Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29203 > unrolled thread

Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-01 00:10 +0100
    Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@posteo.de> - 2014-04-01 06:34 +0200
      Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 00:19 -0700
    Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-01 15:53 +0000
      Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 13:12 -0700
        Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-01 23:06 +0200
          Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 14:42 -0700
          Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 18:04 -0700
            Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@posteo.de> - 2014-04-02 09:41 +0200
              Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-02 12:27 +0200
                Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-02 10:35 -0700
                  Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-02 20:49 +0200
                    Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2014-04-02 16:44 -0700
                      Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-03 05:12 -0500
                        Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-03 04:14 -0700
                          Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-03 08:26 -0500
                          Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-03 23:04 +0200
                            Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-04 02:36 -0400
                              Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-04 03:38 -0500
                                Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-04 15:19 +0200
                                Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-04 18:03 -0400
                                  Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-05 09:12 -0500
                                    Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-05 15:37 +0100
                          Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-07 23:25 -0700
                            Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-08 06:13 -0400
                        Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-04-03 12:39 +0100
                          Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-03 08:33 -0500
                      Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-03 10:47 +0000
    Re: Maximum heap memory available to GForth when allot-ing? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-01 16:36 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#29288

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 04:38:13 -0400, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:

>> Supporters of free software always do this.  They say: "Look it's
>> free!"  Then, they turn around and support capitalism in their next
>> breathe saying that "money will still flow [somehow]."
>
> There is no incompatibility between commerce and free software.
>

What commerce occurs with free software?  Minimal as compared to non-free.
Is it anywhere near as much as with non-free software?  No.
What does a smaller market do to programmers salaries and jobs?  Reduce.

>> I don't get it.  The two are *not* compatible economically.  You
>> can't *not* pay for something and also expect experts who expect to
>> be paid to code it for you.  Someone must pay them to work.  Who?
>> Why?
>
> Because you can pay for free software: it's free as in freedom, not as
> in price.  "Software libre" may be a better term.
>

Did you pay for Linux for home use?  (Yeah, I didn't think you did...)

Do individuals pay for a full install of GNU/Linux?  No.  So, yes, most
of the free software movement is based on free as in price.

Let's look at some the software I didn't have to pay for with this
install of Linux.

Opera, Mozilla Firefox, Leafpad, Thunar, Catfish, GCC and GLIBC,
Galculator, LibreOffice, Wireshark, VLC media player, Adobe Flash
Player, Java, Alkasaurus, GTK, QT4, Geany, GIMP, Inkscape, GNOME player,
MPlayer, Exaile, Brassero, AbiWord, ePDFviewer, etc.

There are numerous other applications and an untold quantity of libraries.
That doesn't include the OS proper or all the command line utilities it
provides.  No one received any financial compensation from me for that,
nor you.  Did they deserve to?  Yes.

Few if any of the abundance of programmers involved were paid.  How does
forcing programmers to go into bankruptcy benefit society?  That's what
you're arguing for when you argue for free software.  Obamacare is going
to force insurers into bankruptcy while enriching drug companies.  No
one is arguing that is fair or beneficial.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29298

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 04:38:13 -0400, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> wrote:
> 
>>> Supporters of free software always do this.  They say: "Look it's
>>> free!"  Then, they turn around and support capitalism in their next
>>> breathe saying that "money will still flow [somehow]."
>>
>> There is no incompatibility between commerce and free software.
> 
> What commerce occurs with free software?  Minimal as compared to
> non-free.  Is it anywhere near as much as with non-free software?

I think so, yes.  Big banks run on GNU/Linux systems, as do Google,
Amazon, etc.  Many of these big companies write free software too, for
perfecty good commercial reasons.  Facebook runs on top of a ton of
free sotware.  Much of the internet runs on free software, and it
costs less than proprietary software does.  This is not a bad thing.

> No.  What does a smaller market do to programmers salaries and jobs?
> Reduce.

AIUI, most of the software in the world is written for bespoke use by
a single customer: I have heard numbers up to 90%, but I don't know
how that was calculated.  So, I don't think that free software makes
an enormous difference to the empolyability of programmers.  Free
libraries and tools, however, make it much easier for programmers to
get their work done and deliver value to their customers.  This means
that they can achieve more and charge less.  This makes it easier for
them to get more work, because they can deliver better value for
money.

>>> I don't get it.  The two are *not* compatible economically.  You
>>> can't *not* pay for something and also expect experts who expect to
>>> be paid to code it for you.  Someone must pay them to work.  Who?
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because you can pay for free software: it's free as in freedom, not as
>> in price.  "Software libre" may be a better term.
> 
> Did you pay for Linux for home use?  (Yeah, I didn't think you did...)

