Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29767 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-22 03:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 03:02 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-22 09:04 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2014-04-23 15:37 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-24 01:20 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-24 17:24 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-25 00:22 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 00:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-25 05:16 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 10:19 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 09:40 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 15:01 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-25 10:57 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-25 16:58 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-04-26 07:52 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-25 09:01 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:17 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:16 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-23 22:12 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 11:02 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 19:21 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 21:52 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-25 00:27 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 20:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-24 19:40 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 21:57 -0600
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2014-04-25 21:04 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-25 15:57 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 11:49 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-26 10:30 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-27 17:55 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-28 11:33 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-28 20:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-29 07:46 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-28 21:57 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-01 20:59 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-02 07:46 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-02 20:31 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-03 08:26 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-03 19:33 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 03:35 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-04 11:06 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 01:11 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-05 20:45 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-06 12:53 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-05-07 09:59 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:12 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-08 02:05 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-10 23:01 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-05 20:58 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-06 07:16 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-05 20:52 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 01:17 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 11:13 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-06 07:12 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-06 10:57 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-06 17:06 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 07:52 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2014-05-06 17:11 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-06 08:57 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:38 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:56 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 04:10 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... thomas.worthington@london.ac.uk - 2014-05-08 04:42 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 11:17 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:31 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 00:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 02:29 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-07 13:39 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 01:26 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 04:11 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-08 08:34 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 11:04 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 17:28 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 02:55 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-09 10:42 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 19:59 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-09 20:25 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 05:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 22:08 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-12 22:11 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-13 22:37 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-14 04:09 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-05-14 04:44 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 05:05 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-14 20:53 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 01:08 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-18 22:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2014-05-19 09:48 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:50 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-22 00:46 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-19 22:37 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:58 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-21 19:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-22 11:05 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-22 23:19 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-23 11:34 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:44 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 14:20 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-27 10:30 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 19:58 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 07:45 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-28 03:03 -0500
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:36 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-28 23:03 -0400
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-29 11:01 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-30 16:44 +0000
Re: One for Elizabeth... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-29 08:25 -1000
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-21 23:32 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-26 11:15 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-27 19:42 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-27 20:23 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-28 09:14 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-28 16:25 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-29 20:47 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 20:28 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-05-30 22:24 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-30 21:49 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-29 23:40 +0200
