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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-23 01:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5acb422e-9901-4af7-8d7d-225c469f200d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25893 |
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 6:09:04 PM UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote: > I initially took issue because > *many* of those here have cited concrete examples of issues with > Forth's lack of syntax and other issues over the years, but any > attempts to discuss lack of syntax in general, or directly, it are > met with anger and hostility as if these issues are taboo. I was > pointing out the apparent contradiction of not discussing certain > issues while people are citing concrete examples of those exact > issues as problems. > Hmmm... I agree that when Forth's missing features (e.g. arrays and structs) are discussed, the standard stock answer is trotted out - that in Forth, you can build your own, so the language doesn't need to specify them. I don't agree that it's a hostile answer though. It's more a standard knee-jerk answer that has been used many times. Some of the posters on here are rather terse, (we should remember that English is used here, but probably > 50% of the posters on here are not English) - they may be tired of trotting out the same old answers to the same old questions! Of course, it's true that with Forth, you can roll your own arrays and structs to suit your own needs, so it's not strictly neccessary to implement them directly within the language. IMHO though, that puts up a barrier to new users, which is unfortunate. It raises the bar which must be jumped by a Forth newbie, to (probably) un-acceptable heights. Most Forth newcomers are probably experienced in other languages, and when they realise that Forth does not "contain support" for arrays and structures they will (incorrectly) assume that it's a toy language, or just too difficult/low level and move on. I'm all for increasing the exposure of the Forth programming language to as many people as possible, and if that means fitting stabilisers to the Forth bicycle, I'm all for it! Eventually, they come to realise (as they progress from kicking Forth's tyres to doing more useful stuff with it) that they can indeed roll their own exact, perhaps application specific solution to arrays and structures, and they cast aside their Forth stabilisers, and strike out on their own. But hey, let's make their initial outings with the language as simple as possible. That's where I'm coming from on this issue! And if you don't agree with the above when applied to arrays and structures (I agree that they are trivial to implement in Forth; you could probably do them after 24/48 hours Forth tuition) then apply the above to strings. That Forth doesn't do strings is a massive turn off for potential users. I know that from discussing Forth in an office full of programmers. Unfortunately, when it comes to that particular issue (I always get "call me when it does memory allocation/de-allocation and strings") I found myself 'out of ammo' from a defence point of view. FWIW > > > What is up with everyone's comprehension here lately? It's like > > people are selecting what they want, not what was said, and > > responding to that instead... > > > > > I do have a lot of complaints about ANS-Forth, but syntax isn't > > > one of them. The lack of structs is what I brought up in this thread. > > > > Lack of structs is concrete example of lack of syntax... > > > > > Lack of closures is another complaint I've brought up in the past, > > > but C doesn't have closures either, and most C programmers don't even > > > know what they are (most Forth programmers, including Elizabeth Rather, > > > don't know either). > > > > AFAICT, they aren't necessary. > > > > > Also, btw, I don't really "hate C." I've worked as a C programmer. > > > > Said the guy with one C rant after rant after rant after rant ... > > > > > > Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-23 11:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RNudnbiGILSR8t3PnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25960 |
Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Saturday, September 21, 2013 6:09:04 PM UTC+1, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> I initially took issue because >> *many* of those here have cited concrete examples of issues with >> Forth's lack of syntax and other issues over the years, but any >> attempts to discuss lack of syntax in general, or directly, it are >> met with anger and hostility as if these issues are taboo. I was >> pointing out the apparent contradiction of not discussing certain >> issues while people are citing concrete examples of those exact >> issues as problems. >> > Hmmm... I agree that when Forth's missing features (e.g. arrays and > structs) are discussed, the standard stock answer is trotted out - > that in Forth, you can build your own, so the language doesn't need > to specify them. Actually shouldn't specify them. Structs were common enough that they were standardized some time ago. Arrays, however, have so many different implmentations and styles that there isn't much point except as beginners' training wheels. > That's where I'm coming from on this issue! And if you don't agree > with the above when applied to arrays and structures (I agree that > they are trivial to implement in Forth; you could probably do them > after 24/48 hours Forth tuition) then apply the above to > strings. That Forth doesn't do strings is a massive turn off for > potential users. I know that from discussing Forth in an office full > of programmers. Unfortunately, when it comes to that particular > issue (I always get "call me when it does memory > allocation/de-allocation and strings") I found myself 'out of ammo' > from a defence point of view. Surely allocation/de-allocation has been in Forth for twenty years. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-23 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52407e3c$0$26905$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #25966 |
In article <RNudnbiGILSR8t3PnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: <SNIP> > >Actually shouldn't specify them. Structs were common enough that they >were standardized some time ago. Arrays, however, have so many >different implmentations and styles that there isn't much point except >as beginners' training wheels. How about arrays of structs, or structs containing arrays as a field? > >Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> That's where I'm coming from on this issue! And if you don't agree >> with the above when applied to arrays and structures (I agree that >> they are trivial to implement in Forth; you could probably do them >> after 24/48 hours Forth tuition) then apply the above to >> strings. That Forth doesn't do strings is a massive turn off for >> potential users. I know that from discussing Forth in an office full >> of programmers. Unfortunately, when it comes to that particular >> issue (I always get "call me when it does memory >> allocation/de-allocation and strings") I found myself 'out of ammo' >> from a defence point of view. > >Surely allocation/de-allocation has been in Forth for twenty years. I'm getting sick and tired of the argument that strings have a prerequisite of dynamic memory allocation. BASIC strings are only needed if you grew up on BASIC, but we all known that that results in permanent brain damage. A symptom of that is not realizing that dead simple Forth string manipulation ( $@ $! C+ $/ $^) is sufficient for all the jobs a BASIC programmer could handle, and more. I've yet found the need of using ALLOCATE FREE in the context of string handling. > >Andrew. -- 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-23 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Sep23.204759@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #25970 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>I'm getting sick and tired of the argument that strings have a
>prerequisite of dynamic memory allocation. BASIC strings are only
>needed if you grew up on BASIC, but we all known that that results in
>permanent brain damage. A symptom of that is not realizing that dead
>simple Forth string manipulation ( $@ $! C+ $/ $^) is sufficient for
>all the jobs a BASIC programmer could handle, and more.
