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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 16:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1f6b8$hg3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25819 |
On 19/09/2013 16:30, Spam@ControlQ.com wrote: > 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. I agree, I don't think I said "syntax" was more important, if I accidentally implied that it was I didn't mean to. I was just responding to Rod's statement - a bit pointless in retrospect. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 16:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3p9kpii0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25814 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:47:02 -0400, Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > 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. Clearly, no one here understands "defacto" ... > Anyway what do you mean by "official syntax"? I already stated this. Forth's only defined syntax is a space. Forth's words are not syntax by definition. At best, Forth can only have the appearance of some syntax, i.e., "defacto". > Presumably the fact that there is no section defining a Forth > grammar in BNF or some other notation. It has nothing to do with this. IF ELSE THEN SWAP DROP and all other defined or implemented Forth words aren't syntax because Forth defines space as the only syntax. >> [floating point format] That's a format, not syntax. >> [Gerry forgetting I wrote an Forth which is 2/3 ANS compliant in C] ... >>> 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. > No, she quoted. There is a difference. She never answered, nor explained. It's also incorrect to say what she quoted provided any proof to the contrary of what I said, as I explained in response it clearly doesn't. >> 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. > You're conflating non-syntax with 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. > > You're admitting that Forth does have syntax contrary to your original > assertion. No, you failed to understand the original assertion, or more specifically you willfully disregarded what I stated by claiming it to be incorrect. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 23:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1ihhv$kur$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25854 |
On 20/09/2013 21:51, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:47:02 -0400, Gerry Jackson > <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > >> 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. > > Clearly, no one here understands "defacto" ... No but I understand "de facto", I was being charitable and assumed a typo on your part. > >> Anyway what do you mean by "official syntax"? > > I already stated this. Forth's only defined syntax is a space. > Forth's words are not syntax by definition. At best, Forth > can only have the appearance of some syntax, i.e., "defacto". > >> Presumably the fact that there is no section defining a Forth >> grammar in BNF or some other notation. > > It has nothing to do with this. IF ELSE THEN SWAP DROP and all other > defined or implemented Forth words aren't syntax because Forth defines > space as the only syntax. > >>> [floating point format] > > That's a format, not syntax. > >>> [Gerry forgetting I wrote an Forth which is 2/3 ANS compliant in C] > .... > >>>> 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. >> > > No, she quoted. There is a difference. She never answered, > nor explained. > > It's also incorrect to say what she quoted provided any proof > to the contrary of what I said, as I explained in response > it clearly doesn't. > >>> 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. >> > > You're conflating non-syntax with 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. >> >> You're admitting that Forth does have syntax contrary to your original >> assertion. > > No, you failed to understand the original assertion, or more specifically > you willfully disregarded what I stated by claiming it to be incorrect. > |-O Please refer to the last bit of my post that you snipped. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 15:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l1krfn$lu2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25785 |
On 9/18/2013 9:10 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:08:00 -0400, Gerry Jackson >> At the grammar level control structures such as IF ... ELSE ... >> THEN clearly form part of Forth's syntax - > > Not so. <troll mode on> Amazing debating technique! The crowd is bursting into applause!!! <troll mode off> >> 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. Duh! Really? From the ANS standard. 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. I'm so tired of all the petty BS that gets posted here. Between Gavino posting his childish demands, Rod arguing for the sake of arguing and WJ posting what seem to be obsessive rants, I think WJ is the least objectionable. Much of what gets posted in this group is of no real interest to me, but at least it is relevant to Forth. This nonsense is just ego boosting and compulsive argument. Not that I expect anything I say to make a difference. I'm not a social worker and I am not trained in dealing with the mental problems exhibited here. > 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. From the ANS standard. "Forth syntax is extensible; for example, new control-flow words can be defined in terms of existing ones." Do you *have* a point? