Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #42092 > unrolled thread
| Started by | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-20 08:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-09 13:21 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-20 08:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 06:34 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-21 20:11 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:29 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-23 21:03 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 03:02 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 01:13 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-21 09:26 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-03 03:46 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-03 22:56 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 02:44 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 01:14 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 05:08 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 04:06 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-10-04 07:25 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 06:49 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 09:21 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-09 13:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 22:18 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 06:59 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 04:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 05:08 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 13:57 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 13:36 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-08 13:50 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 12:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 18:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-10 14:10 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-10 23:12 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-12 10:18 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:02 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-12 08:03 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-12 14:58 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-10-13 01:25 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-12 17:38 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-12 16:39 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:12 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 07:31 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-17 22:44 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 21:47 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 01:51 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-17 20:26 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-18 21:34 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-19 17:00 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-20 01:51 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-19 16:24 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 02:44 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-20 13:01 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 22:59 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 23:57 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-21 10:58 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-11 14:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-11 14:48 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 14:59 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-12 05:28 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 18:18 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-11 15:12 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-12 05:35 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-12 06:24 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-12 14:44 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 15:18 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-20 12:36 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-18 12:54 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-19 02:47 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 15:10 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 09:15 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-02 20:35 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 17:30 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-13 19:36 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 23:54 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:04 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:09 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-14 09:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:54 +0300
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:13 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 11:38 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 02:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 02:50 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-31 18:58 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 14:18 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-31 23:43 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-07 10:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-07 23:02 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-31 14:48 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:03 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 01:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:59 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 02:19 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 17:32 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 02:14 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:10 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 16:45 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 10:26 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 02:57 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 16:06 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 09:36 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-02 21:18 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 11:56 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 18:16 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 10:53 +0000
16-bit Forth for Linux Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-20 11:13 +0100
Re: 16-bit Forth for Linux Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-20 15:08 +0000
Re: 16-bit Forth for Linux Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-20 20:11 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:10 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 12:43 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-03 03:05 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 11:11 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-03 03:07 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 11:15 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:18 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:07 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 15:41 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 20:27 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 11:00 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 11:28 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 12:18 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 17:03 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 19:29 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:47 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-04 21:15 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-11-05 03:19 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 16:37 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 20:54 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-05 06:32 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-04 21:17 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 16:44 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 01:24 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-05 14:50 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 12:49 -0800
CMFORTH Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-06 08:43 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 10:46 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 05:52 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 14:52 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:32 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-02 20:04 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 22:31 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 18:49 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 12:24 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 22:30 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 10:42 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 14:08 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 14:07 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:34 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-04 17:32 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-05 23:00 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-06 07:27 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-06 22:04 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-07 16:07 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 13:58 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 15:04 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:30 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:57 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 12:06 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-08 00:02 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 15:22 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-09 01:15 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 22:12 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 16:17 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-11 02:57 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-10 19:56 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:13 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-12 01:53 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 09:19 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 17:30 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-14 20:31 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 14:50 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 05:07 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 22:20 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-02 09:27 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 10:51 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-02 14:37 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 23:20 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 10:01 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 02:30 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 18:08 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 06:05 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 19:35 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 12:27 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 22:37 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 14:39 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 14:54 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:21 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-31 15:00 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 13:21 -0800
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 01:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvvbu4$m7f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42689 |