What does this "dead simple string manipulation" do?
I find that Forth does nicely without memory allocation when dealing
with substrings, but constructing new strings (even simple string
concatenation) into pre-allocated buffers is a pain.
- anton
--
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 | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-24 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5241c514$0$3182$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #25973 |
In article <2013Sep23.204759@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >>I'm getting sick and tired of the argument that strings have a >>prerequisite of dynamic memory allocation. BASIC strings are only >>needed if you grew up on BASIC, but we all known that that results in >>permanent brain damage. A symptom of that is not realizing that dead >>simple Forth string manipulation ( $@ $! C+ $/ $^) is sufficient for >>all the jobs a BASIC programmer could handle, and more. > >What does this "dead simple string manipulation" do? > >I find that Forth does nicely without memory allocation when dealing >with substrings, but constructing new strings (even simple string >concatenation) into pre-allocated buffers is a pain. A preallocated buffer is just a variable. If we translate it then your comment amounts to "building up data in a variable is a pain", I do that routinely. Euler asks me "how many of this" and I do: VARIABLE total : init 0 total ! ; : dothis ... blabla total +! .... ; : dothat ... blublu total +! .. ; Recently there was this kakuro problem in euler. My Forth program needed apart from the substrings just one string variable to translate the input text file into a prolog program. CREATE total 100 ALLOT : init "" total $! ; : dothis ... total $+! .... ; : dothat ... total $+! .. ; So in my experience: no pain at all. Maybe you do more complicated things than me with strings. The translation to prolog though was non-trivial and there was elaborate string handling. You have a lot of examples on your website, maybe you could point me to an example where you would have problems with a few pre-allocated buffers. > >- anton >-- 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 | 2013-09-23 14:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <N-mdnY_gz-UjBt3PnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25970 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <RNudnbiGILSR8t3PnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com>, > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > <SNIP> >> >>Actually shouldn't specify them. Structs were common enough that they >>were standardized some time ago. Arrays, however, have so many >>different implmentations and styles that there isn't much point except >>as beginners' training wheels. > > How about arrays of structs, or structs containing arrays as a field? I'm not sure what you mean. Structs aren't very likely to contain arrays as a field, and even if they do there's a simple way to define a field of bytes. With regard to arrays of structs, it's also trivial: it's just an array of blocks of bytes. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-24 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5241c2b9$0$3182$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #25976 |
In article <N-mdnY_gz-UjBt3PnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> In article <RNudnbiGILSR8t3PnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com>, >> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> <SNIP> >>> >>>Actually shouldn't specify them. Structs were common enough that they >>>were standardized some time ago. Arrays, however, have so many >>>different implmentations and styles that there isn't much point except >>>as beginners' training wheels. >> >> How about arrays of structs, or structs containing arrays as a field? > >I'm not sure what you mean. Structs aren't very likely to contain >arrays as a field, and even if they do there's a simple way to define >a field of bytes. With regard to arrays of structs, it's also >trivial: it's just an array of blocks of bytes. No it is not simple. The reason that abstract language (Algol not C) are succesful is their orthogonality. If you can handle arrays, but not if they are fields in a struct, or at least not in the same way, you don't have arrays. If you have arrays of objects, and you can't manipulate the object in the same way if it is one of an array of objects or if it is loose, you don't have arrays (and no real objects either). C goes halfway. It can have structs and arrays of struct, but only if they're the same size. You can have an array as a field, but only if it is a size known at compile time. In my mini OO after 1 2 class OEPS ... endclass at least their is a documented function BUILD-OEPS that takes two parameters and can be used as ( par1 par2) : newthingy CREATE OVER , DUP , BUILD-POEPS DOES> 2 CELLS + whatever .. ; Now if you need another field with a different object ( BUILD-SPOE ) you don;t know how to reach it from the DOES> part . I've no idea how other mini - OO handle this. > >Andrew. 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 | 2013-09-24 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <P_qdnUBx-8AhWNzPnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25996 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <N-mdnY_gz-UjBt3PnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@supernews.com>, > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> In article <RNudnbiGILSR8t3PnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@supernews.com>, >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> <SNIP> >>>> >>>>Actually shouldn't specify them. Structs were common enough that they >>>>were standardized some time ago. Arrays, however, have so many >>>>different implmentations and styles that there isn't much point except >>>>as beginners' training wheels. >>> >>> How about arrays of structs, or structs containing arrays as a field? >> >>I'm not sure what you mean. Structs aren't very likely to contain >>arrays as a field, and