No, I did not.  Not everyone has to.  Some people do.

> Do individuals pay for a full install of GNU/Linux?  No.  So, yes,
> most of the free software movement is based on free as in price.

Are most copies of free software packages paid for on a per-copy
basis?  No.  But so what?

> Let's look at some the software I didn't have to pay for with this
> install of Linux.
> 
> Opera, Mozilla Firefox, Leafpad, Thunar, Catfish, GCC and GLIBC,
> Galculator, LibreOffice, Wireshark, VLC media player, Adobe Flash
> Player, Java, Alkasaurus, GTK, QT4, Geany, GIMP, Inkscape, GNOME player,
> MPlayer, Exaile, Brassero, AbiWord, ePDFviewer, etc.
> 
> There are numerous other applications and an untold quantity of
> libraries.  That doesn't include the OS proper or all the command
> line utilities it provides.  No one received any financial
> compensation from me for that, nor you.  Did they deserve to?  Yes.

But the creators of free software entered freely into that bargain.
Why should every user have to pay them?

> Few if any of the abundance of programmers involved were paid.

It depends on what you look at.  Most of the core of free software --
the really important part that everything depends on -- is written by
professionals.  Think GCC, Linux, Java, etc.  I know there are also a
lot of projects run by amateurs, and that's great too.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29299

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:12:15 -0500, Andrew Haley
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>> What commerce occurs with free software?  Minimal as compared to
>> non-free.  Is it anywhere near as much as with non-free software?
>
>I think so, yes.  Big banks run on GNU/Linux systems, as do Google,
>Amazon, etc.  Many of these big companies write free software too, for
>perfecty good commercial reasons.  Facebook runs on top of a ton of
>free sotware.  Much of the internet runs on free software, and it
>costs less than proprietary software does.  This is not a bad thing.
>
>> No.  What does a smaller market do to programmers salaries and jobs?
>> Reduce.
>
>AIUI, most of the software in the world is written for bespoke use by
>a single customer: I have heard numbers up to 90%, but I don't know
>how that was calculated.  So, I don't think that free software makes
>an enormous difference to the empolyability of programmers.  Free
>libraries and tools, however, make it much easier for programmers to
>get their work done and deliver value to their customers.  This means
>that they can achieve more and charge less.  This makes it easier for
>them to get more work, because they can deliver better value for
>money.
>

Very interesting line of argument.  Have heard the challenge before
but could never find a good response.  Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29420

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 4:14:38 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 April 2014 11:12:30 UTC+1, Andrew Haley  wrote:
> > How would it be zero sum if all software were to be free?
> 
> Because (the argument goes) it's an economic race to the bottom. 
...
> > Stallman's argument is based on ethics: in his view, proprietary
> > software is immoral.  So yes, of course he wants the end of
> > proprietary sofware.  As he put it,
> > "I'm often asked to describe the 'advantages' of free software. But
> > the word 'advantages' is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life
> > without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well
> > as every other activity in our lives. We must refuse to give the
> > owners of the programs or computing services control over the
> > computing we do."
 
> Oh what a load of leftist bollocks. "Freedom". FFS! Like someone is putting a gun to one's head, forcing people to buy a particular software product. You are free to NOT buy whatever the hell you like. 
> 
> "Life without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives."
> 
> I'm just speechless at the shite that this guy spouts. And people worship him like he's fucking Che Guevara or something. Spare me.
> 
> Enough. Now I'm just getting pissed off! We're 15 posts into this thread and it's already descended into a load of waffly bollocks.

I agree that Stallman is widely considered to be the Che Guevara of software, and that a lot of supporters for GNU are thinly-veiled communists. 

I don't think Stallman himself is a communist however. Essentially, Stallman was saying that computer programming is a "service," but a computer program is not a "product." Stallman was okay with laisez-faire competition and profit-making in regards to the sale of programming as a service, but was opposed to this in regard to the sale of programs as shrink-wrapped products (because the latter necessarily requires the software to be closed-source to prevent theft of the source-code).

I think that Stallman's idea works for an OS because most of the work is done after the OS is written by "system administrators" --- they are selling a service (they are generally paid by the hour), and they can do their job a lot better when they have the source-code to the OS and the tools that they are using.