On 10/17/2015 4:44 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > JUERGEN wrote: >> This was my starting point of decoupling commercial and other. >> You can do anything in Forth - if the 2 main suppliers set a standard - >> others can use it or not - for them nothing changes. > > Well, they then can only follow, and not contribute. I find it rather > bizarre that you first mention the experience of an open group which > accepted your input, and then you suggest that you want two benevolent > dictators of your choice. Then it's no longer open, but an exclusive club > of Steven and Leon. Man, you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. He never "suggested" anything. He said, "IF". He is simply saying that were it that the two vendors *were* in total control of the Forth standard, that doesn't mean anyone has to follow along dutifully obeying orders. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 20:26 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <tOOdnXSuKrEtpr7LnZ2dnUU7-XGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #42693 |
On 10/17/15 7:51 PM, rickman wrote: > On 10/17/2015 4:44 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> JUERGEN wrote: >>> This was my starting point of decoupling commercial and other. >>> You can do anything in Forth - if the 2 main suppliers set a standard - >>> others can use it or not - for them nothing changes. >> >> Well, they then can only follow, and not contribute. I find it rather >> bizarre that you first mention the experience of an open group which >> accepted your input, and then you suggest that you want two benevolent >> dictators of your choice. Then it's no longer open, but an exclusive >> club >> of Steven and Leon. > > Man, you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. He never > "suggested" anything. He said, "IF". > > He is simply saying that were it that the two vendors *were* in total > control of the Forth standard, that doesn't mean anyone has to follow > along dutifully obeying orders. > I doubt seriously that MPE and FORTH, Inc. want any such thing. I personally see no need for "decoupling commercial and other" versions of Forth any more than they are now. It is in the interest of all Forth programmers *and* vendors to work in community. 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 | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 21:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n00s3p$1lt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42693 |
rickman wrote: > On 10/17/2015 4:44 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> JUERGEN wrote: >>> This was my starting point of decoupling commercial and other. >>> You can do anything in Forth - if the 2 main suppliers set a standard - >>> others can use it or not - for them nothing changes. >> >> Well, they then can only follow, and not contribute. I find it rather >> bizarre that you first mention the experience of an open group which >> accepted your input, and then you suggest that you want two benevolent >> dictators of your choice. Then it's no longer open, but an exclusive >> club of Steven and Leon. > > Man, you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. He never > "suggested" anything. He said, "IF". This was already a reply to his first suggestion. The original bullshit was this (with 3 levels of indentation to show tht it's Jürgen's quote): >>> My summary is very simple: >>> Change the name to Commercial Forth Language Definitions rather than ANS >>> Forth. >>> >>> Then the commercial progression of Forth is not hindered, >>> - and by the same people as now >>> - and the rest of the Forth community could either support this effort, or for example implement in the same way >>> - or do what they like to do differently >>> - so not much different to how the Forth Community works now, >>> >>> but giving the Commercial Vendors the opportunity to steer their product to more success of the Forth Language. >>> - my 2 cents. Apparently he sees the commercial vendors hinderend in progress by the community, and he wants the commercial vendors have the only say, after telling us that this is not a closed club and he was allowed to speak, and praising the debate culture. WTF? > He is simply saying that were it that the two vendors *were* in total > control of the Forth standard, that doesn't mean anyone has to follow > along dutifully obeying orders. Maybe you have a language barrier here. Jürgen is German, and (not just) between the lines, he says that in his oppinion the openness and the community is a problem, and the vendors should dictate a standard and the community can follow or not, but if they don't, they are simply left behind for the better or such. On the other hand, if you read the minutes of the meeting, you see immediately that the vendors are very slow in trying the more ambitious proposals (for two RfDs the summary is "need some more years"). This is usually so, the vendors have customers with big, difficult to maintain code (if you have 1 million lines of code, you don't want to change it), and are nervous about potentially incompatible changes; incompatible with their own idiosyncratic extensions, of course. We have also the different position between the vendors and the community what the standard should achive: the original ANS Forth approach is to allow many different implementations and document the resulting dependencies; the community side wants a standard where you write a non-trivial Forth program on one system and it works on another, because it does not have to use system-specific extensions. We made some progress in the mindset of the vendors, though; I think MPE understands better now that a standard is not just a least common ground, and the documentation of where things differ, and common practice can also come from tightening up diverse practice where it doesn't make sense to divert just for the sake of itself. We had the view of the standard to instruct "portable programmers" instead of portable programs, the diction that writing portable programs is an ego- less discipline, while apparently the system implementer is allowed to be full of himself, and create idiosyncratic stuff which makes life of the users more difficult (at least when they want to port their programs). I've a good feeling that Stephen has been convinced that this is actually a bad idea, and that we need libraries, and a library approach only works with a write once, run everywhere. No harness stuff for every system, sorry, Stephen. However, unless there's actually more effort spent into creating the various Forth systems than writing applications (which may be the case, but this is not the desired case ;-), it's better to provide them with portability instead of idiosyncratic differences just for the sake to be different. Vendors might like vendor lock in; and especially commercial vendors might like when the user base has no choice and can't move to the competition (whether free or commercial competition doesn't really matter). This behavior is a loss for mankind and of course for Forth. This is a local optimum for the vendors: They can't expand their customer base, because the customers of the competition have difficulties to switch, but at least their customer base is not shrinking, either; at least in the short run. In the long run, they will lose their customer base, because nobody likes a language where you have seen one Forth when you've seen one Forth. So commercial vendors are part of the standard process, which they need to be, but not so much part of the progress. Progress happens only by kicking some asses, especially when people have conflicting interests that prevent portable programs. Usually, system implementers usually have the position "I want my system to be standard". Including, of course, the differences; so handing them alone the key to the standardization will result in no convergence, but the documentation of the diversity. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56251d42.482705500@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #42695 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:34:15 +0200, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: >Apparently he sees the commercial vendors hinderend in progress by the >community, and he wants the commercial vendors have the only say, after >telling us that this is not a closed club and he was allowed to speak, and >praising the debate culture. WTF? Do holidays make you paranoid? >Maybe you have a language barrier here. Jürgen is German, and (not just) >between the lines, he says that in his oppinion the openness and the >community is a problem, and the vendors should dictate a standard and the >community can follow or not, but if they don't, they are simply left behind >for the better or such. The tendency of some in the FOSS crowd to tell other people what they said and intended is very irritating. >On the other hand, if you read the minutes of the meeting, you see >immediately that the vendors are very slow in trying the more ambitious >proposals (for two RfDs the summary is "need some more years"). This is >usually so, the vendors have customers with big, difficult to maintain code >(if you have 1 million lines of code, you don't want to change it), and are >nervous about potentially incompatible changes; incompatible with their own >idiosyncratic extensions, of course. The specific instance here was probably recognisers. And yes, Willem was there and as usual, nobody had the decency to ask for his opinion. Converting and retesting 1.2 million lines (at the last count) of Forth source code just to see what breaks is not a trivial exercise. Adding recognisers just to satisfy a WIBNI (Wouldn't It Be Nice If) just isn't good enough to justify the effort, especially for those whose systems already include the desired functionality. >We have also the different position between the vendors and the community >what the standard should achive: the original ANS Forth approach is to allow >many different implementations and document the resulting dependencies; the >community side wants a standard where you write a non-trivial Forth program >on one system and it works on another, because it does not have to use >system-specific extensions. Then standardise the functionality of such extensions first. This is why I have been banging on about libraries for the last few years. >We made some progress in the mindset of the vendors, though; I think MPE >understands better now that a standard is not just a least common ground, >and the documentation of where things differ, and common practice can also >come from tightening up diverse practice where it doesn't make sense to >divert just for the sake of itself. Ah, but have we made any progress in the mindset of the FOSS crowd? What do they understand any better? > >We had the view of the standard to instruct "portable programmers" instead >of portable programs, the diction that writing portable programs is an ego- >less discipline, while apparently the system implementer is allowed to be >full of himself, and create idiosyncratic stuff which makes life of the >users more difficult (at least when they want to port their programs). I've >a good feeling that Stephen has been convinced that this is actually a bad >idea, and that we need libraries, and a library approach only works with a >write once, run everywhere. No harness stuff for every system, sorry, >Stephen. A harness is an evil necessity in a real world. It may well point out where further standardisation is necessary. For example, my point that Forth has only one indicator to say that a word is split into two parts, DOES> has been avoided by the use of quotations, which is a much uglier notation than (say) you LIST> notation. IMHO providing the indicator and getting a better notation is important. Notation matters and ugly Forth is bad Forth. >So commercial vendors are part of the standard process, which they need to >be, but not so much part of the progress. Progress happens only by kicking >some asses, especially when people have conflicting interests that prevent >portable programs. Who on the FOSS side is volunteering to be kicked? I much prefer collaboration to shouting and confrontation. The whole "Vendors bad, FOSS good" sloganeering is incredibly tedious. 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 | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 01:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n03vhl$oq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42706 |