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 03:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3yhvemn0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25906 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:19:12 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/18/2013 9:10 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:08:00 -0400, Gerry Jackson ... >>> 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. > > Duh! Really? From the ANS standard. > > 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. > As explained elsewhere, it doesn't say that. If you had been reading this thread, you wouldn't have repeated the conversation, discussion, argument, that has occurred *twice* before with Ms. Rather and Andrew... Pay attention. > I'm so tired of all the petty BS that gets posted here. I'm so tired of you posting about non-Forth microprocessors, and posting trollish and anti-trollish BS too when no one will discuss non-Forth microprocessors with you. How is your crap not petty too? > Much of what gets posted in this group is of no real interest to me, ... which is just like your conversations on non-Forth microprocessors. > [...] but at least it is relevant to Forth. ... which is unlike your non-Forth conversations on non-Forth microprocessors. They're completely irrelevant to Forth. > I'm not a social worker and I am not trained in dealing > with the mental problems exhibited here. Curious, are you including yourself in that statement? Are you the primary example? Are you projecting? How would you know? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 21:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c51b2678-22cc-4a13-bc24-65c931594507@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25778 |
On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:08:00 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 18/09/2013 14:41, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > 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. The smallest aspect of Forth that can be understood (an "atom" of Forth) is the word, which is blank-delimited. Each word does one thing (usually something simple enough to be described in a single English sentence), and there are a finite number of words in the dictionary, so Forth is understandable. In C, we have statements. The parts of the statement (such as the * token) are not understandable outside of the context of the statement. The smallest aspect of C that can be understood (an "atom" of C) is the statement, but there are an infinite number of possible statements, so C is not understandable. People can familiarize themselves with C, but they can't really understand it. In Forth, if you see a word that you don't know about, you just look it up in the ANS-Forth document. If it isn't there, then you look it up in the source-code. If you don't know about the words that it is defined in terms of, then you repeat the process with them. By comparison, in C you have to know quite a lot about C compilation to figure out what a statement does --- essentially compile it in your head --- unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a C compiler in your head, because they are quite complicated. In Forth, I routinely write code that works the first time. In C, it is more by-guess-and-by-golly. BTW: One thing I dislike about C, is how C programmers often have mini-languages inside of C programs. For example, PRINTF is a mini-language. They do this because C is a weak language that is not capable of representing this stuff directly. By comparison, in Forth this is very uncommon (I've never done it, and the only example I'm aware of is Pelc's regex interpreter, which I doubt he even uses himself). For example, we have <# # etc., that are just ordinary Forth words --- there is no need to interpret strings at run-time, as done in PRINTF. In C, it is very common to write programs that interpret data files involving some invented format of data. This can be done in Forth (I have done it with AutoCAD dxf files), but if the Forther has his druthers he will make the data file format be valid Forth code --- he doesn't write an interpreter, but he just uses the Forth outer-interpreter via INCLUDE. This isn't possible in C, because C programs don't have access to the C compiler at run-time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 01:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c830fdc5-0362-41fe-a23f-7154f4b2ce46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25789 |
A huge +1 for Hugh's post. One of the most concise descriptions of Forth essence that I've read for a while. Agree wholeheartedly. The part about Forth words and C statements is genius. Why didn't I think of that. Saving this post! Nice one, Hugh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 15:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l1krtv$oed$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25799 |
On 9/19/2013 4:02 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > A huge +1 for Hugh's post. One of the most concise descriptions of Forth essence that I've read for a while. Agree wholeheartedly. The part about Forth words and C statements is genius. Why didn't I think of that. > > Saving this post! Nice one, Hugh. Oh, come on! Really? How about this claim...? "The smallest aspect of C that can be understood (an "atom" of C) is the statement, but there are an infinite number of possible statements, so C is not understandable." Really? C is *not* understandable? Then how is it that C programs can be "understood" by compilers and turned into machine code which functions equivalently to the meaning of the C code? Wouldn't Forth also be *not* understandable since there are an infinite number of possible words, so words can't be understood. Maybe it is just me, but I haven't seen such a collection of such pure crap since the last time I read one of the feud threads in S.E.D. