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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 03:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3yi3myl0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25954 |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:00:18 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > [snip] > > When I have applied for work as a C programmer, I have mentioned that I > am a Forth programmer. Invariably, the interviewer smugly replies that > he is actually an expert on Forth, having written a Forth compiler (woo > hoo!), as compared to being a mere Forth application programmer such as > myself. They always expect me to be in awe. They also invariably go on > to say, without taking a breath, that Forth is grossly inefficient > (token-threading for C-based Forths) and lacking in features (structs, > etc.), and hence completely useless for application programming --- just > a fun science-fair project that helped them become greater experts in C, > and taught them that Forth is worthless. > Embellish much? > AFAIK, the only reason C programmers write Forth compilers is so they > can claim that C is the "god language" and that Forth is a toy language > roughly comparable to QBasic. This is all that Rod is doing. Like the tenth time, it "spawned" out of another project. I just ran with it to see where it leads. > Back in the 1980s when I started programming, Forth was a serious > contender for becoming the dominant language for small systems. Lol. It was not... That's very revisionist. Microsoft's BASIC was installed in ROM on almost every home computer of the era. There were even a few that didn't have the MS name on them, but was produced by them. > It was a double-whammy --- on one hand we had C programmers presenting > their sabotaged Forth compilers as evidence that Forth sucks compared to > C, LOL! I'm not even considering that to be remotely supported by history... Hey, let me ask you about something you know something about. Is food from Del Taco better than Taco Bell? Cheaper? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-26 09:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l21d1k$bee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26016 |
On 9/25/2013 3:58 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > Hey, let me ask you about something you know something about. Is > food from Del Taco better than Taco Bell? Cheaper? You *are* an obnoxious little man. When I say "little man", the emphasis is on ***little*** -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-27 19:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c7b9f92-ae48-4d3c-a923-844c8f01829b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26042 |
On Thursday, September 26, 2013 6:32:07 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 9/25/2013 3:58 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > Hey, let me ask you about something you know something about. Is > > food from Del Taco better than Taco Bell? Cheaper? > > You *are* an obnoxious little man. When I say "little man", the > emphasis is on ***little*** I don't need any help from you RickMan --- you are an obnoxious little man too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-28 01:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w33u89qa0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #26057 |
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:35:39 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thursday, September 26, 2013 6:32:07 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 9/25/2013 3:58 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... >> > Hey, let me ask you about something you know something about. Is >> > food from Del Taco better than Taco Bell? Cheaper? >> >> You *are* an obnoxious little man. When I say "little man", the >> emphasis is on ***little*** > > I don't need any help from you RickMan --- you are an obnoxious > little man too. Yeah, that's it. You tell him Hugh. Let him know you need someone's help, just not his... Come to think of it, I was the only one here who ever defended you here. Everyone was attacking you for a while. That truth must be really sad for you... So, are you going to attempt to recruit Gavino now? He needs some help too. rickman does too, but, like me, you just crossed him off your list too. The rest here are so vain and full of pride they'll claim they don't need any help and especially none from *you*. They think it's an insult that you want them to look at and use your *novice* package. Clearly, they're not novices. Maybe, you should rename it your *expert* package so someone will look at it someday. Actually, strike that, nobody wants to look at "your package"... And, WTF?!?! I *still* don't know about Del Taco... Will I find a burrito average price calculator in your novice package? Everyone here implies I'm a novice in Forth and that's what I really need. If Forth can be use to code a washing machine, it can do burrito's ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-28 01:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w33vao0o0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #26042 |
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:32:07 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/25/2013 3:58 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Hey, let me ask you about something you know something about. >> Is food from Del Taco better than Taco Bell? Cheaper? > > You *are* an obnoxious little man. When I say "little man", > the emphasis is on ***little*** > Lesbians don't care about my size. Heterosexual gals don't care about my size. Heterosexual guys don't care about my size. So, tell me, why is it that gay guys always do? A while back there was Passiniti, now you... P. Diddy has some beautiful words for you: "I'm coming home. I'm coming home." "Tell the world I'm coming home." ... It's a bit hard to tell, but is that you singing his song in this photo? I think it could be... http://on-msn.com/17a9Of9 Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 03:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3yhejnp0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25930 |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 05:53:38 -0400, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 06:21:30 -0400, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: ... >> Discussing problems leads to the truth, solutions to solve those >> problems, and understanding of those problems by those who wouldn't >> otherwise. > > *Constructively* discussing problems leads to the truth. > > This: > > "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." > > ... is