even if they do there's a simple way to define >>a field of bytes. With regard to arrays of structs, it's also >>trivial: it's just an array of blocks of bytes. > > No it is not simple. The reason that abstract language (Algol not C) > are succesful is their orthogonality. If you can handle arrays, but > not if they are fields in a struct, or at least not in the same way, > you don't have arrays. If you have arrays of objects, and you can't > manipulate the object in the same way if it is one of an array of > objects or if it is loose, you don't have arrays (and no real > objects either). But it's trivial: we do have a way to handle arrays as fields in a structure because we have a way to handle any size of object in a structure. > C goes halfway. It can have structs and arrays of struct, but only > if they're the same size. You can have an array as a field, but only > if it is a size known at compile time. Well, yes, but where is the problem? If you want variable-size array elements you have to create an array of pointers. It is obvious and trivial. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 05:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5O6dnfRAtOK37qDPnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25864 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:00:12 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather > <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >> What gets our backs up is folks who insist on slamming Forth because >> it's different from their favorite language, whatever it is. > > So, Hugh, who codes in Forth and hates C, slammed Forth by pointing > out that Forth lacks syntax? That's not a slam. Forth has far less syntax than, say, C. > Are you confused? You could say that about me (wrongly), because I > like C. But, how do you say that about someone who loves Forth? > It's not "different from [his] favorite language". I.e., your > argument only holds up in your mind when you can accuse someone of > not loving Forth more than some other language, i.e., your bigoted. > If Hugh had asked to discuss the lack of syntax issue, which he > brought up, would you have been as offended as me continuing the > conversation? You don't like him. He trashes you. What about > Alex, Bruce, Bernd? Favoritism. They are different from you because they have a clue about how to use Forth. You do not, but you don't realize it. Elizabeth is the most experienced Forth educator there is, posessed of great wisdom and knowledge, but you don't recognize that. Instead of trying to learn from people who have a clue, you rant on a Forth newsgroup about what a "weak language" Forth is, when all that knowledge is available for free if you only had the sense to ask. But I don't think you want to learn: your only purpose here is to be an irritant. > I think a bunch of you have yet to come to grips with the fact that > you're hypocrites. Everyone here cites the problems with Forth that > I mentioned, but whenever anyone attempts to discuss them they get > trashed and blamed. That is not true. You have not described any problem with Forth in any terms specific enough to have a conversation about. You have posted a completely nonsensical claim about control structures not having to be correctly paired. That was incorrect, and Elizabeth cited the section of ANS Forth that said they must be correctly paired. You misunderstood that cite then ranted for a while. >> If you try Forth and don't like it, fine. Cool. Use a language you >> prefer. What we find annoying is folks who have to hang around >> telling us how awful Forth is, for no apparent reason. > > So, then, you, Alex, Hugh, Bernd, Gerry, rickman, Andrew etc should > all leave. You're all guilty of it. No, we're not. We have not hung around in Language X newsgroup telling people how awful Language X is. That would be pointless and stupid. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 14:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3rw0jnc0e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25881 |
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 06:21:30 -0400, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:00:12 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather >> <erather@forth.com> wrote: ... >>> What gets our backs up is folks who insist on slamming Forth because >>> it's different from their favorite language, whatever it is. >> >> So, Hugh, who codes in Forth and hates C, slammed Forth by pointing >> out that Forth lacks syntax? > > That's not a slam. Forth has far less syntax than, say, C. I was stating Ms. Rather's apparent perception and pointing out her claim was contradictory. Hugh loves Forth. Hugh mentioned the lack of syntax, specifically structs, in Forth. How can Hugh slam Forth because it's not his favorite language? (rhetorical) (That repeats much what is quoted below.) I like C. She could make that claim about me or someone else. It doesn't mean her claim is true, even then. Not everyone is slamming Forth because it's not their favorite language. That's just paranoia to think so. >> Are you confused? You could say that about me (wrongly), because >> I like C. But, how do you say that about someone who loves Forth? >> It's not "different from [his] favorite language". I.e., your >> argument only holds up in your mind when you can accuse someone of >> not loving Forth more than some other language, i.e., your bigoted. >> If Hugh had asked to discuss the lack of syntax issue, which he >> brought up, would you have been as offended as me continuing the >> conversation? You don't like him. He trashes you. What about >> Alex, Bruce, Bernd? Favoritism. > > They are different from you because they have a clue about how > to use Forth. You do not, but you don't realize it. What you're saying is that it's acceptable to answer one person differently from another when they ask the same question because of your apparent bias towards that person or opinion of them or perceived skill level. How is that *not* being a bigot? ... > Elizabeth is the most experienced Forth educator