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3qaduva0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25789 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:12:52 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:08:00 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >> On 18/09/2013 14:41, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... >> > 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. > > The smallest aspect of Forth that can be understood (an "atom" of Forth) > is the word, which is blank-delimited. Each word does one thing (usually > something simple enough to be described in a single English sentence), > and there are a finite number of words in the dictionary, so Forth is > understandable. > So, you cite a known issue in Forth, but decide to rant about C instead? Ok, now you're deflecting too. > In C, we have statements. The parts of the statement (such as the * > token) are not understandable outside of the context of the statement. > The smallest aspect of C that can be understood (an "atom" of C) is the > statement, but there are an infinite number of possible statements, ... > [...] so C is not understandable. lol. C can be made unintelligible, but that usually via abuse of the C preprocessor which isn't formally standardized anyway. It allows you to perform almost any text transformation that you'd ever desire. Sometimes C also becomes cryptic via layers upon layers of code which obfuscate what is being done. > People can familiarize themselves with C, but they can't really > understand it. Please... Then, how have I been programming in it since about '92 after reading a couple of books? Then, how have I implemented a number of simple compilers for it? Then, how is it that I understand what assembly is going to be produced? Then, how is it that I can reduce ANSI or C99 to K&R C correctly? Then, how is it I know what platforms the language can be implemented on given specifics of the architecture? etc. > In Forth, if you see a word that you don't know about, you just > look it up in the ANS-Forth document. What if it's not there? Most Forth's aren't ANS yet... AIR, most are Forth-83. So, you'll be searching for a while. > If it isn't there, then you look it up in the source-code. I don't recall a requirement that a Forth word be provided as source. E.g., code words might have source or might be disassemble-able, but also might not have source available. > If you don't know about the words that it is defined in terms of, then > you repeat the process with them. By comparison, > in C you have to know quite a lot about C compilation to figure > out what a statement does That's not true. The process is the same for much of C. You just aren't familiar with how C converts high level C to low level. > unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a C compiler in > your head, because they are quite complicated. That depends on the programmer. C doesn't have to be complicated even for complicated tasks. Some programmers do make a mess though, just like in Forth... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 11:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Sep19.132839@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #25778 |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>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.
Syntax can also be specified through stack effects [poeial94], and
that includes things such as CS-PICK and CS-ROLL.
>The conclusion is that Forth has a *lot* of syntax and so the statement
>"Forth has no syntax" is a load of bollocks.
Is it a sign of quality to have a syntax?
- anton
@InProceedings{poeial94,
author = "Jaanus P{\"o}ial",
title = "Forth and Formal Language Theory",
crossref = "euroforth94",
pages = "47--52",
annote = "Shows that the stack effect notation is at least as
powerful as context-free grammars and that it is better
suited for specifying the syntax of Forth."
}
@Proceedings{euroforth94,
title = "EuroForth~'94 Conference Proceedings",
booktitle = "EuroForth~'94 Conference Proceedings",
year = "1994",
key = "EuroForth '94",
address = "Winchester, UK",
}
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-18 18:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xmwn961j8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #25761 |
"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> writes: > E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing > new control-flow techniques? http://www.embeddedrelated.com/showarticle/455.php
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 22:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l1fv50$ds5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25761 |
Rod Pemberton wrote: > OTH, the Forth community > seems to be in denial or willfully blind by stating that problems > which are repeatedly cited by both novices and adept Forth > programmers aren't really a problem. Of course they are in denial. They feel that Forth is their god or their mommy--- above criticism. They are not at all rational or honest about Forth. And many of them are so simple-minded that they are incapable of learning a higher-level language such as Ruby, Awk, Python, Racket, or OCaml. So they have to use Forth for everything. Since Forth is what they are stuck with for the rest of their lives, they cannot bear to think that it is crude and highly flawed. Forth is their religion, and those who criticize it are infidels.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 14:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l14suo$atr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25681 |
On 9/15/2013 1:17 PM, Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:47:30 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather" > <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >> I know a lot of young Forth programmers in our customer organizations. >> None seem to be interested in clf, however. A few of them have checked >> in here, and been appalled at the lack of application-oriented discussions. > > Most of our clients are just appalled by clf. Make sure they stay the heck away from sed! lol -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 19:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d010121-c46b-4c37-9aae-24e7291e5d41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25681 |
