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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-12 14:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5231c909.9641922@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #25603 |
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 04:30:41 -0400, "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >I suspect I'm the only one here to have implemented basic C >compilers, and a Forth interpreter. Wrong. You are not the only person here to have ... Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-15 18:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <l13p82$mtg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25603 |
Rod Pemberton wrote: > ... > Don't? > > Forth has many issues that were resolved by other high-level languages. > > Other languages have defined syntax. Other languages have structured > programming concepts built into the language. Other languages have > object oriented concepts built into the language. Other languages > keep track of variable names without requiring the user to do so. The first two, Forth certainly has. Whether one *likes* the way Forth does its thing is another matter. Forth is certainly "lower level". That, and its syntax, is hated by many (even some "forthers"). Dislike of Forth is to expected and, yes, the language may well vanish. That's ok. Nothing lasts forever. Even C. OTOH, there will be users who don't program in anything but Forth. I'm not surprised. Forth's niche is controller apps and IIRC it consistently ranked top in 'real time' programming contests. > Have them learn structured programming first on a language which doesn't > allow unstructured coding, e.g., Pascal. The problem with Pascal, of > course, is that it doesn't allow low-level access to the machine, > the objects used by the language, unlike Forth or C. Early Pascal > also didn't have pointers. I don't use C, Pascal etc and consequently find 'pointers' impossible to understand. Should I ignore these languages? Should one ignore assembler because it's allegedly "hard"? Does promoting a language (or for that matter, condemning one) make any difference? I don't think it does. What matters is whether one uses what one has learned. I've seen folks "talking Forth" for what must be 20 years, and yet never seen a scrap of code from them. The sin isn't in Forth but doing nothing with it :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | voidvolker@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-14 10:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <196c2110-8f94-46c2-bb6f-44e5c8da8c69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25587 |
<visua...@rocketmail.com> wrote:: > How can I best use Forth for education? > What are other opportunities that I can take advantage of? 1. FPGA Fort-CPU (WOW!) 2. Microcontrollers - SwiftX Forth or any arch specific froth systems 3. Low-level programming and learning how PC and CPU work 4. Domain-specific languages 5. Script languages 6. System programming (FreeBSD loader) 7. Graphic, OpenGL and simple games programming: win4k forth, Quark forth (used as FPGA "helper" CAD-system scripting) 8. Cross platform GTK+ applications - VFX Forth, SP-Forth++ 9. Web-servers and web-applications And any other applications: Windows, linux, FreeBSD, MAC - gforth, SP-Forth, VFX, nnCron, eServ... One of the best books is http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/ and next is http://www.forthfreak.net/thinking-forth.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-14 10:53 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <udGdnWcSHZJdUanPnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25664 |
On 9/14/13 7:41 AM, voidvolker@gmail.com wrote: > <visua...@rocketmail.com> wrote:: >> How can I best use Forth for education? >> What are other opportunities that I can take advantage of? > 1. FPGA Fort-CPU (WOW!) > 2. Microcontrollers - SwiftX Forth or any arch specific froth systems > 3. Low-level programming and learning how PC and CPU work > 4. Domain-specific languages > 5. Script languages > 6. System programming (FreeBSD loader) > 7. Graphic, OpenGL and simple games programming: win4k forth, Quark forth (used as FPGA "helper" CAD-system scripting) > 8. Cross platform GTK+ applications - VFX Forth, SP-Forth++ > 9. Web-servers and web-applications > > And any other applications: Windows, linux, FreeBSD, MAC - gforth, SP-Forth, VFX, nnCron, eServ... > > One of the best books is http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/ and next is http://www.forthfreak.net/thinking-forth.pdf > Good list, but a word of warning: Starting Forth is fun and readable, but is also terribly dated and doesn't represent current Forth systems and usage. I have two books available: The Forth Programmer's Handbook is a general reference book covering current standards and common usage. Free pdf with FORTH, Inc. evaluation systems, or paperback from Amazon. Forth Application Techniques is a tutorial that starts at the beginning and takes you through to a pretty good general skill level. Works with any ANS Forth. Paperback, from Amazon. There are other books available as well. 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 | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l1fu3d$8u4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25587 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > How can I best use Forth for education? I.e., how can you make the best of a bad situation? After being educated with Forth for several years, gavino was able to come up with : stock-gain 100 * swap / 100 - cr . ." precent" cr ; There are three possibilities. 1. Forth is the worst language for education. 2. gavino is the worst learner. 3. Both of the above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-19 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44c39032-3adc-4e96-b91f-4374c93f5880@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25822 |