Stephen Pelc wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:34:15 +0200, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> > wrote: > >>Apparently he sees the commercial vendors hinderend in progress by the >>community, and he wants the commercial vendors have the only say, after >>telling us that this is not a closed club and he was allowed to speak, and >>praising the debate culture. WTF? > > Do holidays make you paranoid? What? Maybe I'm shocked what happend when I wasn't there ;-). What's being paranoid about suggestions like "Change the name to Commercial Forth Language Definitions rather than ANS Forth." and [Benevolent dictatorship in Python by the creator of a free implementation]: "I suggest the same for Forth - but 2 people - Steve and Leon - alternating year by year." He says I should put on my reading glasses (as short-sighted person, I just take my glasses off to read the fine print), but even a magnification glass can not make this disappear. It might look better from your side, because you are appointed as one of the benevolent dictators. The first half of what he wrote apparently was directed at people like Hugh, who better are ignored than argued with. That first half was actually quite good. But I didn't stop reading after that first half, and then the bullshit followed. He's not in charge, so it's not that awful. >>Maybe you have a language barrier here. Jürgen is German, and (not just) >>between the lines, he says that in his oppinion the openness and the >>community is a problem, and the vendors should dictate a standard and the >>community can follow or not, but if they don't, they are simply left >>behind for the better or such. > > The tendency of some in the FOSS crowd to tell other people what they > said and intended is very irritating. He said that, and his words were very clear. He doesn't want to be interpreted that way, but he also doesn't say how he really wants to be interpreted. He clearly said that he wants a commercial vendor standard with you and Leon as only contributors, and everybody else can either follow or do his non-standard things, which will be ignored then. Maybe you like the idea to have the last word, and not have the obnoxious FOSS crowd telling you that your system sucks here and there, and then you have to fix it - I see that as a service, because your system certainly becomes better after the bugs are fixed. This is not to belittle you, this is to help you, it's an audit, free of charge. Maybe we should charge you for that, so that you can see the value ;-). >>On the other hand, if you read the minutes of the meeting, you see >>immediately that the vendors are very slow in trying the more ambitious >>proposals (for two RfDs the summary is "need some more years"). This is >>usually so, the vendors have customers with big, difficult to maintain >>code (if you have 1 million lines of code, you don't want to change it), >>and are nervous about potentially incompatible changes; incompatible with >>their own idiosyncratic extensions, of course. > > The specific instance here was probably recognisers. And yes, Willem > was there and as usual, nobody had the decency to ask for his opinion. > Converting and retesting 1.2 million lines (at the last count) of > Forth source code just to see what breaks is not a trivial exercise. I hope he has some automated tests to verify his system... we have this in Gforth with far less lines, we need it, and it helps a lot to keep the system working when we do significant, non-trivial changes. > Adding recognisers just to satisfy a WIBNI (Wouldn't It Be Nice If) > just isn't good enough to justify the effort, especially for those > whose systems already include the desired functionality. No, actually it's particulary for people like you and Willem, who add and use a lot of hooks into the interpreter, because you urgently need to extend it - that's not a WIBNI, that's mission critical for you and Willem. It's not only for you, other people like Klaus Schleisiek suggested adding hooks into the interpeter, as well, to use Manfred's prelude concept. Everybody wants a different hook, and the solution to that sort of problem is to make a system that is flexible enough to allow all these features to be added without putting many special-purpose hooks into the interpreter. >>We have also the different position between the vendors and the community >>what the standard should achive: the original ANS Forth approach is to >>allow many different implementations and document the resulting >>dependencies; the community side wants a standard where you write a >>non-trivial Forth program on one system and it works on another, because >>it does not have to use system-specific extensions. > > Then standardise the functionality of such extensions first. This is > why I have been banging on about libraries for the last few years. I'm happy with libraries where this is possible. Sockets would be a nice library. OOP would be a nice library if possible. But the extensibility of the text interpreter is not a library thing; having it is required to be able to do things (like dot parsers or similar stuff in several OOPs) portably in a library. Some years ago, in Vienna, we discussed about OOP, you made a call for action, and Andrew Haley suggested to get inspiration from the meta object protocol from the Common Lisp people. I did that, and collected what kind of non-portable stuff like changes to the outer interpreter people do to make their OOP systems happen; the recognizer proposal is a result. The memory word set which I've been assigned to is something that can be done as library, that doesn't need any change of the language. >>We made some progress in the mindset of the vendors, though; I think MPE >>understands better now that a standard is not just a least common ground, >>and the documentation of where things differ, and common practice can also >>come from tightening up diverse practice where it doesn't make sense to >>divert just for the sake of itself. > > Ah, but have we made any progress in the mindset of the FOSS crowd? > What do they understand any better? One thing we obviously understand better is portability, because we had diverse operating systems and CPUs all the time, while you were happily restricting yourself to x86 and Windows, because x86 and Windows was the only thing that mattered from a commercial point of view during the Wintel duopoly (which is over now, with the desktop slowly dying, and the server world mostly moved to Linux and other Unixes, just like the mobile world). At that time, that was the least interesting combination for the FOSS world. What we don't understand well is that there is some big, difficult to maintain source code base out there, deeply locked into several vendors (OS, CPU, compiler), and that making changes away from the idiosyncrasies of these vendors is very difficult for those people. Somehow, a "standard" for the worst kind of vendor-lock-in people (like Microsoft) is a stamp e.g. on the POSIX subsystem of Windows NT, which the users actually aren't supposed to use. That's not a good way to deal with the concept of a standard. >>We had the view of the standard to instruct "portable programmers" instead >>of portable programs, the diction that writing portable programs is an >>ego- less discipline, while apparently the system implementer is allowed >>to be full of himself, and create idiosyncratic stuff which makes life of >>the >>users more difficult (at least when they want to port their programs). >>I've a good feeling that Stephen has been convinced that this is actually >>a bad idea, and that we need libraries, and a library approach only works >>with a >>write once, run everywhere. No harness stuff for every system, sorry, >>Stephen. > > A harness is an evil necessity in a real world. It may well point out > where further standardisation is necessary. That's the point: A harness is there, because the standard is lacking. IMHO there's progress in your argument; I had the impression that for you, a harness wasn't evil at all, but just a necessity. The end goal is that it is evil and has to go away, and that the "real world" side is a problem, which needs to be solved. > For example, my point that > Forth has only one indicator to say that a word is split into two > parts, DOES> has been avoided by the use of quotations, which is a > much uglier notation than (say) you LIST> notation. IMHO providing > the indicator and getting a better notation is important. Notation > matters and ugly Forth is bad Forth. Indeed, but a quotation is not just splitting a word into two parts. BTW: PostScript uses quotations a lot more, for many more things than we would ever use them in Forth. >>So commercial vendors are part of the standard process, which they need to >>be, but not so much part of the progress. Progress happens only by >>kicking some asses, especially when people have conflicting interests that >>prevent portable programs. > > Who on the FOSS side is volunteering to be kicked? I much prefer > collaboration to shouting and confrontation. The whole "Vendors bad, > FOSS good" sloganeering is incredibly tedious. This is an answer to someone who proposes the FOSS and users side should be completely kicked out of the standard process, and the two main vendors should be benevolent dictators, with a yearly rotation, as if the vendors are actually pushing the standard forward, and everybody else is on the brakes. You need some "kicking ass" in the recognizer thing, because you say "no, we don't want an open portable solution, because our client depends on the messy proprietary solution". I understand that having to maintain 1.2 million lines of code is not that easy (I wouldn't do something like that), and I understand that e.g. Nick lived for a long time with ProForth for Windows, and did not even make the transition to VFX. This conservative approach is slowing progress. On the other hand, the FOSS side is often too much of a moving target. People complain that writing a driver for Linux isn't just a one-time investment like writing a driver for Windows XP, where you write it in 2001, and it works until Windows XP is finally dumped (and then, you sell a new device to the people, because their old scanner or printer doesn't work on Windows 10); no, you have to constantly maintain it, because Linux changes its driver APIs every few years. Or with Python: Python 3 is simply not compatible with Python 2. The benevolent dictator, much applauded by Jürgen, decided that all the existing code base of Python 2 programs is not worth keeping, and hindering the progress of the language. This thing could come from Chuck in the Forth world, but certainly not from you or Forth Inc. Chuck does this too often, so that's why he isn't the benevolent dictator for Forth. So the vendor's role in the standard process is to make sure that things are completely backwards compatible. That's of course slowing progress down, but it is important, too. So we kick ass, and you put the brakes on. In combination, this struggle leads to a slow, but steady and not distruptive progress. But the roles are different, though it is collaborative. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 16:24 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Qt2dnZKYcLJIOLjLnZ2dnUU7-fudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #42711 |