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:17:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > Most of our clients are just appalled by clf. > What part of Usenet isn't appalling?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-12 08:03 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <NLmdneXl3cCXn6_PnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25641 |
On 9/12/13 2:10 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 06:52:54 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: >> on 11/09/2013 11:21:59, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > ... > >> [snip] >> >>> It doesn't have a GOTO ? It's true that it doesn't have an explicitly >>> named GOTO . However, most interpreter based Forth's have BRANCH . >>> Just what do you think that does? Many of them have AHEAD and AGAIN >>> too which are simple wrappers around BRANCH or it's equivalent if not >>> present. And, the assembly language Forth's just use the host's jump >>> instruction. >>> >> >> I'm not sure I understand your point here, [...] > > Well, what did you expect? > > You ignored and snipped all prior context... > > The point was "spaghetti code" can be written in interpreted Forths, > contrary to the claims of Hugh and Ms. Rather, because most of them > have a named equivalent of GOTO that is available to the user. This "equivalent" word is not available in many systems, is not taught in the manuals, and is not included in the standard. Forth provides a useful suite of structured program flow control words that users are taught and encouraged to use. Forth programming as supported by its standards, teaching methods, and common practice follows structured programming principles. >> Many languages do not have an explicit GOTO or labels; > ... > >> Many languages do not have an explicit GOTO or labels; >> Forth is one of them. > > I stated that Forth doesn't have an explicit GOTO directly above. > It's still in the quoted portion that you didn't snip. Do you > always parrot what others say directly back to them? That seems > like a very strange behavior to me. How do you rationalize doing > that without a realization of doing so? Was it a conscious decision? > If so, what for? If not, I have no problem letting that slide as > a strange coincidence or Freudian-slip issue... Are you staring > at register code too much? E.g., XCHG EAX, EDX. It should be > MOV EAX, EDX or PUSH EDX. The latter frees up a register... lol. > >> BRANCH is an implementation detail to use the host's jump, not a >> language feature. > > Is it accessable to the user? Is it available in quite a few Forths? > If so, your word games are irrevelant to the discussion. ;-) There are probably things you can do in some variants of any language by using unpublished features that are contrary to its standards and accepted practice. So? 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 | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-11 08:59 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <mNCdnZ-qeuwRIK3PnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25617 |
On 9/11/13 12:22 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:32:32 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather >> wrote: >>> On 9/9/13 10:30 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> > On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 08:16:53 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> >>> wrote: > >>> >> I?m not a Forth evangelist, but find that using Forth to solve >>> >> certain specific problems helps make engineers and technicians >>> >> more adept. >>> >>> > I'm astounded! ... Like what? >>> >>> Like the ability to work interactively with hardware under development >>> without the necessity for complex and expensive emulators and debuggers. >> >> When Dirk said "specific problems," this was confusing. Forth's >> advantage over languages such as C is interactive development, which is >> a good thing no matter what problem it is that you are solving. >> > > Most BASIC's were interpreted too. It was nice that "extra" steps like > compilation and linking weren't required, but C can be used for interactive > development too. Compiling and linking is quick for small files. On this > machine, it's usually done before I can type another key after 'enter' on > this four year old machine. The code size of many applications hasn't > increased as fast as processing speed. Yes, it would've taken some time > on a 1Mhz 6502, three decades ago. Anyway, once the program becomes large, > you just need to break the code into multiple small files, compile a small > part, relink all the parts. It's simple, quick, albeit not as convenient. > I know I've mentioned this to both Hugh and Ms. Rather before... > > As for the need for "complex and expensive emulatore and debuggers", all > you need for C is printf() to debug. No joke. I implemented about half > of a rudimentary x86 PC operating system this way quite rapidly. > Like Forth, C provides necessary low-level access to code an OS. > Forget about the debugger, the only time, one time, that I ever had to > use one was for a 1MLoc active of 5Mloc, multiple parallel process > application. It was needed to follow data passed between separate > processes since there was no other way to do that. You obviously haven't spent any time using a good Forth to develop applications. The process is so different from using printf() in C it's ridiculous. >>> > Forth is an unstructured programming language. I.e., without >>> > conscious application of structured coding principles, of which >>> > many programmers are completely unaware, it results in "spaghetti >>> > code", just like the code most programmers created for BASIC. >>> >>> I'm completely baffled by this remark. Forth was developed about the >>> time Djkstra was writing papers about structured programming, and >>> adheres far more strictly to structured programming practice than most >>> languages. >> >> Forth doesn't have a GOTO, so you can't really write spaghetti code >> like in in the old line-number BASICs of the early 1980s. >> > > It doesn't have a GOTO ? It's true that it doesn't have an explicitly > named GOTO . However, most interpreter based Forth's have BRANCH . > Just what do you think that does? Many of them have AHEAD and AGAIN > too which are simple wrappers around BRANCH or it's equivalent if not > present. And, the assembly language Forth's just use the host's > jump instruction. BRANCH is not a standard part of Forth, it's used in some implementations to compile structures. At the programmer level, Forth is entirely structured. There are ways to do unstructured things, but they're in the realm of tricks that are rarely used by competent Forth programmers. 