there is, > posessed of great wisdom and knowledge, I know that. > but you don't recognize that. I sure do. I've stated my appreciation for her Forth knowledge on more than one occasion. I thanked her on more than one occasion for her help with my Forth interpreter. The issue is you don't remember that I did so. This is about the third time you've claimed such and about the third time I've had to defend myself from your wrong claims. She is about the only one here who has helped me with my Forth. Where we differ immensely is in personal beliefs, which has only become apparent in the past couple of years. The other who helped me was Alex with implementing DOES> before he started attacking me for some unknown reason. Now he "coughs B.S." for anything non-Forth related of which he is apparently ignorant, like psychology. Of course, Bernd starting attacking me years ago for no known reason. That was years before I ever stated anything about C here or anything non-Forth for that matter, back when I was just asking basic questions about Forth. Bruce helped with a few trivial issues too. If someone else personally helped me, I'm sorry, I've forgotten about it. Mostly, I sit back and wait for a good response which explains something I'm interested in for Mark, Marcel, Albert, or you. Eventually, it comes up... That's if I can't find it in the c.l.f. archives or elsewhere. > Instead of trying to learn from people who have a clue, > you rant on a Forth newsgroup about what a "weak language" > Forth is, when all that knowledge is available for > free if you only had the sense to ask. I've pointed out all of C's faults too. I don't believe there is a problem with discussing problems, unlike apparently everyone else here. Discussing problems leads to the truth, solutions to solve those problems, and understanding of those problems by those who wouldn't otherwise. You can't fix things or if you're hiding in a dark locked closet. You can't avoid things like metaphorical landmines if you don't know where to *not* step. > But I don't think you want to learn: your only purpose > here is to be an irritant. Wow, you have total amnesia or are being intentionally disrepectful to me by forgetting all I've said or done... How many years have I been posting to c.l.f.? (FYI, seven...) How many years have I been developing my Forth interpreter? Which version of Forth did I use as a starting point? How many Forth words are implemented? How many words are "primitives"? How much of the ANS wordset is implemented? How much of Hayes core does it pass? What language(s) is it coded in? All these things and more have been posted here, repeatedly, over the years. Where were you? As stated previously, I'm adept in numerous programming languages, implemented a few simple compilers and assemblers, so I don't see how using the language prior to developing a Forth interpreter is a hindrance. My interpreter was entirely in C at first, although mimicking a Forth in assembly. Currently, the majority of it is coded in Forth. Almost everything I've implemented is ANS compliant even though ANS compliance wasn't a goal. That's about two thirds of ANS core and core extension. >> I think a bunch of you have yet to come to grips with the fact that >> you're hypocrites. Everyone here cites the problems with Forth that >> I mentioned, but whenever anyone attempts to discuss them they get >> trashed and blamed. > > That is not true. It is true. This has been happening for years, over numerous threads and conversations. Certain topics are "taboo", or perhaps "hated" is a better word... > You have not described any problem with Forth in > any terms specific enough to have a conversation about. The issues were stated earlier in the thread, but are now snipped, by someone else. > You have posted a completely nonsensical claim about control > structures not having to be correctly paired. The fact that you think it was nonsensical is the problem. You are injecting your personal feelings about the issue or me into something which is factual: ANS wording. > That was incorrect, It was correct, just as I explained it. > and Elizabeth cited the section of ANS Forth that said they > must be correctly paired. It doesn't say that. Please feel free to explain where exactly you think it does. I already explained my understanding. Neither one of you has explained yours. The fact that neither you, nor Ms. Rather, nor anyone else can do so, nor has done so, yet, despite being asked, is a strong indicator of the truth, whether you recognize it or not, or argue it's false or not. > You misunderstood that cite then ranted for a while. That's your opinion. That's neither fact, nor truth. >>> If you try Forth and don't like it, fine. Cool. Use a language you >>> prefer. What we find annoying is folks who have to hang around >>> telling us how awful Forth is, for no apparent reason. >> >> So, then, you, Alex, Hugh, Bernd, Gerry, rickman, Andrew etc should >> all leave. You're all guilty of it. > > No, we're not. We have not hung around in Language X newsgroup > telling people how awful Language X is. That would be pointless > and stupid. > Yes, you are. You've all cited concrete examples of Forth's weaknesses over the years. No, I didn't track them, maybe I should've. But, the large quantity is not important. What's important none of you will discuss the larger issues they represent. Those larger issues are apparently off limits even to those, like me, who've been here for many years, and who've implemented their own Forth interpreter in Forth. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 08:52 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <mImdnYi8n4lCd6DPnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25897 |