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:33:18 PM UTC-4, WJ wrote: > visualforth.com wrote: > > > How can I best use Forth for education? > > I.e., how can you make the best of a bad situation? > After being educated with Forth for several years, > gavino was able to come up with > : stock-gain 100 * swap / 100 - cr . ." precent" cr ; > > There are three possibilities. > 1. Forth is the worst language for education. > 2. gavino is the worst learner. > 3. Both of the above. You forgot one very important option: You didn't have a good teacher. Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human language is: "FORTH closely follows the basic human methodology for dealing with language. Learning a human language starts with understanding a few simple word. (I.e.: YES, NO, STOP, GO, etc.). Next, phrases are made from those words. The meanings of phrases are named, and new words are born. Then, larger, more complex concepts are built from these simple beginnings. Complicated words are defined in terms of simpler words. Using the basics, larger and larger concepts are built as vocabulary grows." Quotation from Max-FORTH IN A NUTSHELL, http://forth.newmicros.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 17:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3qb0xsq0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25826 |
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: > Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, > because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human > language is: > Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years. Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language. I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory. Is this intended for adults or children? Do you really think that similarity to English is a good reason to use Forth? English is full of ambiguities. Ambiguities in programming languages results in coding mistakes. Coding mistakes lead to financial and physical tragedies. Also, 75% of people are very verbal while the other 25% are visual. Those adept in mathematics and science, i.e., presumed to be more intelligent, tend to be more visual than those not adept. That means more symbolic or math like a language is, and the less like spoken or written language, the better it is for them. Spatial versus verbal ability goes towards the question: Who would you want as a programmer for the processors used on the airplane you flew on or bullet train you rode on? When our cars become "smart" cars, who do you want to code the safety features? If the car "intelligently" accelerates to avoid a mild collision but introduces your car into a dangerous collision in progress, that's not so good, is it? If your car "intelligently" slows to ensure a police car can pull you over, or to allow an ambulance to pass, it's not so good if the non-smart, 80000 pound semi-trailer plows into you because of the slowdown, is it? So, do you want a guy of average intellect writing that code? Or, would you rather have the guy who can correctly solve calculus and physics problems without help from friends, family, and teachers? Personally, I don't want a dumb, or even average intellect guy coding code that's critical to my personal safety. I want the smartest bunch of guys you can get. Smart guys are capable of comprehending extremely complex interactions that average guys will just never understand. But, it usually takes more than one of them to foresee all outcomes. Do you want your banking protected by code written by the company with lowest bid? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 23:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1ijuj$po$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25859 |
on 20/09/2013 22:44:49, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> > wrote: > >> Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, >> because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human >> language is: >> > > Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years. > Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language. A nit, but English wasn't mentioned. > I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based > upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory. > Is this intended for adults or children? > > Do you really think that similarity to English is a good reason > to use Forth? English is full of ambiguities. Ambiguities > in programming languages results in coding mistakes. Coding > mistakes lead to financial and physical tragedies. German? > > Also, 75% of people are very verbal while the other 25% are visual. > Those adept in mathematics and science, i.e., presumed to be more > intelligent, tend to be more visual than those not adept. That > means more symbolic or math like a language is, and the less like > spoken or written language, the better it is for them. > Now this is classic Rod. Completely made up. I'd like a few cites (that is, some quality links to research) that supports the multiple layers of fantasy facts in this paragraph. > Spatial versus verbal ability goes towards the question: Who would > you want as a programmer for the processors used on the airplane > you flew on or bullet train you rode on? When our cars become > "smart" cars, who do you want to code the safety features? If the > car "intelligently" accelerates to avoid a mild collision but > introduces your car into a dangerous collision in progress, that's > not so good, is it? If your car "intelligently" slows to ensure > a police car can pull you over, or to allow an ambulance to pass, > it's not so good if the non-smart, 80000 pound semi-trailer plows > into you because of the slowdown, is it? So, do you want a guy of > average intellect writing that code? Or, would you rather have the > guy who can correctly solve calculus and physics problems without > help from friends, family, and teachers? Personally, I don't want > a dumb, or even average intellect guy coding code that's critical > to my personal safety. I want the smartest bunch of guys you can > get. Smart guys are capable of comprehending extremely complex > interactions that average guys will just never understand. But, it > usually takes more than one of them to foresee all outcomes. Do > you want your banking protected by code written by the company > with lowest bid? > And now we're way off piste. Ada. Used in safety critical systems, it is quite verbose, preferring English words over symbols. It sure does require a lot of verbal stuff for folks that you reckon are special coz they're spatial. Please, back this crap up with some solid facts or STFU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 19:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3qhtgb40e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25862 |