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-29 19:47 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-05-08 14:36 +0100
Re: One for Elizabeth... visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-05-08 10:46 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:24 -0700
Re: One for Elizabeth... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2014-05-04 13:46 -0400
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 22:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17e8afc1-60e2-4556-88b7-e5d2de55942c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30118 |
On Monday, May 5, 2014 11:52:25 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > [SwiftForth] is a tool for a "Marine Corps" (which, at least in the US, implies a > fairly elite, small team of very highly trained and motivated people, > who are expected to undertake difficult challenges over a short time > frame) as opposed to an Army (large mass of people of all skill levels, > many "average Joes" who can take and hold a position). Both kinds of > projects exist. Personally, I have always preferred the first kind. I think that it is incredibly offensive for a sleazy salesperson to compare her company's customers to the Marine Corp, and to also say that they are a step up from the Army. At least half of the people in America are ex-military, have family members in the military, or just have respect for the military. So, good job Elizabeth Rather! You offended half of the American population! You also offended half of the American population by supporting gay Passaniti and denouncing me for being homophobic. But, fortunately for you, this was the same half both times --- so you still have the liberal half on your side. As an experiment, I let Elizabeth Rather's self-comparison to the Marine Corp slide for a few days --- I wanted to see if anybody spoke up about this --- but the silence has been deafening. This indicates that Forth-200x is a cult --- it is absolutely taboo to criticize the cult leader, either for gross social misbehavior (such as her self-comparison to the Marine Corp) or for gross technical failure (such as her statement indicating that general-purpose data-structures are impossible to implement). Forth-200x is a cult --- all of this self-righteous moral outrage against me comes off as being ludicrous juxtaposed against the deafening silence from you when your leader says something stupid and/or offensive. I really want there to be a new Forth standard --- and I think that it is crucial that Forth Inc. should banned from this new Forth standard --- nobody in the real world will ever take Forth seriously so long as Elizabeth Rather continues to be involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 04:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2c98c92-cf96-4d4e-bef6-3153f830d432@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30175 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 7:56:54 AM UTC+2, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > > At least half of the people in America are ex-military, have family members in the military, or just have respect for the military. So, good job Elizabeth Rather! You offended half of the American population! Keep calm and be a hero -- Ker2x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thomas.worthington@london.ac.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 04:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <671284e9-993d-444b-b922-257daee3835d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30175 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 6:56:54 AM UTC+1, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Monday, May 5, 2014 11:52:25 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > > [SwiftForth] is a tool for a "Marine Corps" (which, at least in the US, implies a > > > fairly elite, small team of very highly trained and motivated people, > > > who are expected to undertake difficult challenges over a short time > > > frame) as opposed to an Army (large mass of people of all skill levels, > > > many "average Joes" who can take and hold a position). Both kinds of > > > projects exist. Personally, I have always preferred the first kind. > > > > I think that it is incredibly offensive for a sleazy salesperson to compare her company's customers to the Marine Corp, and to also say that they are a step up from the Army. > > > > At least half of the people in America are ex-military, have family members in the military, or just have respect for the military. So, good job Elizabeth Rather! You offended half of the American population! You also offended half of the American population by supporting gay Passaniti and denouncing me for being homophobic. But, fortunately for you, this was the same half both times --- so you still have the liberal half on your side. > > > > As an experiment, I let Elizabeth Rather's self-comparison to the Marine Corp slide for a few days --- I wanted to see if anybody spoke up about this --- but the silence has been deafening. This indicates that Forth-200x is a cult --- it is absolutely taboo to criticize the cult leader, either for gross social misbehavior (such as her self-comparison to the Marine Corp) or for gross technical failure (such as her statement indicating that general-purpose data-structures are impossible to implement). Forth-200x is a cult --- all of this self-righteous moral outrage against me comes off as being ludicrous juxtaposed against the deafening silence from you when your leader says something stupid and/or offensive. > > > > I really want there to be a new Forth standard --- and I think that it is crucial that Forth Inc. should banned from this new Forth standard --- nobody in the real world will ever take Forth seriously so long as Elizabeth Rather continues to be involved. You're living in a world of your own, mate. Of the people I talk to who have heard of Forth, *none* of them have any idea who Elizabeth is let alone Stephen. You're paranoid, frankly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 11:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkg76h$871$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30187 |
On 5/8/2014 7:42 AM, thomas.worthington@london.ac.uk wrote: > > You're living in a world of your own, mate. Of the people I talk to who have heard of Forth, *none* of them have any idea who Elizabeth is let alone Stephen. You're paranoid, frankly. So if he is living in a world of his own, do you think he will hear anything you say? Threads like these continue forever because every day just one more person feels they have to respond to the ravings of yet another Internet lunatic. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 00:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80195785-9d04-49e0-b660-fc14b39fc30c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30116 |