On 9/21/13 8:15 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > How many years have I been posting to c.l.f.? (FYI, seven...) > How many years have I been developing my Forth interpreter? > Which version of Forth did I use as a starting point? > How many Forth words are implemented? > How many words are "primitives"? > How much of the ANS wordset is implemented? > How much of Hayes core does it pass? > What language(s) is it coded in? How many applications have you written using Forth? How does your Forth stack up in terms of size, performance, ease of use? The purpose of Forth (and any programming language) is not to be implemented, but to be *used* to solve problems. That is really the perspective from which a language should be judged. It often seems that there are a lot more people on clf who have implemented a Forth than have used one extensively. That is the opposite of the "real world", in which the number of Forth systems being *used* (both free and commercial) vastly exceeds the number of independent implementations. Those who *use* Forth to write applications are pretty happy with it. They implement the structures and data objects they need in their applications easily, and exactly in the way that fits their specific needs. 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-21 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xr4chzx5l.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #25904 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > The purpose of Forth (and any programming language) is not to be > implemented, but to be *used* to solve problems. Well, I'd certainly consider language implementation to be a perfectly good problem if you're a language or compiler buff. So if someone is using Forth to implement Forth, more power to them. If they're using it to implement C or Lisp or something, that's even cooler. If they're using something other than Forth to implement Forth, then I agree with you that they're at least partly missing the point. Rod was originally implementing Forth in C, which seems kind of tacky for someone who wasn't a Forth user to begin with. But last I heard, his Forth is now written mostly in Forth, and that makes it ok ;-).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-22 04:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5P6dnZRPfda_I6PPnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25897 |
Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 06:21:30 -0400, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:00:12 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather >>> <erather@forth.com> wrote: > ... > >>>> What gets our backs up is folks who insist on slamming Forth because >>>> it's different from their favorite language, whatever it is. >>> >>> So, Hugh, who codes in Forth and hates C, slammed Forth by pointing >>> out that Forth lacks syntax? >> >> That's not a slam. Forth has far less syntax than, say, C. > > I was stating Ms. Rather's apparent perception and pointing out > her claim was contradictory. It isn't. > Hugh loves Forth. Hugh mentioned the lack of syntax, specifically > structs, in Forth. How can Hugh slam Forth because it's not his > favorite language? (rhetorical) (That repeats much what is quoted > below.) So what? Everyone has something they'd like to improved. That's not a slam because it's constructive. "Forth is a weak language" is not constructive: it's just abuse. > I like C. She could make that claim about me or someone else. > It doesn't mean her claim is true, even then. Not everyone is > slamming Forth because it's not their favorite language. No; but you are. > That's just paranoia to think so. > >>> Are you confused? You could say that about me (wrongly), because >>> I like C. But, how do you say that about someone who loves Forth? >>> It's not "different from [his] favorite language". I.e., your >>> argument only holds up in your mind when you can accuse someone of >>> not loving Forth more than some other language, i.e., your bigoted. >>> If Hugh had asked to discuss the lack of syntax issue, which he >>> brought up, would you have been as offended as me continuing the >>> conversation? You don't like him. He trashes you. What about >>> Alex, Bruce, Bernd? Favoritism. >> >> They are different from you because they have a clue about how >> to use Forth. You do not, but you don't realize it. > > What you're saying is that it's acceptable to answer one person > differently from another when they ask the same question because > of your apparent bias towards that person or opinion of them or > perceived skill level. No I'm not. I don't usually make a distinction when I reply depending on the author. The only exception is that I might cut a newbie a bit of slack. > How is that *not* being a bigot? ... > >> Elizabeth is the most experienced Forth educator there is, >> possessed of great wisdom and knowledge, > > I know that. > >> but you don't recognize that. > > I sure do. No, you don't, or you wouldn't write things like "Please pay more attention to what was written." > I've stated my appreciation for her Forth knowledge on more than one > occasion. I thanked her on more than one occasion for her help with > my Forth interpreter. The issue is you don't remember that I did > so. This is about the third time you've claimed such and about the > third time I've had to defend myself from your wrong claims. Thank you for the clarification, >> Instead of trying to learn from people who have a clue, you rant on >> a Forth newsgroup about what a "weak language" Forth is, when all >> that knowledge is available for free if you only had the sense to >> ask. > > I've pointed out all of C's faults too. All of the ones you perceive. Which isn't really relevant here, though. > I don't believe there is a problem with discussing problems, unlike > apparently everyone else here. Neither does anyone else. > Discussing problems leads to the truth, solutions to solve those > problems, and understanding of those problems by those who wouldn't > otherwise. *Constructively* discussing problems leads to the truth. This: "Forth is an unstructured programming language. I.e., without conscious application of structured coding principles, of which many programmers are completely unaware, it results in 'spaghetti code', just like the code most programmers created for BASIC." ... is not constructive. No serious poster would have said this. It was