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 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-17 14:31 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <SJednXkgW9jLaaXPnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25734 |
On 9/17/13 11:21 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > 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? Hugh is complaining about the lack of structs. Structs aren't a standard feature in Forth for the simple reason that it's so easy to add whatever kind of data structure you want, but Hugh refuses to use DOES> for some reason. 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 | 2013-09-17 22:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be78def7-80c0-492a-8382-066f3340d775@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25738 |
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:31:18 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> Hugh is complaining about the lack of structs. Structs aren't a standard
> feature in Forth for the simple reason that it's so easy to add whatever
> kind of data structure you want, but Hugh refuses to use DOES> for some
> reason.
Is this what you are talking about?
: field ( offset size -- new-offset )
create
over , +
does> ( record -- field-adr )
@ + ;
Well, I didn't figure that out when I was 18 years old --- it was several years later --- after I had learned about structs in the C context. None of the Forth Inc. books mentioned structs at all. Some books written outside of Forth Inc. did discuss structs --- Dick Pountain's book, for example. It is really necessary to look outside of Forth Inc. to learn anything about Forth --- the cartoons in "Starting Forth" were cute, but who over the age of 18 cares about cuteness?
Also, it wasn't for several more years that I became alert to how grossly inefficient this is, especially on SwiftForth, and developed the FIELD that I have in the novice package.
This has been discussed at length --- your "for some reason" comment indicates a remarkable denseness on your part.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/TTvONOrHvI4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-17 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0c2cea6-99ae-4e2f-9c0d-4cecafdd8be1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25743 |
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:20:58 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > It is really necessary to look outside of Forth Inc. to learn anything about Forth --- the cartoons in "Starting Forth" were cute, but who over the age of 18 cares about cuteness? I meant, who over the age of 18 cares about cuteness in computer programming books --- of course, I still care about cuteness in young females. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 21:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <l1d0i6$2lj$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #25738 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Hugh is complaining about the lack of structs. Structs aren't a standard > feature in Forth for the simple reason that it's so easy to add whatever > kind of data structure you want, but Hugh refuses to use DOES> for some > reason. Actually, structs are now part of Forth-2012, so this complaints are outdated. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 02:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <DpmdnXlTEptCwaTPnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25734 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > > 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? How can you say we're unaware of it? We know Forth very well. The argument is whether the lack of, say, syntax is a bug or a feature. And of course you get ripped. Your idea of a good way to sepnd your time is to come to a Forth newsgroup and tell everyone how crap Forth is. What did you expect? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 09:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3l0a9co0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25752 |
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >> 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? > > How can you say we're unaware of it? We know Forth very well. The > argument is whether the lack of, say, syntax is a bug or a feature. > If it's frequently complained about, wouldn't that make it a bug? If it's easy to misuse, wouldn't that make it a source of bugs? > And of course you get ripped. Your idea of a good way to [spend] your > time is to come to a Forth newsgroup and tell everyone how crap Forth > is. What did you expect? > Don't you think four decades of conversation on what's the best way to implement control-flow in Forth is enough? When it's not how to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing new control-flow techniques? (never) When was the last time you heard of many C programmers discussing how to use the same specific function in the C library because they have problems with it? (never) One apparent difference in the C community and the Forth community is that the C community will openly state that something is a problem, has been, and is unlikely to be fixed. Next, they will tell you how to avoid the problem, if you desire to. OTH, the Forth community seems to be in denial or willfully blind by stating that problems which are repeatedly cited by both novices and adept Forth programmers aren't really a problem. If it's not a problem, why is there so much conversation on it? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 15:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1cdo2$jm5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25761 |