On 10/19/15 1:51 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Stephen Pelc wrote: > >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:34:15 +0200, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> >> wrote: >> >>> Apparently he sees the commercial vendors hinderend in progress by the >>> community, and he wants the commercial vendors have the only say, after >>> telling us that this is not a closed club and he was allowed to speak, and >>> praising the debate culture. WTF? >> >> Do holidays make you paranoid? > > What? Maybe I'm shocked what happend when I wasn't there ;-). What's being > paranoid about suggestions like > > "Change the name to Commercial Forth Language Definitions rather than ANS > Forth." We actually had the option to retain control in 1973, when FORTH, Inc. put products on the market. We could have copyrighted the name, and possibly even pursued a patent. We chose not to do that, and have never regretted it. Forth has thrived from having a diverse marketplace of developers, both commercial and free (in various forms). Any attempt to change that would meet with opposition from FORTH, Inc. (and probably Stephen as well). ... > He said that, and his words were very clear. He doesn't want to be > interpreted that way, but he also doesn't say how he really wants to be > interpreted. He clearly said that he wants a commercial vendor standard > with you and Leon as only contributors, and everybody else can either follow > or do his non-standard things, which will be ignored then. That is a terrible idea. > Maybe you like the idea to have the last word, and not have the obnoxious > FOSS crowd telling you that your system sucks here and there, and then you > have to fix it - I see that as a service, because your system certainly > becomes better after the bugs are fixed. This is not to belittle you, this > is to help you, it's an audit, free of charge. Maybe we should charge you > for that, so that you can see the value ;-). Technical feedback is always helpful. Personal attacks not so much. >>> On the other hand, if you read the minutes of the meeting, you see >>> immediately that the vendors are very slow in trying the more ambitious >>> proposals (for two RfDs the summary is "need some more years"). This is >>> usually so, the vendors have customers with big, difficult to maintain >>> code (if you have 1 million lines of code, you don't want to change it), >>> and are nervous about potentially incompatible changes; incompatible with >>> their own idiosyncratic extensions, of course. >> >> The specific instance here was probably recognisers. And yes, Willem >> was there and as usual, nobody had the decency to ask for his opinion. >> Converting and retesting 1.2 million lines (at the last count) of >> Forth source code just to see what breaks is not a trivial exercise. > > I hope he has some automated tests to verify his system... we have this in > Gforth with far less lines, we need it, and it helps a lot to keep the > system working when we do significant, non-trivial changes. Standards *should* be very conservative. In the late 80's when ANS Forth was just getting under way the COBOL came out with a new standard and multi $B lawsuits ensued. Same thing some years later when a new FORTRAN standard came out. Not sure either language really recovered, and they were incredibly dominant at the time. There is plenty of opportunity for innovation, but only the innovations that really catch on and are proven is extensive use should be candidates for standardization. The one area where Forth94 failed in this regard was locals, and we know how that turned out. ... >>> We have also the different position between the vendors and the community >>> what the standard should achive: the original ANS Forth approach is to >>> allow many different implementations and document the resulting >>> dependencies; the community side wants a standard where you write a >>> non-trivial Forth program on one system and it works on another, because >>> it does not have to use system-specific extensions. I don't know of any language other than the highly proprietary ones (which, as I discussed above, Forth is not and should not be) that has achieved this elusive state. C certainly has not. But there's a third community you should recognize, even though it isn't well-represented on c.l.f.: companies that are building products full of propriety hardware and software that need to maintain these products over a life cycle of decades. There's enough chaos in the hardware, OSs, and other things they don't have much control over, so they need at least some part of their tool chain that they control. A Forth compiler is such an oasis, because they can maintain it themselves, if they have to. They have the source and all the tools. >> Then standardise the functionality of such extensions first. This is >> why I have been banging on about libraries for the last few years. > > I'm happy with libraries where this is possible. Sockets would be a nice > library. OOP would be a nice library if possible. But the extensibility of > the text interpreter is not a library thing; having it is required to be > able to do things (like dot parsers or similar stuff in several OOPs) > portably in a library. > > Some years ago, in Vienna, we discussed about OOP, you made a call for > action, and Andrew Haley suggested to get inspiration from the meta object > protocol from the Common Lisp people. I did that, and collected what kind > of non-portable stuff like changes to the outer interpreter people do to > make their OOP systems happen; the recognizer proposal is a result. > > The memory word set which I've been assigned to is something that can be > done as library, that doesn't need any change of the language. If more people spent their time writing new Forth libraries instead of yet-another-nonstandard-Forth-system we'd all be better off. >>> We made some progress in the mindset of the vendors, though; I think MPE >>> understands better now that a standard is not just a least common ground, >>> and the documentation of where things differ, and common practice can also >>> come from tightening up diverse practice where it doesn't make sense to >>> divert just for the sake of itself. >> >> Ah, but have we made any progress in the mindset of the FOSS crowd? >> What do they understand any better? > > One thing we obviously understand better is portability, because we had > diverse operating systems and CPUs all the time, while you were happily > restricting yourself to x86 and Windows, because x86 and Windows was the > only thing that mattered from a commercial point of view during the Wintel > duopoly (which is over now, with the desktop slowly dying, and the server > world mostly moved to Linux and other Unixes, just like the mobile world). > At that time, that was the least interesting combination for the FOSS world. > > What we don't understand well is that there is some big, difficult to > maintain source code base out there, deeply locked into several vendors (OS, > CPU, compiler), and that making changes away from the idiosyncrasies of > these vendors is very difficult for those people. > > Somehow, a "standard" for the worst kind of vendor-lock-in people (like > Microsoft) is a stamp e.g. on the POSIX subsystem of Windows NT, which the > users actually aren't supposed to use. That's not a good way to deal with > the concept of a standard. > >>> We had the view of the standard to instruct "portable programmers" instead >>> of portable programs, the diction that writing portable programs is an >>> ego- less discipline, while apparently the system implementer is allowed >>> to be full of himself, and create idiosyncratic stuff which makes life of >>> the >>> users more difficult (at least when they want to port their programs). Actually, Forth94 was incredibly helpful in developing portable Forth programmers. FORTH, Inc. has been several times successful in maintaining Forth applications whose authors have moved on. Companies have successfully ported considerable programs to FORTH, Inc. platforms. We have hired programmers who have picked up our style quickly and easily, as have our customers. I'm sure it's worked the other way, too. >>> I've a good feeling that Stephen has been convinced that this is actually >>> a bad idea, and that we need libraries, and a library approach only works >>> with a >>> write once, run everywhere. No harness stuff for every system, sorry, >>> Stephen. >> >> A harness is an evil necessity in a real world. It may well point out >> where further standardisation is necessary. > > That's the point: A harness is there, because the standard is lacking. IMHO > there's progress in your argument; I had the impression that for you, a > harness wasn't evil at all, but just a necessity. The end goal is that it > is evil and has to go away, and that the "real world" side is a problem, > which needs to be solved. No, sorry, a harness isn't just for places where the standard has "failed". It's also for situations in which technology (whether hardware or software) has created necessary constraints that have to be dealt with. ... >>> So commercial vendors are part of the standard process, which they need to >>> be, but not so much part of the progress. Progress happens only by >>> kicking some asses, especially when people have conflicting interests that >>> prevent portable programs. >> >> Who on the FOSS side is volunteering to be kicked? I much prefer >> collaboration to shouting and confrontation. The whole "Vendors bad, >> FOSS good" sloganeering is incredibly tedious. > > This is an answer to someone who proposes the FOSS and users side should be > completely kicked out of the standard process, and the two main vendors > should be benevolent dictators, with a yearly rotation, as if the vendors > are actually pushing the standard forward, and everybody else is on the > brakes. Vendors do push the standard forward. We have needs, and our customers have needs. We need a cross-compiler standard, for example. FORTH, Inc. and MPE did some great joint development in that area, and it should be pursued. IMO that's much more valuable than quotations or recognizers. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 02:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32d566b3-bf05-40ef-bf3d-f967f882eae6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42712 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 7:24:23 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> We actually had the option to retain control in 1973, when FORTH, Inc.