not constructive. That's clearly your perception... Discussion of truth must start somewhere. Stating the truth is a good place to start. > No serious poster would have said this. I was 100% serious or I never would've posted it. > It was intended only to irritate. That's your perception. > "Forth is cryptic, Forth has no syntax" is not constructive. > It's just stupid. > Insult. You lost. Although, I wasn't trying to win. I was just stating the truth. How is a space, the only defined syntax, syntax? So, I brought up de facto syntax, which everyone here argues doesn't exist either... If neither exist, how is it stupid and non-constructive to say so? That makes no sense. >> You can't fix things or if you're hiding in a dark locked closet. >> You can't avoid things like metaphorical landmines if you don't know >> where to *not* step. > > Indeed not. But your complaints about Forth are not constructive > because they do not lead anywhere. They never lead anywhere because no one is willing to discuss them. They've been brought up repeatedly. > If you have something specific to say, then we can talk about it. Specific issues have been brought up numerous times in the past. A few were mentioned earlier in the thread, which you still apparently haven't bothered to read to familiarize yourself... > But your complaints are so broad and shallow that there's nothing > to be done. Yes, there is. A change of attitudes is required. Otherwise, the specific issues will never be discussed. >> All these things and more have been posted here, repeatedly, >> over the years. Where were you? > > Here, as you full well know. And while you might have had > constructive reasons to be here before, you don't now. And, you do? It's been a year since you've actually discussed Forth. > You've managed to hack together a Forth implementation, that's true. Same as you. You haven't used your Forth for anything either. At least, you haven't stated so here, if you have. With your ego, it's unlikely you wouldn't have, if you had. So, how are you any different in these regards? >>>> 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. >>> >>> That is not true. >> >> It is true. This has been happening for years, over numerous >> threads and conversations. Certain topics are "taboo", or >> perhaps "hated" is a better word... > > "Pointless" is the word I would choose. > "Blah, blah", "too broad", "pointless", "not detailed" enough... The point remains that certain Forth topics are not being discussed openly in a group that claims to be about Forth. >>> That was incorrect, >> >> It was correct, just as I explained it. >> >>> and Elizabeth cited the section of ANS Forth that said they >>> must be correctly paired. >> >> It doesn't say that. Please feel free to explain where exactly >> you think it does. I already explained my understanding. >> Neither one of you has explained yours. > > The trouble with this is that this isn't a credible question, Where did I ask a question? I don't see a question mark above. > [...] given what you've been told. What was that exactly? Context is being lost. > Elizabeth even quoted chapter and verse, and > you still didn't get it. As stated previously, Ms. Rather didn't explain anything. She quoted a section of text. I explained something. I explained my understanding. > How much more can anyone do? Explain it. Don't quote it. Prove your claim. > You went on to say > >> The requirement is "semantics are incomplete until orig is resolved" >> not what resolves it. > > So, what can resolve an IF? A word that resolves an orig. What words > are those? The control structures that match. > Yes. Unfortunately, those don't have to be ANS defined words as cited in my example with which Ms. Rather agreed wholeheartedly. I'm just curious, did going around and around in circles ever get you anywhere in life? >>>>> 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. >>> >>> No, we're not. We have not hung around in Language X newsgroup >>> telling people how awful Language X is. That would be pointless >>> and stupid. >> >> Yes, you are. You've all cited concrete examples of Forth's >> weaknesses over the years. > > That's not the same as telling people how awful Forth is. > Citing concrete examples of Forth's weaknesses is not the same as telling people how awful Forth is? ... 1) How exactly do you differentiate between citing weakness and ascribing awfulness? Well, first we must define "awfulness" in the context of a programming language. It's a personification. But, language weakness could be a good definition for it... 2) I don't recall telling people how awful Forth is, however you define "awful" in this context. Having only coded my system in Forth, I'm not sure exactly how I was telling people that Forth is awful. It's clearly illogical to believe I could've stated such with such limited experience coding in Forth, yes? ... I do recall telling people how C is excellent in many ways and sometimes demonstrating that. Those are clearly not the same, unless you have problems differentiating... The other option is to believe I have more experience from implementing an interpreter in C and Forth than you realized, then it wouldn't be illogical, but that would also make my statements about Forth's weaknesses true. That's something you seem to have difficulty accepting. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 04:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kJ-dncUTgdeDO9_PnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #26012 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 05:53:38 -0400, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 06:21:30 -0400, Andrew Haley >>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > ... > >>> Discussing problems leads to the truth, solutions to solve those >>> problems, and understanding of those problems by those who wouldn't >>> otherwise. >> >> *Constructively* discussing problems leads to the truth. >> >> This: >> >> "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." >> >> ... is not constructive. > > That's clearly your perception... > > Discussion of truth must start somewhere. > Stating the truth is a good place to start. How does it get to be *the* truth? I don't doubt that it's the truth as you see it. But it makes no sense to post it here. Every programming language has its strengths and weaknesses, but the abuse you've heaped on Forth is ridiculous. >> No serious poster would have said this. > > I was 100% serious or I never would've posted it. I don't believe you because it doesn't make any sense. It offers no way forward; it makes no proposals that anyone can act on. It is entirely destructive. It