on 18/09/2013 14:41:25, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > >>> 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? >> >> How can you say we're unaware of it? We know Forth very well. The >> argument is whether the lack of, say, syntax is a bug or a feature. >> > > If it's frequently complained about, wouldn't that make it a bug? People frequently complain about casting in C. Perhaps that's a bug. > > If it's easy to misuse, wouldn't that make it a source of bugs? Like pointers in C? > >> And of course you get ripped. Your idea of a good way to [spend] your >> time is to come to a Forth newsgroup and tell everyone how crap Forth >> is. What did you expect? >> > > Don't you think four decades of conversation on what's the best > way to implement control-flow in Forth is enough? We've had 4 decades of discussing K&R C and the result is -- a set of C-like languages, each claiming to fix the problems. Enough is enough, sez I. > When it's not how > to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is > cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same > conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a > problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their > time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The > dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. > > E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing > new control-flow techniques? (never) Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. When was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language itself? Never.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 21:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3mvuog40e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25763 |
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:35:45 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 18/09/2013 14:41:25, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> How can you say we're unaware of it? We know Forth very well. The >>> argument is whether the lack of, say, syntax is a bug or a feature. >>> >> >> If it's frequently complained about, wouldn't that make it a bug? > > People frequently complain about casting in C. Who? If you're coding C correctly, casts are mostly not needed. At least, that's what most experience C programmers tell the newbs... But, casting can be useful to bypass the type system to ensure proper representation, proper truncation, or proper type conversion in situations where C's default methods don't work correctly. But, this isn't about C. > Perhaps that's a bug. And, it's still not about C... Incorrect use of casting can definately result in bugs, but at least C has a limited type system to prevent some common coding mistakes. Forth doesn't have a type system at all. >> If it's easy to misuse, wouldn't that make it a source of bugs? > > Like pointers in C? > Exactly. They are a very powerful and useful feature but also the source of coding errors for some. They're available for mis-use in Forth too. But, this is still not about C. It's about Forth. Stop deflecting. >>> And of course you get ripped. Your idea of a good way to [spend] your >>> time is to come to a Forth newsgroup and tell everyone how crap Forth >>> is. What did you expect? >>> >> >> Don't you think four decades of conversation on what's the best >> way to implement control-flow in Forth is enough? > > We've had 4 decades of discussing K&R C and the result is -- a set of > C-like languages, each claiming to fix the problems. Enough is enough, > sez I. And, we're still deflecting. The result was C89, C99, (on going)... The others aren't C. Although, I think it's worthy to note that the set of C-like languages to which you refer are not Forth-like languages. Where are the Forth-like language derivatives? The H.O.P.L. database seems to no longer be available, but when it was you could easily see that successful languages, say ALGOL, had many derivatives. (History of Programming Languages at Murdoch U. Perth, Australia) (hopl.murdoch.edu.au) Could it be true that all Forth-like languages are still ... Forth? OMG! What an epiphany. Forth users can never program in something better than Forth since all derivatives are just more Forth... ;-) Is there a reason you won't directly discuss Forth's problems? I can't believe you don't have some valid complaints. >> When it's not how >> to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is >> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same >> conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a >> problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their >> time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The >> dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. >> >> E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing >> new control-flow techniques? (never) > > Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. When > was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the > difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language > itself? Never. > Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object classes? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 15:42 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <RJGdnTO6h804y6fPnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25784 |