> put products on the market. We could have copyrighted the name, and
> possibly even pursued a patent. We chose not to do that, and have never
> regretted it. Forth has thrived from having a diverse marketplace of
> developers, both commercial and free (in various forms). Any attempt to
> change that would meet with opposition from FORTH, Inc. (and probably
> Stephen as well).
Jeff Fox told me that you absolutely hated FIG and did your best to kill it. Your plan was that Forth Inc. would own Forth and you would take legal action against anybody else who used the name Forth or made public a language based on Forth. Charles Moore strongly disagreed. He supported FIG and wanted the general public to be able to program in Forth. This is why he left Forth Inc. --- after he left Forth Inc. you weren't able to stop the public from using Forth without his support --- this was the fundamental break between Charles Moore and Forth Inc..
> But there's a third community you should recognize, even though it isn't
> well-represented on c.l.f.: companies that are building products full of
> propriety hardware and software that need to maintain these products
> over a life cycle of decades. There's enough chaos in the hardware, OSs,
> and other things they don't have much control over, so they need at
> least some part of their tool chain that they control. A Forth compiler
> is such an oasis, because they can maintain it themselves, if they have
> to. They have the source and all the tools.
You are describing Testra and their MiniForth/RACE --- they don't need you or your ANS-Forth --- they have my MFX, and are continuing to use it 20 years after I wrote it.
> If more people spent their time writing new Forth libraries instead of
> yet-another-nonstandard-Forth-system we'd all be better off.
So this is why you declared that I wasn't a Forth programmer and never would be --- because of my novice package written in ANS-Forth to run under multiple systems (SwiftForth, Gforth, Win32Forth and VFX).
This is what you said about my novice-package:
"Does '*every* application' you write use exactly the same kind of data arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or modify your 'general-purpose' structure."
You don't know what a code library is --- you don't understand the concept of reusable software --- you have been actively working to prevent code-libraries from being written by endlessly telling Forthers that they have to write every program entirely from scratch so that it will be super-optimized.
> Actually, Forth94 was incredibly helpful in developing portable Forth
> programmers. FORTH, Inc. has been several times successful in
> maintaining Forth applications whose authors have moved on. Companies
> have successfully ported considerable programs to FORTH, Inc. platforms.
> We have hired programmers who have picked up our style quickly and
> easily, as have our customers. I'm sure it's worked the other way, too.
This is so much baloney. Forth programmers aren't "portable" --- there is no market for Forth programmers --- there hasn't been since 1994.
Nobody is advertising for Forth programmers --- the suggestion that there are Forth jobs is pure fantasy.
> Vendors do push the standard forward. We have needs, and our customers
> have needs. We need a cross-compiler standard, for example. FORTH, Inc.
> and MPE did some great joint development in that area, and it should be
> pursued. IMO that's much more valuable than quotations or recognizers.
You are the same person who said:
"I'd actually be grateful for a simple English explanation of what 'quotations' are, as I've heard the term used in various ways in this context [general-purpose data-structures], and have never seen an explanation that isn't along the lines of, "Well, this is how {whatever} does it..."
But now you have the opinion that quotations aren't valuable. You don't even know what they are.
My objection to ANS-Forth is that it was written by an idiot sales-person who knows nothing about computer programming. You were an ignoramus in 1994, and you still are.
As for Stephen Pelc, he believes that it is necessary for a cross-compiler to simulate the target processor at compile-time --- he is really not a good choice for writing a standard for cross-compilers.
When you standardize anything, you prevent everybody from doing anything else. You are all about telling people what they can't do --- you have nothing positive to contribute to Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Oct20.150150@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #42712 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>On 10/19/15 1:51 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>> Stephen Pelc wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:34:15 +0200, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
[...]
>Standards *should* be very conservative. In the late 80's when ANS Forth
>was just getting under way the COBOL came out with a new standard and
>multi $B lawsuits ensued. Same thing some years later when a new FORTRAN
>standard came out. Not sure either language really recovered, and they
>were incredibly dominant at the time.
My impression is that both languages have lost market share to younger
languages (Cobol -> Java, Fortran -> C++ seem to be the most common
replacements), so maybe they were too conservative.
>There is plenty of opportunity for
>innovation, but only the innovations that really catch on and are proven
>is extensive use should be candidates for standardization. The one area
>where Forth94 failed in this regard was locals, and we know how that
>turned out.
You just selected a syntax for locals that did not catch on, but you
included (LOCAL), which allowed implementing a better syntax in
Forth-94, and John Hayes published such an implementation already in
1992 (ad that caught on). Overall, the Forth-94 locals wordset is a a
success, even though the locals-ext wordset isn't.
Another successful innovation in Forth-94 is THROW and CATCH. I am
pretty sure that if it was not in the standard already, and was being
proposed now, we would get "arguments" along the lines of WIBNI
against it; after all, no Forth system would have it, so it would
obviously not be necessary.
>>>> We have also the different position between the vendors and the community
>>>> what the standard should achive: the original ANS Forth approach is to
>>>> allow many different implementations and document the resulting
>>>> dependencies; the community side wants a standard where you write a
>>>> non-trivial Forth program on one system and it works on another, because
>>>> it does not have to use system-specific extensions.
>
>I don't know of any language other than the highly proprietary ones
>(which, as I discussed above, Forth is not and should not be) that has
>achieved this elusive state. C certainly has not.
You can certainly write non-trivial programs in C that can be ported
between compilers. I have compiled many C programs with different
compilers over the years. Twenty years ago this was the ecosystem on
which free software lived: different Unix systems with different C
compilers, and yet the software (hundreds of programs) could be
compiled and worked on a wide variety of these systems.
>Vendors do push the standard forward. We have needs, and our customers
>have needs. We need a cross-compiler standard, for example. FORTH, Inc.
>and MPE did some great joint development in that area, and it should be
>pursued. IMO that's much more valuable than quotations or recognizers.
If you think it's valuable and should be pursued, make an RfD (or pick
up the existing one). Or maybe Stephen Pelc can make the
cross-compiler an example of the library approach that he has
advocated for years (in a way that I did not understand); a starting
point might be the initial version of Gforth's cross-compiler, which
was intended to be a Forth-94 standard program.
Anyway, just because someone thinks that one extension is more
valuable than others, that's no reason to be against the others. A
cross-compiler standard has zero value to me, does that mean I should
be against a cross-compiler proposal?
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 22:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1003ef01-ba56-4e5c-8a90-2421e0dd7986@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42716 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 6:34:05 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> >There is plenty of opportunity for
> >innovation, but only the innovations that really catch on and are proven
> >is extensive use should be candidates for standardization. The one area
> >where Forth94 failed in this regard was locals, and we know how that
> >turned out.