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:58:27 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 20/09/2013 22:44:49, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, >>> because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human >>> language is: >>> >> >> Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years. >> Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language. > > A nit, but English wasn't mentioned. > Who said it was? He said "human language". I said people wanting to program in English comes up every few years. It comes up here, and comp.lang.misc, and a few times on other newsgroups. What is wrong with your comprehension that you equated the two? >> I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based >> upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory. >> Is this intended for adults or children? >> >> Do you really think that similarity to English is a good reason >> to use Forth? English is full of ambiguities. Ambiguities >> in programming languages results in coding mistakes. Coding >> mistakes lead to financial and physical tragedies. > > German? > German, French, Chinese, whatever... All spoken languages have ambiguities. >> Also, 75% of people are very verbal while the other 25% are visual. >> Those adept in mathematics and science, i.e., presumed to be more >> intelligent, tend to be more visual than those not adept. That >> means more symbolic or math like a language is, and the less like >> spoken or written language, the better it is for them. >> > > Now this is classic Rod. Completely made up. Unfortunately, it's not made up. > I'd like a few cites (that is, some quality links to research) Well, if you're actually interested, you could go look for it and learn something. Every time someone asks me to cite, they disregard factual sources I've cited, and then still claim the facts are false without them ever citing anything of a factual nature to the contrary. AFAICT, asking to cite is just an asshole attempting to initiate a time wasting, wild goose chase... So, why don't we reverse the situation and ask you to cite factual references to the contrary, first. >> Spatial versus verbal ability goes towards the question: Who would >> you want as a programmer for the processors used on the airplane >> you flew on or bullet train you rode on? When our cars become >> "smart" cars, who do you want to code the safety features? If the >> car "intelligently" accelerates to avoid a mild collision but >> introduces your car into a dangerous collision in progress, that's >> not so good, is it? If your car "intelligently" slows to ensure >> a police car can pull you over, or to allow an ambulance to pass, >> it's not so good if the non-smart, 80000 pound semi-trailer plows >> into you because of the slowdown, is it? So, do you want a guy of >> average intellect writing that code? Or, would you rather have the >> guy who can correctly solve calculus and physics problems without >> help from friends, family, and teachers? Personally, I don't want >> a dumb, or even average intellect guy coding code that's critical >> to my personal safety. I want the smartest bunch of guys you can >> get. Smart guys are capable of comprehending extremely complex >> interactions that average guys will just never understand. But, it >> usually takes more than one of them to foresee all outcomes. Do >> you want your banking protected by code written by the company >> with lowest bid? >> > > And now we're way off piste. Ada. Used in safety critical systems, > it is quite verbose, preferring English words over symbols. ... > It sure does require a lot of verbal stuff for folks that you reckon > are special coz they're spatial. Go ahead and cite a source that proves that those who program in Ada are more spatial than verbal as you've claimed ... If you can't, STFU because you're wrong and you know it. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 20:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1ksb6$qrt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25863 |
on 21/09/2013 00:49:58, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:58:27 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> > wrote: > >> on 20/09/2013 22:44:49, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: [snip] >>> Also, 75% of people are very verbal while the other 25% are visual. >>> Those adept in mathematics and science, i.e., presumed to be more >>> intelligent, tend to be more visual than those not adept. That >>> means more symbolic or math like a language is, and the less like >>> spoken or written language, the better it is for them. >>> >> >> Now this is classic Rod. Completely made up. > > Unfortunately, it's not made up. Yes it is. > >> I'd like a few cites (that is, some quality links to research) > > Well, if you're actually interested, you could go look for it > and learn something. I can't find any. Neither can you. > > Every time someone asks me to cite, they disregard factual sources > I've cited, and then still claim the facts are false without them > ever citing anything of a factual nature to the contrary. AFAICT, > asking to cite is just an asshole attempting to initiate a time > wasting, wild goose chase... So, why don't we reverse the situation > and ask you to cite factual references to the contrary, first. Because you made it all up. It's your argument; I expect you to support it. > >>> Spatial versus verbal ability goes towards the question: Who would >>> you want as a programmer for the processors used on the airplane >>> you flew on or bullet train you rode on? When our cars become >>> "smart" cars, who do you want to code the safety features? If the >>> car "intelligently" accelerates to avoid a mild collision but >>> introduces your car into a dangerous collision in progress, that's >>> not so good, is it? If your car "intelligently" slows to ensure >>> a police car can pull you over, or to allow an ambulance to pass, >>> it's not so good if the non-smart, 80000 pound semi-trailer plows >>> into you because of the slowdown, is it? So, do you want a guy of >>> average intellect writing that code? Or, would you rather have the >>> guy who can correctly solve