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 1:16:59 AM UTC-4, AKK wrote: > > Nevertheless "it's the peoples". Although Forth is an excellent tool for > excellent programmers for some small applications, it is stupid to use > it when you have to rely on "average John Doe service engineers", and > require them to learn and understand Forth before they can do their job. I am sure you have a masters degree in computing or some equivalent. If you would be an "average John Doe service engineer", you wouldn't have written this. Fact is, the "average John Doe service engineer" is able to learn to use Forth in a few hours, and then he is able to service his engineering programs - as long as they are properly written in Forth. But there is a hook: Up to now the "average John Doe service engineer" needs the software guy if he has a problem. With Forth he doesn't need the software guy for service. Software guys don't like this. And may be the Unions don't like this either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de7ea5c0-8b9e-4b9d-98dd-0a55c7ad6200@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30115 |
On Monday, May 5, 2014 11:58:34 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > > The whole philosophy of Forth revolves around using minimal hardware > resources, including machinery and culture that gets people to "redefine > the problem" to suppress unnecessary features. > The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have another philosophy of Forth: For me Forth is a disruptive programming language, a different approach on programming - it is not a variation of other programming languages. For me Forth is the programming language which stripped off all unnecessary attachment and distraction leaving pure logic to work with. Any other programming language is a repeating exercise in using the same commands again and again - that makes a familiar looking structure, even if you don't understand the great picture about what's really going on. With Forth nearly every word has a problem specific meaning, and, if the program is well written, it is easy to understand what the program is doing, even to non-programmers. Forth allowed me to make a living self-employed for a quarter century, allowed me to write software and firmware which I never could have done in any other programming language - in former times with microprocessors, nowadays with programming for Windows. Of course there are a dozen other programming languages which I could have used, but what for? I don't need to learn all these languages to please somebody or to be "up to date" with mainstream programming. If I have a problem to solve, it is possible with Forth. I do my taxes with two pages of Forth program, I generate web pages with a Forth program, I wrote my own IDE for microprocessor programming. I even finished a program which allows making GUIs easier than with VB. That's all what I need to do my job. Of course I don't like to leave my tracks. Nobody else does. I use Forth for programming, making my life easy. Others use other programming languages. Who cares?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 02:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xeh067x8w.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30138 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > Of course there are a dozen other programming languages which I could > have used, but what for? I don't need to learn all these languages to > please somebody or to be "up to date" with mainstream programming. A language is interesting if it changes the way you think about programming. By that standard, Forth is definitely interesting. But there are other interesting languages too. So programmers who only know one interesting language are probably missing out on a lot of programming enjoyment. It's like being a musician who has only heard one kind of music.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21e9122a-b765-43dd-9290-5212e3a28a1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30146 |
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 5:29:19 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > > A language is interesting if it changes the way you think about > programming. By that standard, Forth is definitely interesting. That's totally true! Forth changed not only my thinking about programming, but my programming habits, too. It's a great feature of Forth that, once a word is properly defined and tested, it can be trusted always. It always will work. > But there are other interesting languages too. I know that there are other programming languages, too, and some of them are interesting. But why should I learn all of them? Before meeting Forth I learned FORTRAN and BASIC, wrote different assembly languages, even for HP9845 computers to speed up BASIC for a customer, and I taught 8080 microprocessor programming. But I never used microprocessors of the 8080 family, because for me this was waste of time. I listened to the stories of failures and problems 8080 programmers had to deal with. So I stayed with the 65xx family until recently, when ARM with Forth was available. When I discovered Forth, I switched over to Forth, because programming was much easier then for me. All programming languages have commands, decisions, and subroutines. But Forth leaves all garbage behind. Why shall I write "Gosub MySubroutine" instead of "MySubroutine" only? I have the feeling that not many people recognize the elegance of Forth. > So programmers who only know > one interesting language are probably missing out on a lot of > programming enjoyment. Or vice versa. I enjoy using Forth and I am not missing all the troubles of other programming languages. I am listening to other peoples problems, and I stay with what is without problems for me. > It's like being a musician who has only heard one kind of music. Sorry, I have to correct you: It's like being a musician who only plays one instrument. Don't confuse instrument and music! As a musician it is not necessary to play all the different instruments of an orchestra. Of course it's nice, but not necessary at all. On the contrary, most virtuosos are famous for perfectly playing one instrument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 01:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xy4ycd6bx.