On 9/18/13 3:02 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:35:45 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> on 18/09/2013 14:41:25, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley >>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: ... > Incorrect use of casting can definately result in bugs, but at least > C has a limited type system to prevent some common coding mistakes. > Forth doesn't have a type system at all. > >>> If it's easy to misuse, wouldn't that make it a source of bugs? >> >> Like pointers in C? >> > > Exactly. > > They are a very powerful and useful feature but also the source of > coding errors for some. They're available for mis-use in Forth too. > > But, this is still not about C. It's about Forth. Stop deflecting. Your assertion seems to be that C is perfect and Forth is flawed. They're pointing out that some folks have complaints about C. ... >> We've had 4 decades of discussing K&R C and the result is -- a set of >> C-like languages, each claiming to fix the problems. Enough is enough, >> sez I. > > And, we're still deflecting. > > The result was C89, C99, (on going)... The others aren't C. Although, > I think it's worthy to note that the set of C-like languages to which > you refer are not Forth-like languages. Where are the Forth-like > language derivatives? If you want to enumerate standards, there's Forth77, Forth79, Forth83, Forth94, Forth20xx, and colorForth. > The H.O.P.L. database seems to no longer be available, but when it > was you could easily see that successful languages, say ALGOL, had > many derivatives. > > (History of Programming Languages at Murdoch U. Perth, Australia) > (hopl.murdoch.edu.au) > > Could it be true that all Forth-like languages are still ... Forth? > OMG! What an epiphany. Forth users can never program in something > better than Forth since all derivatives are just more Forth... ;-) Maybe we're really all just happy campers :-) > Is there a reason you won't directly discuss Forth's problems? > > I can't believe you don't have some valid complaints. The thing is, when we need something in Forth it's easier just to provide it than to go around complaining. >>> When it's not how >>> to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is >>> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same >>> conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a >>> problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their >>> time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The >>> dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. >>> >>> E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing >>> new control-flow techniques? (never) There's a big difference here: C programmers are focused on using C, not how to write their own hobby C compiler. In fact, the vast majority of Forth programmers aren't interested in these questions, either, because they have a Forth that works just fine, and they're busy solving real-world problems with it. It's the newbies who're trying to make a DIY Forth that worry about how to implement stuff. >> Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. When >> was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the >> difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language >> itself? Never. > > Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see how > that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object classes? If I counted carets correctly, that's Andrew talking. Since he maintains C compilers for a living, I assume he knows of the trouble spots that users complain of. 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 | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 15:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3p6mvmw0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25787 |
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:42:58 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 9/18/13 3:02 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:35:45 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> >> wrote: ... >>> [...] >> But, this is still not about C. It's about Forth. Stop deflecting. > > Your assertion seems to be that C is perfect and Forth is flawed. > They're pointing out that some folks have complaints about C. > Now, you're deflecting too. That can only be true if no one around here remembers anything. I've _repeatedly_ described C flaws here. >>> We've had 4 decades of discussing K&R C and the result is -- a set of >>> C-like languages, each claiming to fix the problems. Enough is enough, >>> sez I. >> >> And, we're still deflecting. >> >> The result was C89, C99, (on going)... The others aren't C. Although, >> I think it's worthy to note that the set of C-like languages to which >> you refer are not Forth-like languages. Where are the Forth-like >> language derivatives? > > If you want to enumerate standards, there's Forth77, Forth79, Forth83, > Forth94, Forth20xx, and colorForth. > I don't see what that has to do with the conversation. >>> Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. >>> When was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the >>> difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language >>> itself? Never. >> >> Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see >> how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object >> classes? > > If I counted carets correctly, that's Andrew talking. That "Cough" section was Alex. (One more caret in body than header. Or, just skim the prior posts.) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 11:26 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ysudnbpEeqoFIKHPnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25851 |