intended only to irritate. "Forth is cryptic, Forth has no syntax" is not constructive. It's just stupid. > You can't fix things or if you're hiding in a dark locked closet. > You can't avoid things like metaphorical landmines if you don't know > where to *not* step. Indeed not. But your complaints about Forth are not constructive because they do not lead anywhere. If you have something specific to say, then we can talk about it. But your complaints are so broad and shallow that there's nothing to be done. >> But I don't think you want to learn: your only purpose >> here is to be an irritant. > > Wow, you have total amnesia or are being intentionally > disrepectful to me by forgetting all I've said or done... > > How many years have I been posting to c.l.f.? (FYI, seven...) > How many years have I been developing my Forth interpreter? > Which version of Forth did I use as a starting point? > How many Forth words are implemented? > How many words are "primitives"? > How much of the ANS wordset is implemented? > How much of Hayes core does it pass? > What language(s) is it coded in? Is this a quiz? We know that you've implemented Forth then not used it for anything. > All these things and more have been posted here, repeatedly, > over the years. Where were you? Here, as you full well know. And while you might have had constructive reasons to be here before, you don't now. You've managed to hack together a Forth implementation, that's true. But all you see, "without intending to incite flames, is a very weak language, as compared to many others, most notably C." So why are you still here? What is the point of implementing a "weak programming language"? > As stated previously, I'm adept in numerous programming languages, > implemented a few simple compilers and assemblers, so I don't see > how using the language prior to developing a Forth interpreter is > a hindrance. It's not. > My interpreter was entirely in C at first, although mimicking a > Forth in assembly. Currently, the majority of it is coded in Forth. > Almost everything I've implemented is ANS compliant even though ANS > compliance wasn't a goal. That's about two thirds of ANS core and > core extension. > >>> I think a bunch of you have yet to come to grips with the fact that >>> you're hypocrites. Everyone here cites the problems with Forth that >>> I mentioned, but whenever anyone attempts to discuss them they get >>> trashed and blamed. >> >> That is not true. > > It is true. This has been happening for years, over numerous > threads and conversations. Certain topics are "taboo", or > perhaps "hated" is a better word... "Pointless" is the word I would choose. >> You have not described any problem with Forth in any terms specific >> enough to have a conversation about. > > The issues were stated earlier in the thread, but are now snipped, > by someone else. >> You have posted a completely nonsensical claim about control >> structures not having to be correctly paired. > > The fact that you think it was nonsensical is the problem. > You are injecting your personal feelings about the issue or me > into something which is factual: ANS wording. "Nonsensical" isn't a feeling. >> That was incorrect, > > It was correct, just as I explained it. > >> and Elizabeth cited the section of ANS Forth that said they >> must be correctly paired. > > It doesn't say that. Please feel free to explain where exactly > you think it does. I already explained my understanding. > Neither one of you has explained yours. The trouble with this is that this isn't a credible question, given what you've been told. Elizabeth even quoted chapter and verse, and you still didn't get it. How much more can anyone do? Here it is again: 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. You went on to say > The requirement is "semantics are incomplete until orig is resolved" > not what resolves it. So, what can resolve an IF? A word that resolves an orig. What words are those? The control structures that match. >> You misunderstood that cite then ranted for a while. > > That's your opinion. That's neither fact, nor truth. Well, here it is again. Let's see. >>>> If you try Forth and don't like it, fine. Cool. Use a language you >>>> prefer. What we find annoying is folks who have to hang around >>>> telling us how awful Forth is, for no apparent reason. >>> >>> So, then, you, Alex, Hugh, Bernd, Gerry, rickman, Andrew etc should >>> all leave. You're all guilty of it. >> >> No, we're not. We have not hung around in Language X newsgroup >> telling people how awful Language X is. That would be pointless >> and stupid. > > Yes, you are. You've all cited concrete examples of Forth's > weaknesses over the years. That's not the same as telling people how awful Forth is. > No, I didn't track them, maybe I should've. But, the large quantity > is not important. What's important none of you will discuss the > larger issues they represent. Those larger issues are apparently > off limits even to those, like me, who've been here for many years, > and who've implemented their own Forth interpreter in Forth. I'll define my terms: comments about things that can be fixed are constructive. Comments that about things that can't be fixed are not constructive. Attacks on the core principles of the language aren't constructive because you can't take that core away without making it not Forth. It would be a different language. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-22 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfdbf7a6-b43a-4474-89e1-f7e2bbcf85ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25930 |