calculus and physics problems without >>> help from friends, family, and teachers? Personally, I don't want >>> a dumb, or even average intellect guy coding code that's critical >>> to my personal safety. I want the smartest bunch of guys you can >>> get. Smart guys are capable of comprehending extremely complex >>> interactions that average guys will just never understand. But, it >>> usually takes more than one of them to foresee all outcomes. Do >>> you want your banking protected by code written by the company >>> with lowest bid? >>> >> >> And now we're way off piste. Ada. Used in safety critical systems, >> it is quite verbose, preferring English words over symbols. > ... > >> It sure does require a lot of verbal stuff for folks that you reckon >> are special coz they're spatial. > > Go ahead and cite a source that proves that those who program in Ada > are more spatial than verbal as you've claimed ... Where did I claim that? > > If you can't, STFU because you're wrong and you know it. Rod, you're a smart guy; why all the excess clown baggage? It's distracting, and I'm struck by how much effort you make to present it. It takes up too much of your energy, and your core points get lost in all this posturing verbage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 03:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3yio51h0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25909 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:33:58 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 21/09/2013 00:49:58, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:58:27 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> >> wrote: >>> on 20/09/2013 22:44:49, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: ... >>>> Also, 75% of people are very verbal while the other 25% are visual. >>>> Those adept in mathematics and science, i.e., presumed to be more >>>> intelligent, tend to be more visual than those not adept. That >>>> means more symbolic or math like a language is, and the less like >>>> spoken or written language, the better it is for them. >>>> >>> >>> Now this is classic Rod. Completely made up. >> >> Unfortunately, it's not made up. > > Yes it is. No it isn't. >>> I'd like a few cites (that is, some quality links to research) >> >> Well, if you're actually interested, you could go look for it >> and learn something. > > I can't find any. Neither can you. > That's not so. I can. You can't find any because you don't know where to look. >> Every time someone asks me to cite, they disregard factual sources >> I've cited, and then still claim the facts are false without them >> ever citing anything of a factual nature to the contrary. AFAICT, >> asking to cite is just an asshole attempting to initiate a time >> wasting, wild goose chase... So, why don't we reverse the situation >> and ask you to cite factual references to the contrary, first. > > Because you made it all up. I did not. That's your invalid perception. It's also insulting to call me a liar simply because of your blatant ignorance when I in fact stated the truth. Let me tell you a story about a guy I knew named Dave. Any time someone would state something outside his sphere of knowledge he'd cough "bullshit" under his breath. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for most of his friends to learn or perceive that he was the one who was incorrect. Behind his back, everyone began calling him "Always Wrong". To his face, people just stopped stating anything they suspected he was unfamiliar with. Don't get me wrong. He was a fun guy. But, you just didn't want to mention something he was unfamiliar with around him. You remind me of him. You need to learn some psychology. > It's your argument; I expect you to support it. It's your denial; I expect you to prove otherwise. See, I can do tit-for-tat too... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 09:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l1u7kt$pqb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26015 |
on 25/09/2013 08:49:46, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:33:58 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> > wrote: > >> on 21/09/2013 00:49:58, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:58:27 -0400, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> >>> wrote: >>>> on 20/09/2013 22:44:49, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > ... > >>>>> Also, 75% of people are very verbal while the other 25% are visual. >>>>> Those adept in mathematics and science, i.e., presumed to be more >>>>> intelligent, tend to be more visual than those not adept. That >>>>> means more symbolic or math like a language is, and the less like >>>>> spoken or written language, the better it is for them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Now this is classic Rod. Completely made up. >>> >>> Unfortunately, it's not made up. >> >> Yes it is. > > No it isn't. > >>>> I'd like a few cites (that is, some quality links to research) >>> >>> Well, if you're actually interested, you could go look for it >>> and learn something. >> >> I can't find any. Neither can you. >> > > That's not so. I can. > > You can't find any because you don't know where to look. > >>> Every time someone asks me to cite, they disregard factual sources >>> I've cited, and then still claim the facts are false without them >>> ever citing anything of a factual nature to the contrary. AFAICT, >>> asking to cite is just an asshole attempting to initiate a time >>> wasting, wild goose chase... So, why don't we reverse the situation >>> and ask you to cite factual references to the contrary, first. >> >> Because you made it all up. > > I did not. That's your invalid perception. It's also insulting to > call me a liar simply because of your blatant ignorance when I in > fact stated the truth. Your pants are on fire. [snip]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-26 09:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l21det$esg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26019 |
On 9/25/2013 4:42 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > > Your pants are on fire. LOL! I wish Thunderbird had an easy to use way to killfile. Rod would finally be the first person I would use it on. But that wouldn't do a damn thing to end his ignorance. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-26 10:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5244475f$0$298$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #26043 |