leads to no discussion with any possibility of progress. It is mere flamebait. >> It was intended only to irritate. > > That's your perception. > >> "Forth is cryptic, Forth has no syntax" is not constructive. >> It's just stupid > > Insult. You lost. Lost what? What are you talking about? > Although, I wasn't trying to win. I was just stating the truth. > > How is a space, the only defined syntax, syntax? So, I brought > up de facto syntax, which everyone here argues doesn't exist either... > If neither exist, how is it stupid and non-constructive to say so? > That makes no sense. The argument about whether Forth has syntax is pointless: Forth clearly is a language, and it conveys meaning. There are words that act like nouns, and words that act like verbs. Computers can execute Forth. Whether it has a formal syntax is just going to elicit the response "so what?" It has no bearing on whether Forth is readable. "Forth is cryptic" is just an opinion. It means no more than "I can't easily read Forth." >>> You can't fix things or if you're hiding in a dark locked closet. >>> You can't avoid things like metaphorical landmines if you don't know >>> where to *not* step. >> >> Indeed not. But your complaints about Forth are not constructive >> because they do not lead anywhere. > > They never lead anywhere because no one is willing to discuss them. > They've been brought up repeatedly. > >> If you have something specific to say, then we can talk about it. > > Specific issues have been brought up numerous times in the past. Specific issues get discussed. Non-specific and stupid comments attract flames. > A few were mentioned earlier in the thread, which you still > apparently haven't bothered to read to familiarize yourself... I presume you're not still talking about your failure to understand the pairing of control structures. >> But your complaints are so broad and shallow that there's nothing >> to be done. > > Yes, there is. A change of attitudes is required. Otherwise, > the specific issues will never be discussed. Such as? A new set of control structures that are non-extensible, perhaps? Giving up the use of the stack? A context-free grammar? All of these things would result in a completely different language. >>> All these things and more have been posted here, repeatedly, >>> over the years. Where were you? >> >> Here, as you full well know. And while you might have had >> constructive reasons to be here before, you don't now. > > And, you do? It's been a year since you've actually discussed Forth. You have a broken newsfeed. >> You've managed to hack together a Forth implementation, that's true. > > Same as you. You haven't used your Forth for anything either. Actually, I have. I have ten years of full-time Forth experience, although it was some time ago, and real-world Forth has changed. But that really doesn't, or shouldn't matter: you're only as good as what you post. We should be extremely wary of both ad hominem and ad authoritatem. > At least, you haven't stated so here, if you have. With your > ego, Pot, meet kettle. > it's unlikely you wouldn't have, if you had. So, how are > you any different in these regards? > >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That is not true. >>> >>> It is true. This has been happening for years, over numerous >>> threads and conversations. Certain topics are "taboo", or >>> perhaps "hated" is a better word... >> >> "Pointless" is the word I would choose. > > "Blah, blah", "too broad", "pointless", "not detailed" enough... That's right. > The point remains that certain Forth topics are not being discussed > openly in a group that claims to be about Forth. Please try to be precise about which topics these are. >>>> That was incorrect, >>> >>> It was correct, just as I explained it. >>> >>>> and Elizabeth cited the section of ANS Forth that said they >>>> must be correctly paired. >>> >>> It doesn't say that. Please feel free to explain where exactly >>> you think it does. I already explained my understanding. >>> Neither one of you has explained yours. >> >> The trouble with this is that this isn't a credible question, > > Where did I ask a question? I don't see a question mark above. Oh come on. "Please feel free to explain." >> [...] given what you've been told. > > What was that exactly? Context is being lost. > >> Elizabeth even quoted chapter and verse, and >> you still didn't get it. > > As stated previously, Ms. Rather didn't explain anything. > She quoted a section of text. Well, yes. The section of text that answered your question. >>> The requirement is "semantics are incomplete until orig is resolved" >>> not what resolves it. >> >> So, what can resolve an IF? A word that resolves an orig. What words >> are those? The control structures that match. > > Yes. Unfortunately, those don't have to be ANS defined words as cited > in my example with which Ms. Rather agreed wholeheartedly. What's unfortunate about that? Control structures are extensible, and you can add new ones, as long as they are correctly paired. Extensible control structures are a feature of Forth. > I'm just curious, did going around and around in circles ever get you > anywhere in life? > >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> No, we're not. We have not hung around in Language X newsgroup >>>> telling people how awful Language X is. That would be pointless >>>> and stupid. >>> >>> Yes, you are. You've all cited concrete examples of Forth's >>> weaknesses over the years. >> >> That's not the same as telling people how awful Forth is. > > Citing concrete examples of Forth's weaknesses is not the same as > telling people how awful Forth is? ... > > 1) How exactly do you differentiate between citing weakness and > ascribing awfulness? It's easy: some complaints are constructive in that they can be acted on without throwing the whole language away. This cannot: >> "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." Because it offers no way forward. > 2) I don't recall telling people how awful Forth is, however you > define "awful" in this context. See here, just in case you've forgotten it: >> "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." If this was true, there would be no point in trying to save Forth. It would only be worth trying to persuade Forth programmers to use something else. So, please tell us: why are you implementing a "weak language"? > Having only coded my system in Forth, I'm not sure exactly how I was > telling people that Forth is awful. It's clearly illogical to > believe I could've stated such with such limited experience coding > in Forth, yes? Indeed. > ... I do recall telling people how C is excellent in many ways and > sometimes demonstrating that. Those are clearly not the same, > unless you have problems differentiating... The other option is to > believe I have more experience from implementing an interpreter in C > and Forth than you realized, then it wouldn't be illogical, but that > would also make my statements about Forth's weaknesses true. How does that follow? It think you've missed a few steps. > That's something you seem to have difficulty accepting. Well, yes, I do. That you still find Forth to be cryptic tells me that you don't have much experience reading it. I'm very familiar with the "I can't read this! It's cryptic!" response from newcomers to Forth. One of two things happens: either people walk away or they eventually get it. I can't think of any case I've come across where someone persists with Forth but never gets it. This is just a guess, but I suspect that the real problem is that you've worked on your own without more experienced programmers to discuss code with. My early Forth code wasn't so great, and people really let me know about it! It hurt, but it worked. I learned to write Forth that other people could read, and I learned to read theirs. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b80a15e6-5709-4d0c-a4a4-403fa99544c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26012 |
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:21:45 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote: > How is a space, the only defined syntax, syntax? So, I brought > up de facto syntax, which everyone here argues doesn't exist either... > In a "less is more" programming philosophy, lack of syntax isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's like working with clay. There is no form until you create it. There's art involved, which means you have to love programming. Programmers can't be just a cog in a machine, they have to enjoy Forthing. This may be the key to Forth's productivity in spite of its quirks. When you stay in a fun groove, your work gets done faster. The utility of Forth isn't a problem, since it's been proven in industry for 40 years. If it sucked, it would have died. But where do we go from here? What comes after ANS (or 200x)? Perhaps a happy medium between ANS and colorforth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ab927ce-b8b2-4c0f-b0b0-5fbabd7e8325@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26026 |
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:26:41 PM UTC-4, Brad Eckert wrote: > > What comes after ANS (or 200x)? Perhaps a happy medium between ANS and colorforth? What about an interface which makes it possible to load extensions and applications from different Forth vendors and suppliers to the Forth which You or I are using? I am sure everybody has his preferred Forth for several reasons. Why should it be changed regular - like Microsoft - instead of being glad to have a stable and well working version? Forth allows extensions, so new Standards should be organized as extensions, may be even as a new Standards vocabulary, extensions to be put on top of the Forth which You or I already have. One of these vocabularies/extensions could be ColorFORTH! I tested several Forth versions, starting with F-PC, UR/Forth, PolyFORTH, SwiftForth, VFX, and Win32Forth. Each of these Forth versions was somehow different in look & feel and use. At the end I stayed with Win32Forth because it was the easiest to use for me and my applications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-26 07:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <52441fb4$0$304$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #26034 |
On 9/25/13 6:14 PM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > I tested several Forth versions, starting with F-PC, UR/Forth, > PolyFORTH, SwiftForth, VFX, and Win32Forth. Each of these Forth > versions was somehow different in look & feel and use. At the end I > stayed with Win32Forth because it was the easiest to use for me and > my applications. That's an interesting observation. What were the characteristics of Win32Forth that caused you to select it? Not trying to initiate a "this vs that Forth" discussion. Just interested in the positive aspects of Win32Forth that you found compelling. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-26 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da032436-36dd-463c-a9ea-a444817758aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26039 |
On Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:51:15 AM UTC-4, Doug Hoffman wrote: > On 9/25/13 6:14 PM, visualforth.com wrote: > > > I tested several Forth versions, starting with F-PC, UR/Forth, > > PolyFORTH, SwiftForth, VFX, and Win32Forth. Each of these Forth > > versions was somehow different in look & feel and use. At the end I > > stayed with Win32Forth because it was the easiest to use for me and > > my applications. > > > That's an interesting observation. What were the characteristics of > Win32Forth that caused you to select it? Not trying to initiate a "this > vs that Forth" discussion. Just interested in the positive aspects of > Win32Forth that you found compelling. > > -Doug It's as easy at that - it's like the difference between driving a car and driving a bike: to learn to drive a bike is a matter of minutes, to drive a car you need some education which needs time and effort. Win32Forth was as natural to me as driving a bike. But there is one difference: it makes sense to learn to drive a car, because you conquer further distance with a car easier as with a bike. But with an easygoing Forth huge projects can be managed very well without much education. Using F-PC was quite easy, and using Win32Forth was a pleasure. It worked. PolyFORTH needed to much effort to get started, so I didn't use it. I used UR/Forth because of the easy to use graphics. Mr. Reilhofer gave me the examples he had written to show me how it works. It was really nice, I used it for a insole pressure measurement program for the Showa Hospital in Yokohama, together with a data logger based on my RTX2000 board, but with Windows UR/Forth was obsolete, and to do graphics with the LMI Forth for Windows was really hard for me. I got Swift-Forth started, but there was a steep learning curve to reach the point of usefulness which I had achieved with Win32Forth meanwhile. I had to use VFX as cross-compiler host for a successful project with the Tiny-ARM. I enjoyed MPE's ARM-Forth very much. Easy to use, everything worked. By the way, with Win32Forth I could use my communication programs which I had written with UR/Forth, I only had to change the I/O. For programming graphics I got help from the Win32Forth group. In my opinion this is a personal thing. Everybody has a different approach to learning, that's why I wrote about an interface which makes it possible to load extensions and applications from different Forth vendors and suppliers to the Forth which You or I are using. I am doing really hard in learning new things, that's why I appreciate the easygoing Win32Forth very much. May be one point of importance is that I can start typing commands immediately after starting Win32.exe, and a great feature is copy/paste text into the console. I use it very often when testing. And the marvellous debugger, of course. And the IDE with "Find Text in Files" which made it possible to develop VisualFORTH.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 14:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l1kp71$8fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25864 |