On 9/20/13 9:48 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:42:58 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather > <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >> On 9/18/13 3:02 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:35:45 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> >>> wrote: > ... > >>>> [...] >>> But, this is still not about C. It's about Forth. Stop deflecting. >> >> Your assertion seems to be that C is perfect and Forth is flawed. >> They're pointing out that some folks have complaints about C. >> > > Now, you're deflecting too. > > That can only be true if no one around here remembers anything. > > I've _repeatedly_ described C flaws here. > >>>> We've had 4 decades of discussing K&R C and the result is -- a set of >>>> C-like languages, each claiming to fix the problems. Enough is enough, >>>> sez I. >>> >>> And, we're still deflecting. >>> >>> The result was C89, C99, (on going)... The others aren't C. Although, >>> I think it's worthy to note that the set of C-like languages to which >>> you refer are not Forth-like languages. Where are the Forth-like >>> language derivatives? >> >> If you want to enumerate standards, there's Forth77, Forth79, Forth83, >> Forth94, Forth20xx, and colorForth. >> > > I don't see what that has to do with the conversation. It's an attempt to answer your question. You listed C89, C99, etc. and asked for Forth equivalents. That's what they are. >>>> Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. >>>> When was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the >>>> difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language >>>> itself? Never. >>> >>> Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see >>> how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object >>> classes? >> >> If I counted carets correctly, that's Andrew talking. > > That "Cough" section was Alex. > (One more caret in body than header. Or, just skim the prior posts.) Yes. It's Andrew coughing, so I can't explain. 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 | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 20:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3qjxegp0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25858 |
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:26:48 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 9/20/13 9:48 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:42:58 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather >> <erather@forth.com> wrote: >>>>>> Don't you think four decades of conversation on what's the best >>>>>> way to implement control-flow in Forth is enough? >>>>> We've had 4 decades of discussing K&R C and the result is -- a set of >>>>> C-like languages, each claiming to fix the problems. Enough is >>>>> enough, sez I. >>>> >>>> And, we're still deflecting. >>>> >>>> The result was C89, C99, (on going)... The others aren't C. >>>> Although, >>>> I think it's worthy to note that the set of C-like languages to which >>>> you refer are not Forth-like languages. Where are the Forth-like >>>> language derivatives? >>> >>> If you want to enumerate standards, there's Forth77, Forth79, Forth83, >>> Forth94, Forth20xx, and colorForth. >>> >> >> I don't see what that has to do with the conversation. > > It's an attempt to answer your question. You listed C89, C99, etc. and > asked for Forth equivalents. That's what they are. > I didn't ask for equivalents to C89, C99, etc. I pointed out the result of Alex's claim of "discussing K&R C" for "four decades" wasn't discussing C for four decades. It was a bunch of C standards the first of which was about a decade later. C has a whole bunch of C-like language derivatives: C++, Java, D, Javascript, Objective-C, C#, etc. Those are what I thought Alex was referring to by "a set of C-Like languages". So, I asked where are the Forth-like language derivatives? Well, I found some without help from anyone here: PISTOL, STOIC, MOPS. >>>>> Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. >>>>> When was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the >>>>> difference between a metaprogramming template language and the >>>>> language >>>>> itself? Never. >>>> >>>> Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see >>>> how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object >>>> classes? >>> >>> If I counted carets correctly, that's Andrew talking. >> >> That "Cough" section was Alex. >> (One more caret in body than header. Or, just skim the prior posts.) > > Yes. It's Andrew coughing, so I can't explain. Is that sarcasm? Humor? If so, I don't see a smiley... Or, are you still incorrectly insisting the "Cough" section wasn't Alex, but Andrew? FYI, it originates with Alex's post (bottom): https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/5SAR2WfAKUU/uymQF4PhUOUJ Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 13:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1erlv$cpj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25784 |
on 19/09/2013 02:02:41, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: [snip] > > Is there a reason you won't directly discuss Forth's problems? Your problems with Forth, you mean. Except there's never anything specific to address. > > I can't believe you don't have some valid complaints. I do. I'm not fond of TO. I'm not fond of words that use STATE or when compilation and execution semantics are not clear. Wordlists and CONTEXT are a bit of a mess. Can you help? > >>> When it's not how >>> to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is >>> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same >>> conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a >>> problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their >>> time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The >>> dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. >>> >>> E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing >>> new control-flow techniques? (never) >> >> Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. When >> was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the >> difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language >> itself? Never. >> > > Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see > how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object > classes? > No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_metaprogramming. And before you fire back with "Aha! but it doesn't apply to C!", please remember; you're "deflecting". This isn't about C, it's about your perception of Forth and what it can