On 9/26/13 9:39 AM, rickman wrote: > I wish Thunderbird had an easy to use way to killfile. 1) select a message from offending sender 2) pulldown menu: Message: Create Filter From Message... I find it easy. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-26 08:51 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <mb6dnR4ch9fWH9nPnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #26043 |
On 9/26/13 3:39 AM, rickman wrote: > On 9/25/2013 4:42 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: >> >> Your pants are on fire. > > LOL! > > I wish Thunderbird had an easy to use way to killfile. Rod would > finally be the first person I would use it on. But that wouldn't do a > damn thing to end his ignorance. > It does. It's under Tools > Message Filters. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-20 22:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l1j1if$pm8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25859 |
On 9/20/2013 5:44 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: > >> Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, >> because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human >> language is: >> > > Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years. > Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language. > I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based > upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory. > Is this intended for adults or children? > > Do you really think that similarity to English is a good reason > to use Forth? English is full of ambiguities. Ambiguities > in programming languages results in coding mistakes. Coding > mistakes lead to financial and physical tragedies. > > Also, 75% of people are very verbal while the other 25% are visual. > Those adept in mathematics and science, i.e., presumed to be more > intelligent, tend to be more visual than those not adept. That > means more symbolic or math like a language is, and the less like > spoken or written language, the better it is for them. > > Spatial versus verbal ability goes towards the question: Who would > you want as a programmer for the processors used on the airplane > you flew on or bullet train you rode on? When our cars become > "smart" cars, who do you want to code the safety features? If the > car "intelligently" accelerates to avoid a mild collision but > introduces your car into a dangerous collision in progress, that's > not so good, is it? If your car "intelligently" slows to ensure > a police car can pull you over, or to allow an ambulance to pass, > it's not so good if the non-smart, 80000 pound semi-trailer plows > into you because of the slowdown, is it? So, do you want a guy of > average intellect writing that code? Or, would you rather have the > guy who can correctly solve calculus and physics problems without > help from friends, family, and teachers? Personally, I don't want > a dumb, or even average intellect guy coding code that's critical > to my personal safety. I want the smartest bunch of guys you can > get. Smart guys are capable of comprehending extremely complex > interactions that average guys will just never understand. But, it > usually takes more than one of them to foresee all outcomes. Do > you want your banking protected by code written by the company > with lowest bid? You did not state a single fact that is relevant to the post you replied to. Your entire argument is off target. You are arguing that a computer language being like human language is not useful because most computer programmers are better at symbology and abstractions. The statement was about education, not computer programmers. Not extra credit, just extra work. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 14:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3rxkspz0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25867 |
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:50:53 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/20/2013 5:44 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: ... >>> Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, >>> because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human >>> language is: >>> >> >> Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years. >> Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language. >> I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based >> upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory. >> Is this intended for adults or children? >> >> [snip] > > You did not state a single fact that is relevant to the post you > replied to. Your entire argument is off target. No, I quoted the portion I was interested in discussing. So, yes, you can claim it's not relevant to the post I replied to. It's only relevant to the very small part that was quoted in my reply. That's why context one is not interested in is snipped on Usenet... I stated the issue I was discussing. Start by rereading the first to third sentence of mine above. That's the topic for this part of the thread. > You are arguing that a computer language being like human > language is not useful because [...] No, it's not useful because of ambiguities. (This is C.S. theory considered to be proven, BTW.) > most computer programmers are better at symbology and abstractions. No, visual people are better at symbology and abstractions, visual people tend to be better at math and physics, therefore, programming languages should target their skillset. > The statement was about education, not computer programmers. No, the statement was about someone every few years wanting to program in a natural spoken language like English. I stated so above. Wow, another person with a comprehension issue... Did the hard cider come in early this year? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 15:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l1ksak$qq8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25899 |
On 9/21/2013 2:27 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:50:53 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/20/2013 5:44 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> ....