On 9/20/2013 8:10 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:00:12 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather > <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >> 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? What? Huh? Somebody say my name? What am I guilty of exactly? I don't think it could be telling anyone "how awful Forth is" because I am still a relative newbie and I have not plumbed the depths of how awful Forth is... uh, wait... is Forth awful? This is a fine time to tell me!!! I don't expect you remember or maybe you just weren't here, but some time ago I was trying to use Forth at work and asked people here for justification of why Forth would be useful in place of other languages. I was fairly disappointed in the responses. There were lots of assertions with little supporting evidence. I may have sounded a little hostile to the supporters because I kept insisting there must be hard evidence somewhere that Forth was better and other HLLs. I actually got them to put MPE Forth in the budget for the project I was on, but when it came time to buy the tool the PM wouldn't spend the money because he didn't see any reason for it. I'm no longer with that company and I don't think I will ever take another position with a company like that again. In caput asini habent. My point is that I think that is as close to criticizing Forth as I have gotten. Have I been newsgroup posting in my sleep again? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 04:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <B4qdnZv1aap396DPnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25852 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:45:50 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> [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. References, please. > 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". This is all too vague. As far as I can tell, all of your complaints about Forth amounto to no more than "it's not like C." Well, no, it isn't. If you want C, use C. If you want a sensible conversation you have to make sensible points. "Forth is unstructured" is not a sensible point because there clearly is some structure there. "Forth is not block-structured" is true. But so what? Why is that important? > 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. So what? This is a discussion group. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <orqdnVyIAJNZSqTPnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25761 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> 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? Not necessarily, no; it depends on compensating features. And it depends on who is complaining. > If it's easy to misuse, wouldn't that make it a source of bugs? Yes, but again that depends on compenating features. Low-level languages (e.g. C, assembly code) have lots of ways to shoot yourself in the foot, but people put up with them because they need low-level access. >> 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? No. As long as people want to improve their control flow, it's not. > When it's not how to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> > ... Well, of course. A Forth newsgroup talks about Forth language features. Very much on-topic. > Etc., Forth is cryptic, ... to you. > 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. Sure it does. Someone who comes here, doesn't understand Forth, gets confused, asks questions, gets answers. > E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing > new control-flow techniques? (never) Well, no. Because it's impossible for a user. C compiler writers would talk about that. > 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) What are you thinking of? > 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. That sounds reasonable. > OTOH, 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. Such as? Please be specific. And try not to mistake disagreement for denial. > If it's not a problem, why is there so much conversation on it? That depends on what "it" is. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1d4na$7dn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25761 |
On 18/09/2013 14:41, 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?
>
> 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.
Nonsense. Of course Forth has some syntax, if there were no syntax how
could a Forth interpreter make any sense of a Forth program.
According to Wikipedia:
<quote>Computer language syntax is generally distinguished into three
levels:
Words – the lexical level, determining how characters form tokens;
Phrases – the grammar level, narrowly speaking, determining how
tokens form phrases;
Context – determining what objects or variables names refer to, if
types are valid, etc.</quote>
At the lexical level Forth clearly has a simple syntax, "a parsed
sequence of non-space characters ..."
At the grammar level control structures such as IF ... ELSE ... THEN
clearly form part of Forth's syntax - if there is no terminating THEN,
the structure is wrong. If all control structures, colon definitions,
variable definitions etc are considered there is quite a bit of syntax.
At the context level a word name can be defined differently in each of
several wordlists, the actual word referred to depends on the search
order at the time of interpretation or compilation.
A syntax can be defined using regular expressions and/or in a BNF
grammar. It is trivial to write a regex defining a Forth word. Control
structures can easily be expressed in BNF.
If such words as CS-PICK and CS-ROLL are included in a Forth BNF grammar
they greatly complicate the syntax and its BNF representation.
Furthermore the many restrictions such as use of the return stack with
DO LOOPs and Locals etc form part of Forth's syntax.