I agree however that Stallman's idea will result in "an economic race to the bottom" when applied to application programming. Writing a word-processor (or whatever) and giving away the source-code is just altruism. The only benefit is that other people may get involved and add features to your word-processor and you will end up with a better word-processor than what you could have produced on your own time. This might work out, but is unlikely, as team-programming has never been very efficient --- as Fred Brooks pointed out, doubling the number of programmers does not double the amount of work done, and may even result in less work being done because everybody spends too much time figuring out how the software has been mucked up by their teammates.

I expect that Linux will succeed when most Linux application programs are closed-source proprietary. The fact that Linux itself is open-source will bring talented system-administers to Linux and away from Windows, but I see no reason at all for the application programs to be open-source. Some programs (such as LaTeX, which is the only reason I install Linux on my computer) should be open-source because they are similar to the OS in the sense that there is a lot of programming-as-a-service done with them --- most of these programs were originally written in academia however, so they are necessarily open-source. For the most part though, application programs benefit from being closed-source and proprietary --- well, the application programmer benefits, because he gets to make money rather than work for free.

A lot of application programs, especially for horizontal-markets, get released open-source because the developer knew from a practical perspective that he had no protection against piracy, so he just gave up hope and threw away his work. The solution to piracy however, is easy --- micro-processors need to be serialized. If every CPU had a serial number, then every computer would be unique. When a customer bought an application program (such as a word-processor), he would have to provide the seller with the serial-number for his compute. For his money he would be given a copy of the software product that worked only on his machine. The only way for a pirate to attack this would be to disassemble the software product and build source-code for it this way --- in essentially all cases, the amount of work involved in doing this would far out-weigh the economic benefit derived from success. 

The reason why the processor-manufacturers don't serialize processors (it is easy from a technical stand-point), is because the buyers of computers aren't demanding it --- and the reason why the buyers aren't demanding it, is because most computer-programmers are providing them with free software --- the average computer user considers programmers to be altruists (and they consider "altruist" to be a synonym for "serf").
 
> I'm out.

Come back!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29432

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 02:25:16 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The solution to piracy however, is easy --- micro-processors need to be
> serialized. If every CPU had a serial number, then every computer would
> be unique.

BAD IDEA!

That's the solution for government tracking ("Big Brother") and stalkers.
In the always connected to the Internet era, either by a personal computer
or smart phone, that could result in almost all privacy being eliminated.

Does "serialized" mean to have a serial number applied to it?
That doesn't seem to be a standard usage or meaning.

> The reason why the processor-manufacturers don't serialize processors
> (it is easy from a technical stand-point), is because the buyers of
> computers aren't demanding it --- and the reason why the buyers aren't
> demanding it, is because most computer-programmers are providing them
> with free software --- the average computer user considers programmers
> to be altruists (and they consider "altruist" to be a synonym for
> "serf").

First, some x86 microprocessors already have a unique serial number
that can be retrieved via software.

Second, I'm sure Microsoft has pressured Intel and AMD to provide
a unique serial number for each processor.  Microsoft currently goes
to great lengths to construct a unique identifier for each computer
within their more recent operating systems.

Third, there is already an abundance of unique identifiers or serial  
numbers
available in modern computers and cell phones.

Each cell phone has three serial numbers (IMEI, ICC-ID, IMSI).  One is for
the cell phone proper, while two are for the SIM card.

Each digital camera, be it standalone and cell phone, stores EXIF metadata
in digital pictures.

Each x86 computer has a variety of identifiers such as ethernet MAC  
address,
CMOS machine identifier, BIOS serial number, CDROM/DVD serial numbers,  
unique
volume serial numbers for hard disks, partitions, floppies, USB drives,  
also
software serial numbers in most commercial software and the data files they
create, "invisible" yellow dots printed by printers to track the printer  
and
prevent counterfeiting of U.S. currency, as well as a variety of unique
identifiers for software and hardware: CLSID, GUID, UUID, OID, SID, etc.   
Of
course, most of them are not permanent and so can be changed, although  
that's
somewhat infrequent.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29273

On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 05:12:30 -0500, Andrew Haley
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:

>Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 7:49:19 PM UTC+1, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>> Assad Ebrahim wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:27:11 AM UTC+1, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Yes, I used to Cygwin previously, but over the years
>>> > brought over to the Windows platform all the tools that
>>> > I valued and used most often -- LaTeX, R, octave,
>>> > programming languages, command line tools, various
>>> > open source stuff, ffmpeg, etc.
>>> 
>>> > So now I have all of these plumbed in productively in Windows.
>>> 
>>> Shows that RMS was right saying that too good support of Windows is
>>> counter-productive: People will use free software, but stay with
>>> the proprietary ecosystem.
>>> 
>> 
>> I think that depends on the goal.  If every FOSS software
>> developer's goal was the death of all proprietary software
>> everywhere, then yes.
>> 
>> But that would be a zero-sum world and somehow I find it hard to see
>> the world as necessarily zero-sum.
>
>How would it be zero sum if all software were to be free?
>

I had in mind the fact that there's nothing wrong with seeking to earn
a living from one's effort.