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 | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-12 10:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52319beb$0$26885$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #25636 |
In article <mNCdnZ-qeuwRIK3PnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com>, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >On 9/11/13 12:22 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:32:32 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:00:21 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather > >>>> I'm completely baffled by this remark. Forth was developed about the >>>> time Djkstra was writing papers about structured programming, and >>>> adheres far more strictly to structured programming practice than most >>>> languages. >>> >>> Forth doesn't have a GOTO, so you can't really write spaghetti code >>> like in in the old line-number BASICs of the early 1980s. >>> >> >> It doesn't have a GOTO ? It's true that it doesn't have an explicitly >> named GOTO . However, most interpreter based Forth's have BRANCH . >> Just what do you think that does? Many of them have AHEAD and AGAIN >> too which are simple wrappers around BRANCH or it's equivalent if not >> present. And, the assembly language Forth's just use the host's >> jump instruction. > >BRANCH is not a standard part of Forth, it's used in some >implementations to compile structures. At the programmer level, Forth is >entirely structured. There are ways to do unstructured things, but >they're in the realm of tricks that are rarely used by competent Forth >programmers. This may be one of those rare cases. Saving 3 CELLS is probably worth it ;-) From the Novix EBD1 manual : MAX ( nn - n) OVER OVER - 0< IF BEGIN SWAP-DROP ; : MIN ( nn - n) OVER OVER - 0< UNTIL THEN DROP ; This code had my baffled for some time. If the coder isn't competent, he sure is clever ... > >Cheers, >Elizabeth Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-12 08:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2d-dnYWc8udTI6zPnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25640 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <mNCdnZ-qeuwRIK3PnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com>, > Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> >>BRANCH is not a standard part of Forth, it's used in some >>implementations to compile structures. At the programmer level, >>Forth is entirely structured. There are ways to do unstructured >>things, but they're in the realm of tricks that are rarely used by >>competent Forth programmers. > > This may be one of those rare cases. > Saving 3 CELLS is probably worth it ;-) > > From the Novix EBD1 manual > > : MAX ( nn - n) OVER OVER - 0< IF BEGIN SWAP-DROP ; > : MIN ( nn - n) OVER OVER - 0< UNTIL THEN DROP ; > > This code had my baffled for some time. > If the coder isn't competent, he sure is clever ... That was probably either Chuck Moore or Greg Bailey. "Rarely" is probably right. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-13 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l0v1ie$mpo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25616 |
hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:
> When Dirk said "specific problems," this was confusing.
> Forth's advantage over languages such as C is interactive
> development, which is a good thing no matter what problem it
> is that you are solving.
>
> Interactive development is what Dirk really needs for
> education, as students learn best when they get immediate
> feedback.
I broke your lines for you. Anyone who knows anything whatsoever
about usenet knows that he must limit the length of his lines.
Your statement indicates another kind of abysmal ignorance.
You seem to know nothing whatsoever about any high-level
languages.
Many, many high-level languages are interactive (i.e., have a
REPL).
Examples: Scheme, Racket, Bigloo, Ruby, Julia, OCaml, Haskell,
NewLisp, Common Lisp, TCL, Perl, Arc, Clojure, Factor, F#, J,
Lua, BASIC, etc.
You don't know how to program in any high-level language, so
your opinion about what would be a good language for beginners
is worthless.
Forth is a very low-level language, so it makes learning much
slower and greatly reduces programmer productivity. The only
people who try to use it to write applications are people like
Hugh who are incapable of grasping a high-level language.
It's pointless to listen to Forth-worshippers who are
comfortable only with stone-age tools.
Ruby:
require 'pp'
pp [
" 119 136 153 light slate gray ",
" 119 136 153 LightSlateGray "
].map{|s| s.strip.split(" ", 4)}
==>
[["119", "136", "153", "light slate gray"],
["119", "136", "153", "LightSlateGray"]]
See how easy that was? In a stone-age language like Forth
it would be much more difficult and would take much longer.
If your time is worth anything and you are not a masochist,
you don't use Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-13 06:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee30d6ae-f1b2-4eb3-9431-69c44d4fd645@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25652 |
All is not as it seems, though, is it WJ? What's behind that curtain called pp, and how big a curtain is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web