NOTICE THIS PART---------------------------------------|*******|
VVVVVVVVV
>>>> Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education,
>>>> because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human
>>>> language is:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years.
>>> Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language.
>>> I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based
>>> upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory.
>>> Is this intended for adults or children?
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> You did not state a single fact that is relevant to the post you
>> replied to. Your entire argument is off target.
>
>> The statement was about education, not computer programmers.
>
> No, the statement was about someone every few years wanting to
> program in a natural spoken language like English. I stated
> so above.
The portion of the message you quoted and replied to was about
***EDUCATION***. You are discussing the context of computer programmers.
--
Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 03:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3yh48yh0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25908 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:33:33 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/21/2013 2:27 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:50:53 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 9/20/2013 5:44 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> >>>> wrote: .... > > NOTICE THIS PART---------------------------------------|*******| > VVVVVVVVV >>>>> Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, >>>>> because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human >>>>> language is: >>>>> >>>> NOTICE THIS PART |***************************************************************| VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV >>>> Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years. >>>> Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language. >>>> I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based >>>> upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory. >>>> Is this intended for adults or children? >>>> >>>> [snip] >>> >>> You did not state a single fact that is relevant to the post you >>> replied to. Your entire argument is off target. >> >>> The statement was about education, not computer programmers. >> >> No, the statement was about someone every few years wanting to >> program in a natural spoken language like English. I stated >> so above. > > The portion of the message you quoted and replied to was about > ***EDUCATION***. You are discussing the context of computer > programmers. I can insert many Vs and asterisks too. The topic was changed in my reply by me. Learn to read and comprehend. Did I mention education anywhere in my reply? No, I did not. Clearly, that wasn't being discussed by me in my reply. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 10:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ba55klFh29dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25859 |
Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 20:17:15 -0400, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote: > >> Meanwhile I learned that Forth is really good for education, >> because Forth is based on words and sentences, like human >> language is: >> > > Nearly identical statements to this comes up every few years. > Someone wants English as the basis of a programming language. > I don't understand why. What knowledge is this claim based > upon? It's clearly not based on computer science theory. > Is this intended for adults or children? I recall that it does but I have seen some Forth code in German that made sense to me even though I don't speak the language. You could, I suppose, have Forth in any human language if you wish. After all, it is suporting a symbology of sorts. [%X] > Spatial versus verbal ability goes towards the question: Who would > you want as a programmer for the processors used on the airplane > you flew on or bullet train you rode on? When our cars become > "smart" cars, who do you want to code the safety features? If the > car "intelligently" accelerates to avoid a mild collision but > introduces your car into a dangerous collision in progress, that's > not so good, is it? If your car "intelligently" slows to ensure > a police car can pull you over, or to allow an ambulance to pass, > it's not so good if the non-smart, 80000 pound semi-trailer plows > into you because of the slowdown, is it? So, do you want a guy of > average intellect writing that code? Or, would you rather have the > guy who can correctly solve calculus and physics problems without > help from friends, family, and teachers? Personally, I don't want > a dumb, or even average intellect guy coding code that's critical > to my personal safety. I want the smartest bunch of guys you can > get. Smart guys are capable of comprehending extremely complex > interactions that average guys will just never understand. But, it > usually takes more than one of them to foresee all outcomes. Do > you want your banking protected by code written by the company > with lowest bid? Having worked very closely with physicists for the past 12+ years there are some of those I would definitely not trust to write a programme of any real importance, and definitely not a safety critical one. I would rather have a very dilligent guy do the programming with another very dilligent guy doing the audit of what he has produced for anything that is safety critical. Whether the guys were smart or not does not enter into it. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web