do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 16:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3p708180e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25815 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:45:50 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 19/09/2013 02:02:41, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > [snip] Cutting attributions confuses Ms. Rather... >> I can't believe you don't have some valid complaints. > > I do. > > I'm not fond of TO. > I'm not fond of words that use STATE orwhen compilation and execution > semantics are not clear. > Wordlists and CONTEXT are a bit of a mess. > > Can you help? > No. But, you seriously believe these trivial issues are more of a problem than the other issues that have been cited? Odd. >>>> When it's not how >>>> to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is >>>> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same >>>> conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a >>>> problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their >>>> time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The >>>> dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. >>>> >>>> E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing >>>> new control-flow techniques? (never) >>> >>> Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. >>> When was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the >>> difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language >>> itself? Never. >>> >> >> Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see >> how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object >> classes? >> > > No. [link] > > And before you fire back with "Aha! but it doesn't apply to C!", Didn't I already say that in different words above? Why would I repeat myself here? It appears I guessed the correct language you were referencing too: C++. > please remember; you're "deflecting". That's clearly not the case given this is about Forth in a Forth newsgroup. I've attempted to keep conversion on Forth for this thread. I.e., discussion of C++ by you is deflecting. Yes? > This isn't about C, I stated that too, multiple times. You seem to enjoy circular or reversal style logic, although that never leads to the truth, only to repetition, parrotting, and annoyance. It never exposes the opposite side of the issue, because there is only one truth for each issue. > [This is] about your perception of Forth and what it can do. No, it's about Forth users' valid complaints about Forth which are met with harsh criticism of anyone who attempt to discuss the specific issues complained about. It's as if there is a secret taboo or "blacklist" of acceptable Forth topics, which doesn't include _all_ Forth topics, but there is no copy of this hidden list anywhere. E.g., Hugh cited lack of language structure above, but numerous past attempts to discuss lack of language structure in Forth by me or others past results in hostile criticism claiming the contrary. Both can't be true. These issues can't both be a problem and not be. It doesn't just stem from Hugh, but you, Bernd, Ms. Rather, et. al. Lack of language structure seems to be one of the issues on "the list". You seem to like turnabout as an argumentative style... So, what if I added issues involving CONTEXT or TO to that list? What if I claimed that compilation and execution semantics you think are confusing are entirely clear and don't require discussion and others of note agreed with me? What if I, and maybe others over time, dismissed your concerns as trivial and insignificant, thereby blocking conversation on them? I bet you'd become really irked. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f32146d-5f91-43d3-8f3c-669bf1ff917e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25852 |
On Friday, 20 September 2013 21:18:34 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote: [snip] Please lay out your issues with Forth. If it's "Forth doesn't have syntax", there's little to be discussed, since that's the nature of Forth. It's like saying "C has syntax". Yes. What next? What effects that has on its usability, clarity and so on is something we can discuss. I haven't seen any points raised where we can have a discussion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 17:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l1idgm$nrv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25856 |
On 9/20/2013 5:06 PM, Alex McDonald wrote: > On Friday, 20 September 2013 21:18:34 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote: > [snip] > > Please lay out your issues with Forth. If it's "Forth doesn't have syntax", there's little to be discussed, since that's the nature of Forth. It's like saying "C has syntax". Yes. What next? > > What effects that has on its usability, clarity and so on is something we can discuss. I haven't seen any points raised where we can have a discussion. Every time someone responds to a troll, a kitten dies... -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 12:00 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ttadnb_qZO3wWKHPnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25852 |