>
> You just selected a syntax for locals that did not catch on, but you
> included (LOCAL), which allowed implementing a better syntax in
> Forth-94, and John Hayes published such an implementation already in
> 1992 (ad that caught on). Overall, the Forth-94 locals wordset is a a
> success, even though the locals-ext wordset isn't.
My definition of { for locals in the novice-package uses LOCALS| rather than (LOCAL) because (LOCAL) crashes SwiftForth-v2 that I paid over $400 for.
If you are going to write portable ANS-Forth code it is necessary to work around bugs --- this is why my novice-package works under four different ANS-Forth systems.
Have you ever written any non-trivial ANS-Forth code that works under four different ANS-Forth systems? No; you just program in gForth.
> >Vendors do push the standard forward. We have needs, and our customers
> >have needs. We need a cross-compiler standard, for example. FORTH, Inc.
> >and MPE did some great joint development in that area, and it should be
> >pursued. IMO that's much more valuable than quotations or recognizers.
>
> If you think it's valuable and should be pursued, make an RfD (or pick
> up the existing one). Or maybe Stephen Pelc can make the
> cross-compiler an example of the library approach that he has
> advocated for years (in a way that I did not understand); a starting
> point might be the initial version of Gforth's cross-compiler, which
> was intended to be a Forth-94 standard program.
ANS-Forth and Forth-200x lack features that are necessary or at least helpful in writing a cross-compiler:
1.) The ability to check an xt and determine what word-list it was defined in.
2.) The ability to check an xt and determine if it is immediate or non-immediate.
3.) The ability to check an xt and determine what the name of the word is.
4.) The ability to traverse a word-list and apply a quotation to every word in the word-list (TRAVERSE-WORDLIST is in Forth-200x, but not in ANS-Forth).
5.) A NUMBER? that is used by the outer-interpreter to check if it is a number and if it is to return the number --- this has to be vectored so the programmer can rewrite it and change how the outer-interpreter works --- assuming that the outer-interpreter will be used by the cross-compiler.
6.) A FIND and tick that work properly (my disambiguifiers fix this problem in ANS-Forth and Forth-200x) --- assuming that the programmer will write his own outer-interpreter to be used by the cross-compiler.
7.) Have all the words in the standard defined as being immediate or non-immediate, rather than make this "implementation dependent" (another term for "ambiguous") --- also, it should make sense (words that have always been immediate such as IF should be immediate).
The Forth-200x approach to standardization is totally wrong. You should standardize useful features such as listed above, but let programmers write their own cross-compiler --- instead you want to standardize the cross-compiler itself --- you are assuming that you know everything there is to know about cross-compilation and that you have the right to impose your opinion on the entire Forth community (and yet, the fact that Forth-200x lacks the above listed features tells me that you don't really know anything about cross-compilers).
> Anyway, just because someone thinks that one extension is more
> valuable than others, that's no reason to be against the others. A
> cross-compiler standard has zero value to me, does that mean I should
> be against a cross-compiler proposal?
If a cross-compiler has "zero value" to you, that explains why you don't know anything about the subject --- yet, as the chair-person of the Forth-200x committee you believe that you have the right to force a standard cross-compiler on the entire Forth community --- you are no better than Elizabeth Rather; just a blithering ignoramus strutting around telling everybody that you are the "leading expert" on Forth and that anybody who refuses to follow your lead will be damned to non-standard hell.
I wrote MFX in UR/Forth in 1994 --- UR/Forth 20 years ago was a better Forth for writing a cross-compiler than ANS-Forth or Forth-200x are today --- in 20 years, I have met many people who claim to be experts on Forth cross-compilers, but I have never met anybody who knew even the first thing about the subject (this includes the Forth-200x committee).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 23:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a0c3f4e-ac9d-437e-a00f-79f02ce92cb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42728 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 10:59:37 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 6:34:05 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > > >Vendors do push the standard forward. We have needs, and our customers > > >have needs. We need a cross-compiler standard, for example. FORTH, Inc. > > >and MPE did some great joint development in that area, and it should be > > >pursued. IMO that's much more valuable than quotations or recognizers. > > > > If you think it's valuable and should be pursued, make an RfD (or pick > > up the existing one). Or maybe Stephen Pelc can make the > > cross-compiler an example of the library approach that he has > > advocated for years (in a way that I did not understand); a starting > > point might be the initial version of Gforth's cross-compiler, which > > was intended to be a Forth-94 standard program. > > ANS-Forth and Forth-200x lack features that are necessary or at least helpful in writing a cross-compiler: > 1.) The ability to check an xt and determine what word-list it was defined in. > 2.) The ability to check an xt and determine if it is immediate or non-immediate. > 3.) The ability to check an xt and determine what the name of the word is. > 4.) The ability to traverse a word-list and apply a quotation to every word in the word-list (TRAVERSE-WORDLIST is in Forth-200x, but not in ANS-Forth). > 5.) A NUMBER? that is used by the outer-interpreter to check if it is a number and if it is to return the number --- this has to be vectored so the programmer can rewrite it and change how the outer-interpreter works --- assuming that the outer-interpreter will be used by the cross-compiler. > 6.) A FIND and tick that work properly (my disambiguifiers fix this problem in ANS-Forth and Forth-200x) --- assuming that the programmer will write his own outer-interpreter to be used by the cross-compiler. > 7.) Have all the words in the standard defined as being immediate or non-immediate, rather than make this "implementation dependent" (another term for "ambiguous") --- also, it should make sense (words that have always been immediate such as IF should be immediate). > > The Forth-200x approach to standardization is totally wrong. You should standardize useful features such as listed above, but let programmers write their own cross-compiler --- instead you want to standardize the cross-compiler itself --- you are assuming that you know everything there is to know about cross-compilation and that you have the right to impose your opinion on the entire Forth community (and yet, the fact that Forth-200x lacks the above listed features tells me that you don't really know anything about cross-compilers). What Elizabeth Rather says is not true: "Vendors do push the standard forward. We have needs, and our customers have needs. We need a cross-compiler standard" The 7 items I mentioned above are obvious to anybody who knows anything about Forth cross-compilation, yet they aren't in ANS-Forth and they won't be in Forth-200x. The Forth-200x committee is made up of vendors and these vendors make a lot of money selling cross-compilers. They (Forth Inc. and MPE) will NEVER allow the Forth-200x standard to support cross-compilation because they want cross-compilation to be something that can only be done by the vendor using non-standard code --- they want to tell Forth programmers such as myself: "You are too stupid to write a cross-compiler, but we succeed because we are smart, so be a good little customer and send us $400 to get a closed-source vendor-specific cross-compiler." Ultimately a vendor-controlled standard always results in the users forced to be customers (all major credit cards accepted!) rather than being empowered to write their own software --- Stephen Pelc and Leon Wagner desperately want to be dictators --- they aren't benevolent in any way though, as their only goal is to stamp out competition and gain total control over the Forth language. Also, btw, I don't believe Stephen Pelc when he says that Juergen Pintaske didn't have his approval to suggest that Stephen Pelc and Leon Wagner be declared dictators of the Forth language. I think Stephen Pelc wants this, but he doesn't want to suggest it himself because there might be a negative response. His solution is to order his employee to make the suggestion. There are two possible outcomes: 1.) There will be a positive response, in which case Stephen will gracefully accept being made dictator (giving a big speech about how some men are born to leadership, but others such as himself have leadership thrust upon them). 