guys doing this intentionally or just for "fun"? Can you truly be so blissfully unaware of the issue that you don't realize it even when you explicitly complain about it? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spam@ControlQ.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-17 18:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1309171747520.82685@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #25734 |
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Rod Pemberton wrote: > Sigh, here we go again... > > Every time I mention lack of syntax or language structure in Forth, Hi, Rod. I'm wondering how this lack of syntax or structure is a problem? If you want to program in Ada, then by all means do so, and have your typing, your structure and your syntax all enforced -- stringently. I suppose what I'm getting at is, that Forth is what it is. You get a stack for free, and a dictionary and all else is what you decide to build, or not, as you see fit. The lack of syntax and structure is (IMHO) a feature, not a glitch, and if you need to extend the language, you are encouraged to do so, on an application by application basis. This is, indeed the CHARM of Forth. Cheers, Rob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web