On Sunday, September 22, 2013 2:53:38 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > We know that you've implemented Forth then not used > it for anything. > ... > And while you might have had > constructive reasons to be here before, you don't now. You've managed > to hack together a Forth implementation, that's true. But all you > see, "without intending to incite flames, is a very weak language, as > compared to many others, most notably C." So why are you still here? > > What is the point of implementing a "weak programming language"? Rod jumped onto the Forth bandwagon only for the purpose of dragging his feet. When I have applied for work as a C programmer, I have mentioned that I am a Forth programmer. Invariably, the interviewer smugly replies that he is actually an expert on Forth, having written a Forth compiler (woo hoo!), as compared to being a mere Forth application programmer such as myself. They always expect me to be in awe. They also invariably go on to say, without taking a breath, that Forth is grossly inefficient (token-threading for C-based Forths) and lacking in features (structs, etc.), and hence completely useless for application programming --- just a fun science-fair project that helped them become greater experts in C, and taught them that Forth is worthless. AFAIK, the only reason C programmers write Forth compilers is so they can claim that C is the "god language" and that Forth is a toy language roughly comparable to QBasic. This is all that Rod is doing. Back in the 1980s when I started programming, Forth was a serious contender for becoming the dominant language for small systems. At that time, C was tightly bound to Unix, and generally considered an unlikely candidate for micro-computers, and certainly unlikely for micro-controllers. With some thoughtful leadership, Forth could have succeeded. The C programmers attacked Forth in the manner described above. Also, Forth Inc. began attacking the FIG amateurs as well as the various Forth vendors (such as Laboratory MicroSystems, which Elizabeth Rather still routinely slams), and trying hard to present PolyForth as the sole professional Forth system available, and everybody else as wanna-bees. This killed Forth, because PolyForth was grossly inferior to the C compilers available (Turbo C, Quick C, Watcom C, etc.), as well as the Pascal compilers (Turbo Pascal and Quick Pascal). PolyForth was actually worse than QBasic by any standard, and QBasic was just a freebie that MicroSoft gave away with MS-DOS for children to play with. The "Starting Forth" book was obviously for children, given all of the cartoons --- and yet it didn't have a Gorilla program --- and it also failed to discuss structs or any other basic concepts that the children needed in order to write their own Gorilla programs. It was a double-whammy --- on one hand we had C programmers presenting their sabotaged Forth compilers as evidence that Forth sucks compared to C, and on the other hand we had Forth Inc. presenting PolyForth as the pinnacle of Forth technology, which was the same as saying that Forth sucks (PolyForth actually sucked worse than the sabotaged C-based Forths, because PolyForth was written in the Tiny memory-model, whereas the C-based Forths were typically written in the Small memory-model and hence supported programs twice the size of what PolyForth supported). As a result, Forth is quite dead now --- and has been dead for over 20 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-22 21:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d5efb35-2a60-44a2-91a3-3bd1b689b690@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25954 |
On Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: <Forth is quite dead now --- and has been dead for over 20 years. The electric car was said to be dead for over 40 years. If anything, Forth is a sleeping giant. Minimal instruction sets computing is the future. Libraries of code, bloatware, and operating systems are 50's thinking. Small, modular hardware that operates in parallel only when needed, means speed and efficiency. The technology is there, but the people making the decisions want smart computers/compilers and dumb programmers. Let computers do what they're good at- repetition, and let people resolve the special cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-23 08:13 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <h8CdnftRE75DGd3PnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25956 |
On 9/22/13 6:22 PM, Whammo wrote: > On Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > <Forth is quite dead now --- and has been dead for over 20 years. > > The electric car was said to be dead for over 40 years. > If anything, Forth is a sleeping giant. > Minimal instruction sets computing is the future. > Libraries of code, bloatware, and operating systems are 50's thinking. > Small, modular hardware that operates in parallel only when needed, means speed and efficiency. > The technology is there, but the people making the decisions want smart computers/compilers and dumb programmers. > Let computers do what they're good at- repetition, and let people resolve the special cases. The "death of Forth" is wildly exaggerated. Just yesterday I received this note from Leon Wagner: "Just ended a really good week at NASA. I'm working with Robyn King on a project to instantiate ARM Cortex-M0 cores both soft and hard into SoC (system on chip) ASICs for flight. We did one of each. The soft (IP only, delivered as an encrypted logic file) core was put into an Altera Cyclone III FPGA and runs at 50 MHz. I think we could probably achieve 100 or maybe even 120 MHz, but this was not a speed race. The second core was a hard Cortex-M0 fabricated into a custom ASIC from Triad Semiconductor. Surprisingly (to me), the soft core along with the complexity of building a bus and RAM out of FPGA logic was simpler and faster to get up and running. The hard core, which is much more like a traditional microcontroller, was harder." This project is being programmed entirely in Forth. Forth has been in use at NASA (as well as many other organizations) for over 30 years, in many varied projects. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@nohavenotit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-25 04:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.w3ykcrd00e5s1z@localhost> |