The conclusion is that Forth has a *lot* of syntax and so the statement
"Forth has no syntax" is a load of bollocks.
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 21:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3mv77yw0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25778 |
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:08:00 -0400, Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 18/09/2013 14:41, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> 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. > > Nonsense. Of course Forth has some syntax, [...] Forth has no official syntax. It has some defacto syntax. E.g., brackets [ ] to distinguish compile-time and run-time versions of the same Forth word. : (colon) and ; (semis) could also be viewed as syntax since they separate much of an immediate stream of executing words from words that are being compiled. Etc. > [...] if there were no syntax how could a Forth interpreter make any > sense of a Forth program. Each Forth word has an action or many. The entire action is independent of other words, although correct execution may depend on data provided by other Forth words or on the stacks, etc. > According to Wikipedia: > > <quote>Computer language syntax is generally distinguished into three > levels: > Words – the lexical level, determining how characters form tokens; > Phrases – the grammar level, narrowly speaking, determining how > tokens form phrases; > Context – determining what objects or variables names refer to, if > types are valid, etc.</quote> > ... > At the lexical level Forth clearly has a simple syntax, "a parsed > sequence of non-space characters ..." I.e., no official syntax, except a space. E.g., I could throw out all standard names, use binary and hex, and it'd still be Forth, as long as I used spaces. > At the grammar level control structures such as IF ... ELSE ... > THEN clearly form part of Forth's syntax - Not so. > if there is no terminating THEN, the structure is wrong. Really? Says who or what? Which standard or document do you think requires that? Hint: fig-Forth doesn't say that. F-79 doesn't say that. F-83 doesn't say that. ANS doesn't say that either. fig-Forth comes the closest, saying that THEN an alias for ENDIF is "only" supposed to be used with IF. ANS is the least specific. However, there is no constraint in the stack parameters for any of them that would actually require a Forth implementor to only allow THEN to be used with an IF or ELSE. THEN can function correctly as long as the stack parameters are valid. E.g., I could define the "WADADABOOP" control-flow to work correctly with and be terminated by THEN. If someone implements THEN to require a matching IF , they've added additional functionality not required, perhaps for safety. I.e., if so, then they've created syntax, but it's not officially required. > If all control structures, colon definitions, variable definitions > etc are considered there is quite a bit of syntax. Of course, that's not official syntax, but, yes, that is a trivial amount of defacto syntax. > The conclusion is that Forth has a *lot* of syntax and so the > statement "Forth has no syntax" is a load of bollocks. I think you're confusing and conflating much. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 16:20 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <LNmdnStRZ6fPwqfPnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25785 |
On 9/18/13 3:10 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:08:00 -0400, Gerry Jackson > <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 18/09/2013 14:41, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley >>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> Nonsense. Of course Forth has some syntax, [...] > > Forth has no official syntax. It has some defacto syntax. > > E.g., brackets [ ] to distinguish compile-time and run-time > versions of the same Forth word. : (colon) and ; (semis) > could also be viewed as syntax since they separate much > of an immediate stream of executing words from words that > are being compiled. Etc. You appear to be contradicting Wikipedia's definition of syntax (which is consistent with other definitions elsewhere). Brackets are a naming convention, not syntax (since they have no operational effect) and : and ; are commands in the language, also not syntax. You seem to be confusing syntax with punctuation. >> [...] if there were no syntax how could a Forth interpreter make any >> sense of a Forth program. > > Each Forth word has an action or many. The entire action is independent > of other words, although correct execution may depend on data provided > by other Forth words or on the stacks, etc. Yes, how is that different from what Gerry said? >> According to Wikipedia: >> >> <quote>Computer language syntax is generally distinguished into three >> levels: >> Words – the lexical level, determining how characters form tokens; >> Phrases – the grammar level, narrowly speaking, determining how >> tokens form phrases; >> Context – determining what objects or variables names refer to, if >> types are valid, etc.</quote> >> > ... > >> At the lexical level Forth clearly has a simple syntax, "a parsed >> sequence of non-space characters ..." > > I.e., no official syntax, except a space. E.g., I could throw out > all standard names, use binary and hex, and it'd still be Forth, > as long as I used spaces. Yes, at the lexical level it's a simple syntax. >> At the grammar level control structures such as IF ... ELSE ... >> THEN clearly form part of Forth's syntax - > > Not so. > >> if there is no terminating THEN, the structure is wrong. > > Really? Says who or what? > > Which standard or document do you think requires that? > > Hint: > > fig-Forth doesn't say that. > F-79 doesn't say that. > F-83 doesn't say that. > ANS doesn't say that either. Yes, it does: 6.1.1700 IF CORE Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined. Compilation: ( C: -- orig ) Put the location of a new unresolved forward reference orig onto the control flow stack. Append the run-time semantics given below to the current