However, Albert vdH has, I think, stated the case even better.

To quote him:
"The problem with commercial software is that they tend to
conquer a territory (GIF, MS-Word, Flash) and then extort
everybody living in the territory. That is a practice
I as as FOSS author wants to end.

OTOH there is nothing wrong with doing a job that fullfills
a need and get paid for it."


>IIRC Stallman said that supporting free software on Windows didn't help
>free software because Widows users tend not to contribute.  I don't
>think that is universally true, but IME it is a tendency.
>

I'd agree with this.  Guessing at stats, I'd say that Windows users
who contribute are likely in the long-tail (i.e. not in the
mainstream).  While Linux users who who contribute are probably closer
to the median of their user population.

So is it something about Windows users?  Sure --- but I think there
are various factors that lead to these differences --- education,
exposure, ability, community, time, among others.  

And the factors themselves interact.  For example, ability and
education are heavily dependent on access, especially early exposure.
If all of the hardware and software in a school has been donated by
Wintel (or now iPads), students grown up in this environment,
accustomed to consuming content first.  If your working career is in
Winshops, the same occurs, though perhaps in a different way.

Self reinforcement kicks in.  What toolset you know how to use (or
not) shapes working habits and separates people into communities that
then further reinforce ways of thinking about the tools.  If you're a
Windows user, you'll  tend to work in primarily Windows environments,
the people around you use Windows, the tips & tricks you get exposed
to are Windows tips & tricks, you optimise for Windows, and you're
shielded from the culture of roll-your-own, extend it yourself, etc.  

If you're around people who contribute, you'll be more likely to
contribute.  If you know people who roll-their-own, you'll be more
likely to do so.

To change the situation?  Level the playing field?  I think it's a
pretty large order -- economy,  laws,  how capitalism is practiced,
education, living wages...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29276

Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 05:12:30 -0500, Andrew Haley
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Assad Ebrahim <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 7:49:19 PM UTC+1, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>>> Assad Ebrahim wrote:
>>>> > On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:27:11 AM UTC+1, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > Yes, I used to Cygwin previously, but over the years
>>>> > brought over to the Windows platform all the tools that
>>>> > I valued and used most often -- LaTeX, R, octave,
>>>> > programming languages, command line tools, various
>>>> > open source stuff, ffmpeg, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> > So now I have all of these plumbed in productively in Windows.
>>>> 
>>>> Shows that RMS was right saying that too good support of Windows is
>>>> counter-productive: People will use free software, but stay with
>>>> the proprietary ecosystem.
>>> 
>>> I think that depends on the goal.  If every FOSS software
>>> developer's goal was the death of all proprietary software
>>> everywhere, then yes.
>>> 
>>> But that would be a zero-sum world and somehow I find it hard to see
>>> the world as necessarily zero-sum.
>>
>>How would it be zero sum if all software were to be free?
>>
> I had in mind the fact that there's nothing wrong with seeking to earn
> a living from one's effort.

There isn't.

> However, Albert vdH has, I think, stated the case even better.
> 
> To quote him:
> "The problem with commercial software is that they tend to
> conquer a territory (GIF, MS-Word, Flash) and then extort
> everybody living in the territory. That is a practice
> I as as FOSS author wants to end.
> 
> OTOH there is nothing wrong with doing a job that fullfills
> a need and get paid for it."

This is a total non sequitur.

Let me be as clear as I can.  I exist.  I earn a living from writing
software.  All of the software I write is free software.  Free as in
freedom, not as in price.