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30167 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > I know that there are other programming languages, too, and some of > them are interesting. But why should I learn all of them? Not all of them, just the interesting ones (or some of them). Then again, maybe programming languages aren't your thing--that's fine too. > FORTRAN and BASIC, wrote different assembly languages Those aren't interesting once you're past the first one or two of them ;-). For something interesting, I'd say try Lisp or Scheme if Python isn't your thing. >> It's like being a musician who has only heard one kind of music. > Sorry, I have to correct you: > It's like being a musician who only plays one instrument. > Don't confuse instrument and music! Unfortunately the analogy isn't perfect. You receive the music in the form of a printed score. There is no way to listen to someone else performing it. The only way to hear it is to play it yourself, so being able to hear it and being able to play it are the same thing, if that makes the idea clearer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 04:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b076a40-c35c-4d60-b502-3c7c7903410f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30179 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 4:26:26 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > visualforth.com writes: > >> It's like being a musician who has only heard one kind of music. > > Sorry, I have to correct you: > > It's like being a musician who only plays one instrument. > > Don't confuse instrument and music! > > Unfortunately the analogy isn't perfect. You receive the music in the > form of a printed score. There is no way to listen to someone else > performing it. The only way to hear it is to play it yourself, so being > able to hear it and being able to play it are the same thing, if that > makes the idea clearer. This is odd. The printed score is the software to generate music, so to speak. There are compilers available which are able to generate the intended tunes. The printed score is a universal programming language, fixed, not extensible, valid now for centuries. Still, why shall I learn other programming languages? Of course it is possible to introduce concepts of other programming languages, that's what Forth is good for. Forth may be used as the Chameleon of programming languages. To incorporate features of other programming languages, it is enough to get the idea, I don't have to learn this language. The English language adapts parts of other languages,too. One famous example is "Kindergarten". You don't need to learn German to use this word and/or to understand what it means. As I mentioned before, most virtuosos are famous for perfectly playing one instrument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x7g5wz3ld.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30186 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > Still, why shall I learn other programming languages? Well, for one thing it's fun. For another, if you think of yourself as primarily a software person, it will probably widen your horizons and make you more effective. If you're primarily a hardware person (that may be the case with you) then effectiveness is a less convincing rationale, since Forth seems to do a good job fulfilling the needs of certain styles of hardware development. In that case maybe it really is all you need. > Of course it is possible to introduce concepts of other programming > languages, that's what Forth is good for. ... To incorporate features > of other programming languages, it is enough to get the idea, I don't > have to learn this language. That is not something you can really say persuasively without experience in those other languages. The best way to "get the idea" of another language (if it is interesting) is generally to actually use it for a while.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 11:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14ab9bf3-6ffc-4965-b446-ac697f0a5d66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30194 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:34:38 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > visualforth.com writes: > > > Still, why shall I learn other programming languages? > > Well, for one thing it's fun. For another, if you think of yourself as > primarily a software person, it will probably widen your horizons and > make you more effective. > > If you're primarily a hardware person (that may be the case with you) > then effectiveness is a less convincing rationale, since Forth seems to > do a good job fulfilling the needs of certain styles of hardware > development. In that case maybe it really is all you need. Congratulations, you got it! My main professional education was electrician at a machine tooling company, later I studied Telecommunications engineering, the hardware part of it. There haven't been any computers or microprocessors at that time. When I saw the first microprocessor, my vision was that the time of developing PCBs with different logic again and again is over - only one PCB with a microprocessor and I/O, everything else will be done in software (called Firmware nowadays) - saving a huge bunch of hardware parts, making the hardware cheaper. So Forth was - and is - the right tool for me, and I am sure I am not the only one. I am a hardware guy, even if I am writing PC software now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <453bebff-d3ed-43bd-a7fe-21244a98e5d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30194 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 11:34:38 AM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote: > visualforth.com writes: > > > Still, why shall I learn other programming languages? > > Well, for one thing it's fun. For another, if you think of yourself as > primarily a software person, it will probably widen your horizons and > make you more effective. Paul, Congratulations again, you made some other points! My memory is focused on the here and now, so it took me a while until I got the message... I consider myself as a hardware and software person, because in the embedded systems realm a responsible engineer should be firm in both. And yes, having had a project in Visual Basic for Lucent Technologies fourteen years ago, widened my horizons - using Forth style programming in Visual Basic made me more effective than following the usual Basic style. But this still is valid: > > Of course it is possible to introduce concepts of other programming > > languages, that's what Forth is good for. ... To incorporate features > > of other programming languages, it is enough to get the idea, I don't > > have to learn this language. I never really learned Visual Basic. My twenty-five year old knowledge of BASIC was enough to deal with it. And for complicated stuff there was somebody whom I could ask. But nevertheless, after a while programming Visual Basic was boring, I was yearning for Forth, hoping that there may be a Visual Forth some day. > That is not something you can really say persuasively without experience > in those other languages. The best way to "get the idea" of another > language (if it is interesting) is generally to actually use it for a > while. Yes and no - I used Visual Basic for one project only. So a yes for having some experience, and a no for using it for a while. Anyway, you made a point there. With this experience I "got the idea", and when I discovered that I was waiting in vain, I started my own VisualFORTH, based on the Win32Forth App "ForthForm". This App was useful for a Windows programmer using Win32Forth, but I couldn't deal with it, I am not a Windows programmer, and for myself I consider it is not worth to learn Windows programming. ForthForm needed 249 changes and additions in 24 files, then VisualFORTH was ready to use - that was four years ago - took me a while to remember today. Our conversation showed that it is important to have experience in different programming languages to be able to add excellent features of other programming languages to Forth. Some people did this, like Julian van Noble with his FORmula TRANslator, overcoming the reverse polish notation. Now the catch: Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone (or some) of our c.l.f. participants who have knowledge and experience in other programming languages, too, would offer their favorite programming features as a loadable addition to Forth? Wouldn't that be awesome?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 02:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17f179c6-84b4-4873-b1e6-fc8db7019442@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30211 |