definition. The semantics are incomplete until orig is resolved, e.g., by THEN or ELSE. Run-time: ( x -- ) If all bits of x are zero, continue execution at the location specified by the resolution of orig. See: 3.2.3.2 Control flow stack, 6.1.1310 ELSE, 6.1.2270 THEN. > fig-Forth comes the closest, saying that THEN an alias for ENDIF is > "only" supposed to be used with IF. ANS is the least specific. Seems clear to me. > However, there is no constraint in the stack parameters for any of > them that would actually require a Forth implementor to only allow > THEN to be used with an IF or ELSE. THEN can function correctly > as long as the stack parameters are valid. E.g., I could define > the "WADADABOOP" control-flow to work correctly with and be > terminated by THEN. If someone implements THEN to require a matching > IF , they've added additional functionality not required, perhaps > for safety. I.e., if so, then they've created syntax, but it's not > officially required. Forth's syntax is flexible. There are a limited number of officially sanctioned ways to terminate an IF, but it's clear that WADADABOOP would be non-standard. Where in Wikipedia's definition (or any other) does it say that if there is more than one way to use tokens to form a phrase it isn't syntax? >> If all control structures, colon definitions, variable definitions >> etc are considered there is quite a bit of syntax. > > Of course, that's not official syntax, but, yes, that is a trivial > amount of defacto syntax. Oh, well, then, "official" syntax vs. "defacto" syntax. Where do you find that definition? >> The conclusion is that Forth has a *lot* of syntax and so the >> statement "Forth has no syntax" is a load of bollocks. > > I think you're confusing and conflating much. And I think you're inventing your own definition of syntax for the sole purpose of "proving" your point. 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 16:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3p80uvk0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25788 |
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 22:20:02 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 9/18/13 3:10 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:08:00 -0400, Gerry Jackson >> <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 18/09/2013 14:41, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley >>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: ... >>>> 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. >>> >>> Nonsense. Of course Forth has some syntax, [...] >> >> Forth has no official syntax. It has some defacto syntax. >> >> E.g., brackets [ ] to distinguish compile-time and run-time >> versions of the same Forth word. : (colon) and ; (semis) >> could also be viewed as syntax since they separate much >> of an immediate stream of executing words from words that >> are being compiled. Etc. > > You appear to be contradicting Wikipedia's definition of syntax (which > is consistent with other definitions elsewhere). Brackets are a naming > convention, not syntax (since they have no operational effect) and : and > ; are commands in the language, also not syntax. You seem to be > confusing syntax with punctuation. > Please pay more attention to what was written. I clearly stated that "Forth has no official syntax." How could I possibly be confusing syntax with punctuation when I know full well Forth has neither? What does "defacto" mean to you? It means to "act like" here. Since Forth doesn't have any syntax, except for space, the appearance of syntax is the closest Forth can get to actual syntax. Yes, an appearance of some syntax has developed over time, as cited, IMO. >>> [...] if there were no syntax how could a Forth interpreter make any >>> sense of a Forth program. >> >> Each Forth word has an action or many. The entire action is independent >> of other words, although correct execution may depend on data provided >> by other Forth words or on the stacks, etc. > > Yes, how is that different from what Gerry said? > Syntax isn't required in Forth to take action, which is especially true for interpreted Forths. It can be less so for other designs. >>> At the grammar level control structures such as IF ... ELSE ... >>> THEN clearly form part of Forth's syntax - >> >> Not so. >> >>> if there is no terminating THEN, the structure is wrong. >> >> Really? Says who or what? >> >> Which standard or document do you think requires that? >> >> Hint: >> >> fig-Forth doesn't say that. >> F-79 doesn't say that. >> F-83 doesn't say that. >> ANS doesn't say that either. > > Yes, it does: > > 6.1.1700 IF CORE > Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined. > > Compilation: ( C: -- orig ) > Put the location of a new unresolved forward reference orig onto the > control flow stack. Append the run-time semantics given below to the > current definition. The semantics are incomplete until orig is resolved, > e.g., by THEN or ELSE. > > Run-time: ( x -- ) > If all bits of x are zero, continue execution at the location specified > by the resolution of orig. > > See: 3.2.3.2 Control flow stack, 6.1.1310 ELSE, 6.1.2270 THEN. > I can quote too. Where? Where does it say that THEN or ELSE is *required* to terminate an IF ? AFAICT, nowhere. "e.g." means "for example", i.e., it's citing two, THEN and ELSE , of many possible ways to terminate an IF . The requirement is "semantics are incomplete until orig is resolved" not what resolves it. >> fig-Forth comes the closest, saying that THEN an alias for ENDIF is >> "only" supposed to be used with IF. ANS is the least specific. > > Seems clear to me. > AFAICT, that's only true if you're presumptive or inject meaning. >> However, there is no constraint in the stack parameters for any of >> them that would actually require a Forth implementor to only allow >> THEN to be used with an IF or ELSE. THEN can function correctly >> as long as the stack parameters are valid. E.g., I could define >> the "WADADABOOP" control-flow to work correctly with and be >> terminated by THEN. If someone implements THEN to require a matching >> IF , they've added additional