>>IIRC Stallman said that supporting free software on Windows didn't help
>>free software because Wi[n]dows users tend not to contribute.  I don't
>>think that is universally true, but IME it is a tendency.
> 
> I'd agree with this.  Guessing at stats, I'd say that Windows users
> who contribute are likely in the long-tail (i.e. not in the
> mainstream).  While Linux users who who contribute are probably closer
> to the median of their user population.
> 
> So is it something about Windows users?  Sure --- but I think there
> are various factors that lead to these differences --- education,
> exposure, ability, community, time, among others.  
> 
> And the factors themselves interact.  For example, ability and
> education are heavily dependent on access, especially early exposure.
> If all of the hardware and software in a school has been donated by
> Wintel (or now iPads), students grown up in this environment,
> accustomed to consuming content first.  If your working career is in
> Winshops, the same occurs, though perhaps in a different way.
> 
> Self reinforcement kicks in.  What toolset you know how to use (or
> not) shapes working habits and separates people into communities that
> then further reinforce ways of thinking about the tools.  If you're a
> Windows user, you'll  tend to work in primarily Windows environments,
> the people around you use Windows, the tips & tricks you get exposed
> to are Windows tips & tricks, you optimise for Windows, and you're
> shielded from the culture of roll-your-own, extend it yourself, etc.  

Indeed, and Windows comes without the tools you need to change it.
Wanting something to change is a primary motivation for contributing,
and if you can't change it there's little motivation.

> If you're around people who contribute, you'll be more likely to
> contribute.  If you know people who roll-their-own, you'll be more
> likely to do so.
> 
> To change the situation?  Level the playing field?  I think it's a
> pretty large order -- economy,  laws,  how capitalism is practiced,
> education, living wages...

... More and better free software.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29270

In article <2c393b04-2043-445a-9a65-2fb46c4fbcd9@googlegroups.com>,
Assad Ebrahim  <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>So don't know --- is the inner most desire of most FOSS
>authors the end of commercial software?  or that
>like-minded people really like what they've done and join
>in the journey of discovery that they're on?

The problem with commercial software is that they tend to
conquer a territory (GIF, MS-Word, Flash) and then extort
everybody living in the territory. That is a practice
I as as FOSS author wants to end.

OTOH there is nothing wrong with doing a job that fullfills
a need and get paid for it.

>
>But that's a great quote and provokes some thought in
>any event.

RMS want people to be able to live on non-extorsion territory.

Then there is the natural end-point of economy, where those that
work do that from an inner drive, and that is sufficient for
all to live plenty.

>
>- Assad
>

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29250

On Monday, March 31, 2014 4:10:44 PM UTC-7, Assad Ebrahim wrote:
> If I run GForth in default mode, i.e. with no command line switches, I
> cannot allot more than about 500k cells (2MB) total before getting a
> Dictionary overflow error.

If you are allotting that much memory, then I assume that you are building large data-structures at compile-time. 

In my novice package (http://www.forth.org/novice.html) I have CONCRETE-ALLOCATE that is similar to ALLOCATE except that it works in the dictionary rather than the heap. The advantage here is that FREE and RESIZE can be used on memory blocks that come from either CONCRETE-ALLOCATE or ALLOCATE.
If the memory block was from CONCRETE-ALLOCATE then FREE does nothing (but returns FALSE for success) and RESIZE moves the memory block to the heap and resizes it. 
If the memory block was from ALLOCATE then FREE and RESIZE do what they normally do. 

Sometimes you have data-structures which could be generated either at compile-time or run-time. Generating them at compile-time results in a faster program because it has less to do at run-time, but a bigger program. Generally, you would use ALLOCATE to generate everything at run-time. If your program is too slow, and you find that certain data-structures are pretty common, then you can modify the program to generate those data-structures at compile-time as an optimization. Because FREE and RESIZE both do something that makes sense given a memory block from either CONCRETE-ALLOCATE or ALLOCATE, the change from ALLOCATE to CONCRETE-ALLOCATE doesn't require changing any of the code elsewhere in the program that involves FREE or RESIZE. I do this in my slide-rule program, so you can use this as an example of how it is done.

Also, I have ALLOCATION that, given the address of a memory block from either CONCRETE-ALLOCATE or ALLOCATE, will return its size. ALLOCATION is primarily used by CLONE-NODE that needs to know how big a node is, given its address, in order to allocate a new node of that size and copy over the data from the original node. Note that I tried to have ALLOCATION put into the Forth-200x standard, but Leon Wagner killed that idea without even bothering to read my RfD --- he is not going to accept anything in Forth-200x unless it came from Forth Inc. (except maybe things like N>R and NR> that are trivial to implement). Anton Ertl backed up Leon Wagner's decision in this, by saying that because GLIBC doesn't have ALLOCATION, Forth-200x can't either.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web