On 9/20/13 10:18 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:45:50 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> on 19/09/2013 02:02:41, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> [snip] > > Cutting attributions confuses Ms. Rather... So true, but leaving in irrelevant or repetitive stuff is sometimes worse. >>> I can't believe you don't have some valid complaints. >> >> I do. >> >> I'm not fond of TO. >> I'm not fond of words that use STATE orwhen compilation and execution >> semantics are not clear. >> Wordlists and CONTEXT are a bit of a mess. >> >> Can you help? >> > > No. But, you seriously believe these trivial issues are more of > a problem than the other issues that have been cited? Odd. Well, you asked whether Alex had any complaints. He enumerated them. Obviously the things you're bothered by don't bother him (or me). >>>>> When it's not how >>>>> to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is >>>>> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same >>>>> conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a >>>>> problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their >>>>> time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The >>>>> dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. >>>>> ... >> [This is] about your perception of Forth and what it can do. > > No, it's about Forth users' valid complaints about Forth which > are met with harsh criticism of anyone who attempt to discuss > the specific issues complained about. It's as if there is a > secret taboo or "blacklist" of acceptable Forth topics, which > doesn't include _all_ Forth topics, but there is no copy of > this hidden list anywhere. I'm assuming the "valid complaints" you're talking about are the ones in the paragraph above with the many carets. People trying to do hobby Forth implementations and are not familiar with Forth programming often have trouble implementing control-flow (did you know how to program C when you wrote a compiler? I'll bet you did.). Newbies often have trouble with DOES> initially, because its a capability not available in most languages, but they learn quickly. After a matter of days or weeks people are usually quite comfortable with Forth, as they begin to see how productive they are in writing applications. I haven't heard any "harsh criticisms" of newbies coming with questions... my experience here is that we try to be helpful. What gets our backs up is folks who insist on slamming Forth because it's different from their favorite language, whatever it is. If you try Forth and don't like it, fine. Cool. Use a language you prefer. What we find annoying is folks who have to hang around telling us how awful Forth is, for no apparent reason. > E.g., Hugh cited lack of language structure above, but numerous > past attempts to discuss lack of language structure in Forth by > me or others past results in hostile criticism claiming the contrary. > Both can't be true. These issues can't both be a problem and not be. > It doesn't just stem from Hugh, but you, Bernd, Ms. Rather, et. al. > Lack of language structure seems to be one of the issues on "the list". What can be true is that once you become accustomed to the fact that it's trivial to add whatever language structure you want, and have it work exactly the way you want it, the existence of pre-defined structures becomes less of an issue. > You seem to like turnabout as an argumentative style... > So, what if I added issues involving CONTEXT or TO to that list? > What if I claimed that compilation and execution semantics you > think are confusing are entirely clear and don't require discussion > and others of note agreed with me? What if I, and maybe others over > time, dismissed your concerns as trivial and insignificant, thereby > blocking conversation on them? I bet you'd become really irked. If you have a question about CONTEXT or TO I'll be happy to answer it (although I pretty much agree with Alex and don't use them much). Statements like "Forth sucks because it does [this] or lacks [that]" are just not things that lead to a productive conversation for anyone. 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 | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 20:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3qirpjf0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25860 |
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:00:12 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > What gets our backs up is folks who insist on slamming Forth because > it's different from their favorite language, whatever it is. So, Hugh, who codes in Forth and hates C, slammed Forth by pointing out that Forth lacks syntax? Are you confused? You could say that about me (wrongly), because I like C. But, how do you say that about someone who loves Forth? It's not "different from [his] favorite language". I.e., your argument only holds up in your mind when you can accuse someone of not loving Forth more than some other language, i.e., your bigoted. If Hugh had asked to discuss the lack of syntax issue, which he brought up, would you have been as offended as me continuing the conversation? You don't like him. He trashes you. What about Alex, Bruce, Bernd? Favoritism. I think a bunch of you have yet to come to grips with the fact that you're hypocrites. Everyone here cites the problems with Forth that I mentioned, but whenever anyone attempts to discuss them they get trashed and blamed. > If you try Forth and don't like it, fine. Cool. Use a language you > prefer. What we find annoying is folks who have to hang around > telling us how awful Forth is, for no apparent reason. > So, then, you, Alex, Hugh, Bernd, Gerry, rickman, Andrew etc should all leave. You're all guilty of it. Goodbye! No? What gives you any more of a right to hang around here than those you criticize? > Statements like "Forth sucks because it does [this] or lacks [that]" are > just not things that lead to a productive conversation for anyone. Who said that that? No one. Although, you took offense _AS IF_ someone did. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2263aaa0-10a9-4370-b65f-0fa2d3133dd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25864 |