2.) There will be a negative response (see Bernd Paysan's response above), in which case Stephen will pretend that he never asked to be declared supreme dictator and that this was just a bad idea that Juergen thought up on his own. Idiot salespeople are a dime a dozen and they are all pretty much the same, so Stephen is willing to throw Juergen under the bus. If Juergen makes too big of a fool of himself, Stephen will just fire him and hire another salesperson in his place --- never mind that Stephen Pelc privately ordered Juergen to make the suggestion that caused everybody to laugh at him as an incredible fool --- being a salesperson is not about living in a fair world; it is mostly about avoiding real work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03295f15-446c-418d-ba0e-c5f3f36df248@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42728 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 10:59:37 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com > ANS-Forth and Forth-200x lack features that are necessary or at least helpful in writing a cross-compiler: > 1.) The ability to check an xt and determine what word-list it was defined in. > 2.) The ability to check an xt and determine if it is immediate or non-immediate. > 3.) The ability to check an xt and determine what the name of the word is. > 4.) The ability to traverse a word-list and apply a quotation to every word in the word-list (TRAVERSE-WORDLIST is in Forth-200x, but not in ANS-Forth). > 5.) A NUMBER? that is used by the outer-interpreter to check if it is a number and if it is to return the number --- this has to be vectored so the programmer can rewrite it and change how the outer-interpreter works --- assuming that the outer-interpreter will be used by the cross-compiler. > 6.) A FIND and tick that work properly (my disambiguifiers fix this problem in ANS-Forth and Forth-200x) --- assuming that the programmer will write his own outer-interpreter to be used by the cross-compiler. > 7.) Have all the words in the standard defined as being immediate or non-immediate, rather than make this "implementation dependent" (another term for "ambiguous") --- also, it should make sense (words that have always been immediate such as IF should be immediate). > > The Forth-200x approach to standardization is totally wrong. You should standardize useful features such as listed above, but let programmers write their own cross-compiler --- instead you want to standardize the cross-compiler itself --- you are assuming that you know everything there is to know about cross-compilation and that you have the right to impose your opinion on the entire Forth community (and yet, the fact that Forth-200x lacks the above listed features tells me that you don't really know anything about cross-compilers). I forgot a couple of features. Here is a revised list: 1.) The ability to check an xt and determine what word-list it was defined in. 2.) The ability to check an xt and determine if it is immediate or non-immediate. 3.) The ability to check an xt and determine what the name of the word is. 4.) The ability to traverse a word-list and apply a quotation to every word in the word-list (TRAVERSE-WORDLIST is in Forth-200x, but not in ANS-Forth). 5.) The ability to smudge or unsmudge a word given its xt. 6.) A NUMBER? that is used by the outer-interpreter to check if it is a number and if it is to return the number --- this has to be vectored so the programmer can rewrite it and change how the outer-interpreter works --- assuming that the outer-interpreter will be used by the cross-compiler. 7.) A FIND and tick that work properly (my disambiguifiers fix this problem in ANS-Forth and Forth-200x) --- assuming that the programmer will write his own outer-interpreter to be used by the cross-compiler. 8.) The ability to determine the xt of the last word compiled. 9.) Have all the words in the standard defined as being immediate or non-immediate, rather than make this "implementation dependent" (another term for "ambiguous") --- also, it should make sense (words that have always been immediate such as IF should be immediate). Almost everything in this list was common practice in Forth-83. For example, #3 is >NAME and #8 is LATEST. When I wrote MFX I had to write a few of these in assembly-language using carnal knowledge of UR/Forth, but the majority of them were already available. Elizabeth Rather didn't include any of this common practice in ANS-Forth because she doesn't practice Forth programming herself and hence doesn't know what common practice is. Also, some programmer at Forth Inc. may have told her that everything in the above list is useful for cross-compilers, so she banned all that stuff to prevent the Forth community from writing cross-compilers in competition with Forth Inc. --- it is possible that all of this stuff is available internally in SwiftForth but is not provided to the users --- I know that most of this stuff is available in VFX but is non-standard, so using it traps the user in vendor lock-in (I don't know how much of this stuff is in VFX because I've never bothered to read the manual, despite Stephen repeatedly telling me to RTFM).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 14:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32c6d716-5d3a-4385-85df-7e64353532ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42711 |
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 6:51:19 PM UTC-5, Bernd Paysan wrote: ... > The memory word set which I've been assigned to is something that can be > done as library, that doesn't need any change of the language. > Ah, so that's what happened to the memory wordset. A few years ago, I was asked to take on the responsibility for the Memory Wordset RfD, as an optional wordset for Forth 200x. I assume that Leon Wagner and Stephen Pelc needed a somewhat neutral third party, and, because of my interest in the subject at the time, that's probably why I was asked. I folded in input from the c.l.f. participants where consensus appeared, but I recall fruitless exchanges between myself and Leon and Stephen. Eventually they indicated to me that they didn't want to be associated with the RfD, and stopped responding. From that experience, I can say I think the commercial vendors can have input, but it would be a disaster for Forth if they were driving the changes to the standard. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 14:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4728e5a6-633f-4e00-910d-a1598fe6c01b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43476 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 10:06:47 PM UTC, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: > On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 6:51:19 PM UTC-5, Bernd Paysan wrote: > ... > > The memory word set which I've been assigned to is something that can be > > done as library, that doesn't need any change of the language. > > > > Ah, so that's what happened to the memory wordset. A few years ago, I was asked to take on the responsibility for the Memory Wordset RfD, as an optional wordset for Forth 200x. I assume that Leon Wagner and Stephen Pelc needed a somewhat neutral third party, and, because of my interest in the subject at the time, that's probably why I was asked. I folded in input from the c.l.f. participants where consensus appeared, but I recall fruitless exchanges between myself and Leon and Stephen. Eventually they indicated to me that they didn't want to be associated with the RfD, and stopped responding. > > From that experience, I can say I think the commercial vendors can have input, but it would be a disaster for Forth if they were driving the changes to the standard. > > Krishna If the commercial vendors would not talk to other professional developers and to companies that need professional products and buy products, Forth would be dead as a language as there would be no credibility anymore. It is bad enough as it is now. This would obviously not affect any Forthers, they write a new compiler in the afternoon, but where would they get an image from to be part of reality of accepted programming lanuages if no commercial product exists?? Get real and try to support the language rather than the own ego. Sometimes these comments here look like kindergarden talk of people who have nothing else to do. The hard work is done by just a few as I saw at Euroforth. America is not interested in Forth anymore it seems, as there is no American-Forth event where these issues are discussed at all. There was not much representation from the US - and thanks to the ones who attended - but where were the ones who write long posts here - but rather keep out of the work; they are not really interested in the language. I actually prefer the silent group here that just read what is posted and get headaches from shaking their heads. Another Bullshit from somebody who still has to grow up and learn what a Majority vote or none yet at all in the standards group is: > Ah, so that's what happened to the memory wordset. A few years ago, I was asked to take on the responsibility for the Memory Wordset RfD, as an optional wordset for Forth 200x. I assume that Leon Wagner and Stephen Pelc needed a somewhat neutral third party, and, because of my interest in the subject at the time, that's probably why I was asked. I folded in input from the c.l.f. participants where consensus appeared, but I recall fruitless exchanges between myself and Leon and Stephen. Eventually they indicated to me that they didn't want to be associated with the RfD, and stopped responding.> Do not accuse the vendors - the whole standard group decides. Or you might not have understood how it works. If the vendors do not want to talk to you - understandable - you have probably annoyed them enough - anyway why should they? I am annoyed already just reading this bullshit. Wake up to the real world - but you might not be used to democracy, so sorry I understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 14:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87bnb0rvls.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #43477 |
JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes: > This would obviously not affect any Forthers, they write a new > compiler in the afternoon, but where would they get an image from to > be part of reality of accepted programming lanuages if no commercial > product exists?? Do you know that the only implementation of Ada 2012 that exists right now is GNAT? And yet quite a few critical users including financial, aviation, and military rely on it. It's from Adacore and you can get (expensive) commercial support and tools for it, but the compiler itself is FOSS, based on GCC. I would expect it's producing more revenue than the whole Forth universe put together.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 05:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <887ec1a6-a624-4ebe-8f9e-0fcd2a28f55d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43478 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 10:59:13 PM UTC, Paul Rubin wrote: > JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes: > > This would obviously not affect any Forthers, they write a new > > compiler in the afternoon, but where would they get an image from to > > be part of reality of accepted programming lanuages if no commercial > > product exists?? > > Do you know that the only implementation of Ada 2012 that exists right > now is GNAT? And yet quite a few critical users including financial, > aviation, and military rely on it. It's from Adacore and you can get > (expensive) commercial support and tools for it, but the compiler itself > is FOSS, based on GCC. I would expect it's producing more revenue than > the whole Forth universe put together. Well Paul, this is just the business model, rather than diffusing the argument. The compiler is free - but the support costs and probably much. So not much different to you mobile phone - it comes for free - you even get a new one every 2 years probably. I completely agree: the market for mobile turnover beats the landlines. But you bring up another point: THERE IS ONLY ONE COMPILER as you stated. Must be 100 % bugfree. But who maintains it, tests is, certifies what comes out?? If the two compiler suppliers went for the same model - I would like to see the uproar here. Pay for support and tools? Quite a few here know that they can do better ... And for free and for themselves, not for the Forth community, which is in contrast with what the vendors do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87fv0aprp2.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #43500 |
JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes: > Well Paul, this is just the business model, rather than diffusing the > argument. The compiler is free - but the support costs and probably > much. So not much different to you mobile phone - it comes for free - > you even get a new one every 2 years probably. Yes, if you want the support, it is quite expensive. If you don't need it you don't have to buy it. You can still compile with the free compiler and I've tried it out a little. That's unlike a mobile phone that is useless for phone communications unless you pay the service subscription. > THERE IS ONLY ONE COMPILER as you stated. Must be 100 % bugfree. But > who maintains it, tests is, certifies what comes out?? Adacore maintains it AFAIK. There was once a US government office for Ada compiler testing but it closed down years ago, so I don't know what certification would mean these days. I don't believe the compiler is expected to be bug-free, but rather critical systems have to do enough cross-checks to not depend on that. I'd been wanting to ask Bob Dewar (Adacore founder) how that was done, but he unfortunately passed away earlier this year, so I'll never get to ask him. > If the two compiler suppliers went for the same model - I would like > to see the uproar here. Pay for support and tools? Quite a few here > know that they can do better ... Not sure what you mean. There are GCC and Clang, for example. By the way, the software for the Tesla car and the SpaceX rocket are written in C++. I've wondered what compiler they use. I remember reading that the US Navy used GCC for some kind of shipboard system a while back. > And for free and for themselves, not for the Forth community, which is > in contrast with what the vendors do. Not sure what you mean by that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <307ec0b9-519a-463a-a6a0-b34143f4516d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43477 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:48:52 PM UTC-6, JUERGEN wrote: ... > Do not accuse the vendors - the whole standard group decides. Or you might not have understood how it works. > If the vendors do not want to talk to you - understandable - you have probably annoyed them enough - anyway why should they? I am annoyed already just reading this bullshit. Wake up to the real world - but you might not be used to democracy, so sorry I understand. Lol! What an amazing rant. Are you sure you work with customers? But, in any case, you give me too much credit to say that I annoyed the vendors. Cheers, Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 05:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42128c7c-171c-4c00-a236-910fb3560926@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43479 |
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 11:12:42 PM UTC, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:48:52 PM UTC-6, JUERGEN wrote: > ... > > Do not accuse the vendors - the whole standard group decides. Or you might not have understood how it works. > > If the vendors do not want to talk to you - understandable - you have probably annoyed them enough - anyway why should they? I am annoyed already just reading this bullshit. Wake up to the real world - but you might not be used to democracy, so sorry I understand. > > Lol! What an amazing rant. Are you sure you work with customers? > > But, in any case, you give me too much credit to say that I annoyed the vendors. > > Cheers, > Krishna Now I can understand - a poor foreigner with just little knowledge of the language, so you cannot distinguish between rant and statement of facts. This explains the LOL as well - you laughed at the wrong time as you did not understand. And you explained yourself why none of the vendors wants to talk to you - and the committee does not either. I just wonder if you treat your colleagues or suppliers in the same way - oh sorry I forgot - nobody wants to talk to you. So just to underline your statement - you are here to annoy people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 06:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f86ac58-0a9b-488a-a0c6-78fb4c292d16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43501 |
Troll alert. Please do not feed trolls, no matter how disgusting they are online.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 14:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n228g9$di3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43501 |
On 12/11/2015 13:35, JUERGEN wrote: > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 11:12:42 PM UTC, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:48:52 PM UTC-6, JUERGEN wrote: >> ... >>> Do not accuse the vendors - the whole standard group decides. Or you might not have understood how it works. >>> If the vendors do not want to talk to you - understandable - you have probably annoyed them enough - anyway why should they? I am annoyed already just reading this bullshit. Wake up to the real world - but you might not be used to democracy, so sorry I understand. >> >> Lol! What an amazing rant. Are you sure you work with customers? >> >> But, in any case, you give me too much credit to say that I annoyed the vendors. >> >> Cheers, >> Krishna > > Now I can understand - a poor foreigner with just little knowledge of the language, so you cannot distinguish between rant and statement of facts. > > This explains the LOL as well - you laughed at the wrong time as you did not understand. > > And you explained yourself why none of the vendors wants to talk to you - and the committee does not either. > > I just wonder if you treat your colleagues or suppliers in the same way - oh sorry I forgot - nobody wants to talk to you. > > So just to underline your statement - you are here to annoy people. > You do yourself no favours at all by trying to belittle Krishna Myneni like this. He is a long term contributor to c.l.f and his posts are all worthy of respect - including the one you replied to so rudely. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web