On Friday, May 9, 2014 2:28:02 AM UTC+2, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote: > > Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone (or some) of our c.l.f. participants who have knowledge and experience in other programming languages, too, would offer their favorite programming features as a loadable addition to Forth? Wouldn't that be awesome? I don't much about forth but : Since forth is "almost" homoiconic i guess improvement would be considered as just a "syntaxic sugar" or a simple library. Real improvement will be a the compiler level, only gforth is opensource, afaik. eg : - openMP support - autovectoring - autoparallelization (like array manipulation in fortran) (yes, all my suggestion are about high performance stuff, because i'm a number cruncher) -- Ker2x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc592f57-3adf-4cc9-a364-87f4b404ad5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30214 |
On Friday, May 9, 2014 5:55:01 AM UTC-4, Laurent Laborde wrote: > On Friday, May 9, 2014 2:28:02 AM UTC+2, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote: > > > Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone (or some) of our c.l.f. participants who have knowledge and experience in other programming languages, too, would offer their favorite programming features as a loadable addition to Forth? Wouldn't that be awesome? > > Real improvement will be a the compiler level, only gforth is opensource, afaik. > > eg : > - openMP support > - autovectoring > - autoparallelization (like array manipulation in fortran) > > (yes, all my suggestion are about high performance stuff, because i'm a number cruncher) That's a great idea, Laurent! I am sure you are not the only number cruncher who would like such extensions. Who could do such a work? Do you know any concepts about openMP support, autovectoring or autoparallelization?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 19:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xfvkiwd7e.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30211 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone (or some) of our > c.l.f. participants who have knowledge and experience in other > programming languages, too, would offer their favorite programming > features as a loadable addition to Forth? Wouldn't that be awesome? There's some approaches to programming that are worth understanding but that are not what I'd consider to be in the Forth spirit. Putting them into Forth (if that's even feasible) would therefore probably not get much uptake. Despite that, lots of things have been tried (OOP, static types, garbage collection, transactional memory etc.) with some success at least on an experimental basis. I guess that's an accomplishment, but it's sort of like capturing an exotic animal and bringing it home to a zoo. Yes one can learn some things at the zoo, but it's probably more informative to actually visit the animal's native habitat and study it ni the niche where it evolved and uses its characteristics to the fullest. Historically the language most conducive to adding features from other languages and making them "native" has been Lisp. IMHO, Lisp is interesting in ways that Visual Basic is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 20:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53991bb7-91d9-4148-8c18-6573bb47f093@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30211 |
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:28:02 PM UTC-7, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote: > Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone (or some) of our c.l.f. participants who have knowledge and experience in other programming languages, too, would offer their favorite programming features as a loadable addition to Forth? Wouldn't that be awesome? Quotations can't be done in ANS-Forth, or Forth-200x as it currently stands. This really has to be done at the language-design level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f475fad-3a88-4feb-b95f-9dee37afd86a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30235 |
On Saturday, May 10, 2014 5:25:29 AM UTC+2, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:28:02 PM UTC-7, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote: > > > Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone (or some) of our c.l.f. participants who have knowledge and experience in other programming languages, too, would offer their favorite programming features as a loadable addition to Forth? Wouldn't that be awesome? > > > > Quotations can't be done in ANS-Forth, or Forth-200x as it currently stands. This really has to be done at the language-design level. Quotation like in Lisp quote ? Mmmm, that's a shame really. No high-order functions ? no lazy evaluation ? -- Ker2x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 22:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e091161c-c492-4e79-a50d-a366345031a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30287 |
On Sunday, May 11, 2014 7:24:22 AM UTC-5, Laurent Laborde wrote: > Quotation like in Lisp quote ? No. QUOTE in Lisp just takes a list as a literal list, rather than as code. RPL and Factor and Retro have something similar. Quotations, here, only produce an XT. > Mmmm, that's a shame really. Why do you put any weight to anything he says? > No high-order functions ? How would this follow? Forth has EXECUTE . It can therefore have words that EXECUTE anything, and obviously also has words that produce what EXECUTE would accept as an argument. > no lazy evaluation ? *Snort*. Forth doesn't have type inference? Forth only has strict semantics? Man, without uniqueness types *or* monads, I don't even know how I/O is even possible in Forth. How does one 'hello world'? -- Julian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 22:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lkrde7$g15$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30235 |
On 10/05/2014 04:25, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:28:02 PM UTC-7, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote: >> Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone (or some) of our c.l.f. participants who have knowledge and experience in other programming languages, too, would offer their favorite programming features as a loadable addition to Forth? Wouldn't that be awesome? > > Quotations can't be done in ANS-Forth, or Forth-200x as it currently stands.. This really has to be done at the language-design level. > If that's the case please explain why Knuth's Man or Boy works in ANS Forth, see Stephen Pelc in https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/comp.lang.forth/x8hUOj1MetU/tSHs6EMudLEJ -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web