| In reply to | #25971 |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:13:49 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 9/22/13 6:22 PM, Whammo wrote: >> On Sunday, September 22, 2013 7:00:18 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com >> wrote: >> <Forth is quite dead now --- and has been dead for over 20 years. >> >> The electric car was said to be dead for over 40 years. >> If anything, Forth is a sleeping giant. >> Minimal instruction sets computing is the future. >> Libraries of code, bloatware, and operating systems are 50's thinking. >> Small, modular hardware that operates in parallel only when needed, >> means speed and efficiency. >> The technology is there, but the people making the decisions want >> smart computers/compilers and dumb programmers. >> Let computers do what they're good at- repetition, and let people >> resolve the special cases. > > The "death of Forth" is wildly exaggerated. Just yesterday I received > this note from Leon Wagner: > > "Just ended a really good week at NASA. [...] Unfortunately, NASA is a conundrum. You'd like to think their employees are brilliant, and just when you've accepted that they truly are, they do dumb shit in front of you, like fire off a rocket with a rubber seal in cold whether, or use pure oxygen around electrical equipment, and implement a very wide range of software errors like wrong units, incorrect formulas, overwritten memory locations, arithmetic overflow, and out-of-memory errors, etc. If they make such mistakes, how can we be certain their decision to use Forth is sound? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-24 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7adff9a6-0db8-49ee-b093-001057229d90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25956 |
On Monday, September 23, 2013 12:22:03 AM UTC-4, Whammo wrote: > If anything, Forth is a sleeping giant. > Minimal instruction sets computing is the future. > Libraries of code, bloatware, and operating systems are 50's thinking. > Small, modular hardware that operates in parallel only when needed, means speed and efficiency. > The technology is there, but the people making the decisions want smart computers/compilers and dumb programmers. > Let computers do what they're good at- repetition, and let people resolve the special cases. Now there is the chance to do so! Computing Education is on the go! Top ranking! IEEE is spearheading - just now - I got this brand-new message today September 24, 2013, with these topics: - Computing Education: Beyond the Classroom - Addressing the Full Range of Students: Challenges in K-12 Computer Science Education - STEAM-Powered Computing Education: Using E-Textiles to Integrate the Arts and STEM - The Porous Classroom: Professional Practices in the Computing Curriculum - Learning Computing through Creating and Connecting - The Case for Validated Tools in Computer Science Education Research Source: http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/co/2013/09/index.html Now there is the time to push forward that there are programming methods available which are far ahead of the bookkeeping methods used by C++, Java, etc. Now there is the time to tell the world of educators that minimal instruction sets computing is the future; libraries of code, bloatware, and operating systems are 50's thinking; small, modular hardware that operates in parallel only when needed, means speed and efficiency, and that the technology is here, to let the people making the decisions instead computers/compilers and dumb programmers. Let's tell them: let computers do what they're good at- repetition, and let people resolve the special cases. While we have been discussing the right way how to implement Forth, the rest of the programming world has decided to make their final mark on society by usurping education. Let's go forward, forget and forgive all assaults, and let's work together for our common cause for the good of kids and students education and for the good of our world, which needs knowledge of a better way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-23 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1309231154130.20249@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #25954 |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: [...] > > > AFAIK, the only reason C programmers write Forth compilers is so they > can claim that C is the "god language" and that Forth is a toy language > roughly comparable to QBasic. This is all that Rod is doing. There are good reasons to write a Forth in C, and chief amoung them is portability and time to market. Oddly, there are not a large number of C compilers written in Forth -- but this likely has more to do with the simplicity of Forth vs the complexity of writing a C compiler with linker and loader (toolchain). > > It was a double-whammy --- on one hand we had C programmers presenting > their sabotaged Forth compilers as evidence that Forth sucks compared to > C, and on the other hand we had Forth Inc. presenting PolyForth as the Sabotaged in what way? A bit slower than hand coded assembler perhaps, but I'm wondering in what way a C based Forth is in any way deficient? Is it because the classic Fig forth was written in assembler? I believe that you are ascribing an intent which is largely in your imagination, Hugh. Forth in C is a legitimate way to bootstrap a Forth, and thereby to host an assembler (or X-assembler) written in Forth on a minimal subset of Forth. Cheers, Rob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-23 11:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Xq6dnSGm8fTd7N3PnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #25965 |
Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> wrote: > > I'm wondering in what way a C based Forth is in any way deficient? Is > it because the classic Fig forth was written in assembler? Actually, classic fig-FORTH was written in Forth. See http://www.forth.org/fig-forth/fig-forth-model.pdf IMO: Forth in not-Forth is a pain. It's not easy to change, it's not easy to study, and you have to go outside the Forth environment to build it. You can do it, but in the end it's best to throw the not-Forth bootstrap away. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web