On Friday, September 20, 2013 5:10:27 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:00:12 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather > <erather@forth.com> wrote: > > > What gets our backs up is folks who insist on slamming Forth because > > it's different from their favorite language, whatever it is. > > So, Hugh, who codes in Forth and hates C, slammed Forth by pointing out > that Forth lacks syntax? Are you confused? You could say that about > me (wrongly), because I like C. But, how do you say that about someone > who loves Forth? It's not "different from [his] favorite language". > I.e., your argument only holds up in your mind when you can accuse > someone of not loving Forth more than some other language, i.e., > your bigoted. If Hugh had asked to discuss the lack of syntax issue, > which he brought up, would you have been as offended as me continuing > the conversation? You don't like him. He trashes you. What about > Alex, Bruce, Bernd? Favoritism. I didn't "slam Forth by pointing out that Forth lacks syntax." That is putting words in my mouth. I said that I liked Forth's way of compiling because it was understandable, as each space-delimited word has a single definition, and there are a finite number of words. I said that I didn't like C's way of compiling, because the tokens are only meaningful within the context of statements, and there are an infinite number of statements, so the C programmer has to essentially have the compiler in his head in order to understand any statement --- as a practical matter, C programmers just familiarize themselves with C, but they don't understand it. It is not really correct to say that Forth has no syntax. Obviously, it wouldn't be a language if it didn't have syntax. Forth is different from C, Pascal, etc., because of *where* the information regarding syntax is stored. In Forth, the immediate words BEGIN, IF, etc., know their own syntax. In C etc., the compiler knows the syntax for the whole language (it knows how to compile an IF statement, etc.). This is why Forth is fundamentally extensible --- the programmer can write his own immediate words with their own syntax. Also, this is why C etc. are fundamentally static --- nobody can add new syntax without rewriting the compiler itself, which is a big monolithic program. I do have a lot of complaints about ANS-Forth, but syntax isn't one of them. The lack of structs is what I brought up in this thread. Lack of closures is another complaint I've brought up in the past, but C doesn't have closures either, and most C programmers don't even know what they are (most Forth programmers, including Elizabeth Rather, don't know either). Eventually I'll come out with my own language that will address all of these failings of ANS-Forth --- but it will still be Forth, because it will still have Forth-style syntax as described above (the syntax in the words themselves, rather than in the compiler). Also, btw, I don't really "hate C." I've worked as a C programmer. Algol-derived languages such as C, Pascal, etc., are okay --- just not so robust as Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 13:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3rtxelg0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25874 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 02:23:30 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 20, 2013 5:10:27 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:00:12 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather >> <erather@forth.com> wrote: ... >> > What gets our backs up is folks who insist on slamming Forth because >> > it's different from their favorite language, whatever it is. >> >> So, Hugh, who codes in Forth and hates C, slammed Forth by pointing out >> that Forth lacks syntax? Are you confused? You could say that about >> me (wrongly), because I like C. But, how do you say that about someone >> who loves Forth? It's not "different from [his] favorite language". >> I.e., your argument only holds up in your mind when you can accuse >> someone of not loving Forth more than some other language, i.e., >> your bigoted. If Hugh had asked to discuss the lack of syntax issue, >> which he brought up, would you have been as offended as me continuing >> the conversation? You don't like him. He trashes you. What about >> Alex, Bruce, Bernd? Favoritism. > > I didn't "slam Forth by pointing out that Forth lacks syntax." That is > putting words in my mouth. I didn't say you did. The question was me expressing Ms. Rather's apparent perception of events. She complained about people "slamming Forth" - quoted directly above - because it wasn't their favorite language. You were the one who cited Forth's lack of syntax via a concrete example - now snipped. I said she shouldn't say that about you because you love Forth and hate C - still quoted above. I initially took issue because *many* of those here have cited concrete examples of issues with Forth's lack of syntax and other issues over the years, but any attempts to discuss lack of syntax in general, or directly, it are met with anger and hostility as if these issues are taboo. I was pointing out the apparent contradiction of not discussing certain issues while people are citing concrete examples of those exact issues as problems. What is up with everyone's comprehension here lately? It's like people are selecting what they want, not what was said, and responding to that instead... > I do have a lot of complaints about ANS-Forth, but syntax isn't > one of them. The lack of structs is what I brought up in this thread. Lack of structs is concrete example of lack of syntax... > Lack of closures is another complaint I've brought up in the past, > but C doesn't have closures either, and most C programmers don't even > know what they are (most Forth programmers, including Elizabeth Rather, > don't know either). AFAICT, they aren't necessary. > Also, btw, I don't really "hate C." I've worked as a C programmer. Said the guy with one C rant after rant after rant after rant ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web