functionality not required, perhaps >> for safety. I.e., if so, then they've created syntax, but it's not >> officially required. > > Forth's syntax is flexible. There are a limited number of officially > sanctioned ways to terminate an IF, but it's clear that WADADABOOP would > be non-standard. ... > Where in Wikipedia's definition (or any other) does it say that if there > is more than one way to use tokens to > form a phrase it isn't syntax? > Why must I cite Wikipedia when Forth's own standards say so? A space is the only defined syntax. You're switching from one argument early on to the exact opposite here. >>> If all control structures, colon definitions, variable definitions >>> etc are considered there is quite a bit of syntax. >> >> Of course, that's not official syntax, but, yes, that is a trivial >> amount of defacto syntax. > > Oh, well, then, "official" syntax vs. "defacto" syntax. Where do you > find that definition? > Where do you find the definition of any syntax other than space? >>> The conclusion is that Forth has a *lot* of syntax and so the >>> statement "Forth has no syntax" is a load of bollocks. >> >> I think you're confusing and conflating much. > > And I think you're inventing your own definition of syntax for > the sole purpose of "proving" your point. > I did no such thing. You misunderstood earlier where cited up above. And, throughout this post you went from saying Forth has syntax to saying it doesn't. At least I was clear, I thought, that Forth has developed an appearance of syntax for certain things, even though it has no syntax. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 12:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1eo7f$ou5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25785 |
On 19/09/2013 02:10, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:08:00 -0400, Gerry Jackson
> <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 18/09/2013 14:41, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley
>>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Nonsense. Of course Forth has some syntax, [...]
>
> Forth has no official syntax. It has some defacto syntax.
Again nonsense but taking that at face value - if it has "de facto
syntax" then it has syntax so your original statement is wrong. See also
para 3.4.1.2 in the ANS Forth document.
Anyway what do you mean by "official syntax"? Presumably the fact that
there is no section defining a Forth grammar in BNF or some other
notation. That's because it's not needed and would probably be
difficulty to write if it included all possibilities and restrictions to
incorporate Forth's flexibility. But you're wrong again e.g. see the ANS
Forth document 12.3.7 where the syntax for a floating point number is
defined using a form of BNF.
>
> E.g., brackets [ ] to distinguish compile-time and run-time
> versions of the same Forth word. : (colon) and ; (semis)
> could also be viewed as syntax since they separate much
> of an immediate stream of executing words from words that
> are being compiled. Etc.
As Elizabeth says : and ; don't have a syntax. However a colon
definition does and could be defined (in outline) as:
<colon-definition> ::= : <name> ( <word-sequence>
| <control-structure>
| <executable-code>
| ... etc
)*
;
where the definition of <executable-code> would be defined using [ and ]
and before you ask "where does it say that?", it's an ad hoc
formalisation of descriptions spread around the standard document in
word definitions and other text.
>
[...]
>> At the grammar level control structures such as IF ... ELSE ...
>> THEN clearly form part of Forth's syntax -
>
> Not so.
>
>> if there is no terminating THEN, the structure is wrong.
>
> Really? Says who or what?
>
> Which standard or document do you think requires that?
>
> Hint:
>
> fig-Forth doesn't say that.
> F-79 doesn't say that.
> F-83 doesn't say that.
> ANS doesn't say that either.
Elizabeth answered that.
> However, there is no constraint in the stack parameters for any of
> them that would actually require a Forth implementor to only allow
> THEN to be used with an IF or ELSE. THEN can function correctly
> as long as the stack parameters are valid. E.g., I could define
> the "WADADABOOP" control-flow to work correctly with and be
> terminated by THEN. If someone implements THEN to require a matching
> IF , they've added additional functionality not required, perhaps
> for safety. I.e., if so, then they've created syntax, but it's not
> officially required.
You're waffling. The point is that Forth enables the users to define
their own syntax and that includes overriding the default Forth syntax
itself.
>
>> If all control structures, colon definitions, variable definitions
>> etc are considered there is quite a bit of syntax.
>
> Of course, that's not official syntax, but, yes, that is a trivial
> amount of defacto syntax.
You're admitting that Forth does have syntax contrary to your original
assertion.
>
>> The conclusion is that Forth has a *lot* of syntax and so the
>> statement "Forth has no syntax" is a load of bollocks.
>
> I think you're confusing and conflating much.
I think arguing with you is like arguing with a religious bigot - a
total waste of time.
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spam@ControlQ.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 11:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1309191128150.775@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #25814 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Gerry Jackson wrote: >>>> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. >>> >>> Nonsense. Of course Forth has some syntax, [...] >> >> Forth has no official syntax. It has some defacto syntax. > > Again nonsense but taking that at face value - if it has "de facto syntax" > then it has syntax so your original statement is wrong. See also para 3.4.1.2 > in the ANS Forth document. Since when is the occurrence of "syntax" more important than efficacy in a programming language? Forth has exactly what it needs to solve real problems. Cheers, Rob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web