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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-13 22:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f983a79b-b505-4e71-a658-bc677cd3522f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30318 |
On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:11:35 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 10/05/2014 04:25, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > 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 In that thread, Pelc said: On Friday, July 20, 2012 4:12:21 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > There is a Forth example by Gerry Jackson which provides an > example of lambda definitions. This example is in ANS Forth and > runs on a range of systems. > www.qlikz.org/forth/lambda.zip The link provided doesn't work, so I couldn't download the code and examine it. Are you the "Gerry Jackson" that he mentions? Can you make the code available again? What I said was true --- ANS-Forth doesn't provide any way for the quotation to access the locals in the creator function --- all that can be done in ANS-Forth is Payson-faked quotations that are just syntactic sugar for :NONAME. I'm guessing that in your code your "local variables" are actually fields in a struct that is on the heap and you pass the pointer to the struct around with the xt of the closure, and also pass it into the closure as a parameter. My working definitions are that a closure has the local variables on the heap, and a quotation has the local variables on a locals' stack (usually the return stack). This technique is routinely done in C, and it can be done in ANS-Forth too. You are not going to have syntax for your struct-based locals that is at all comparable to normal syntax for locals. This technique is incredibly ugly in C, and it would be in ANS-Forth too --- this is just a clunky work-around that is done in languages that lack quotations (in 2014, this is mostly just old-school languages such as C and ANS-Forth, as most of the modern languages have either quotations or closures). I have said at least a dozen times that I don't want closures and I consider them to be a bad idea. For one thing, they are an order of magnitude slower than stack-based locals; such gross inefficiency is going to limit Forth to being a toy-language and preclude it from ever being used in application programming. Closures are for scripting languages in which speed is not a concern (most or all scripting languages are also dynamic-OOP, which is another speed killer). The only advantage of closures over quotations is that the closure can outlive the creator function. As I have said though, this is a solution to a non-problem, as there is no point in doing this, and :NONAME already does this anyway. If your code is good, I can put it in the novice package. My original intention was that the novice package would contain other people's contributions, but so far it is just me (except for CF.4TH). Struct-based locals are science-fair programming in that they have a gee-whiz aspect, but they aren't useful practically --- I already have coroutines though, that are also science-fair programming, so I don't mind --- I just put this kind of code in its own file so the user doesn't have to load it unless he wants to play with it. In that thread, Pelc said: On Friday, July 20, 2012 4:12:21 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > Maybe we first need a convincing example of the usefulness of > quotations and closures. > > Aside from looking obscure and clever and satisfying the "[x] > can do it, why not Forth?" test, what on earth does this buy you? > > What does a closure achieve that cannot be achieved by other > scoping and persistence mechanisms such as a class and an object > with heap allocation? This is just painful to read! He doesn't know any more about general-purpose data-structures than Elizabeth Rather does, which is nothing. He considers quotations to be "obscure and clever" (what I call "science-fair"), and he really doesn't know what they are for. It blows my mind that he can utter bozosities such as this with a straight face, and simultaneously expect people like me to consider him to be a leader --- I can't imagine any programmer continuing to take Forth-200x seriously after reading that statement --- this is why I consider Forth-200x to be a cult; because making sense is not important and it is just about loyalty. In VFX Pelc has a daily quote --- in my language I will too, and all the quotes will bozosities such as this from Forth-200x committee members --- I will call it the "Bozo File" and it should be good for a laugh. I don't know why he uses the terms "class" and "object" --- as far as I can tell, he is referring to what I described above, and what I assume that you implemented --- this has nothing to do with OOP and is routinely done in C. I didn't read the whole thread --- just that one post from Pelc that you pointed out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 04:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xfubmmj16zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #30349 |
On Wed, 14 May 2014 01:37:23 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm guessing that in your code your "local variables" are actually > fields in a struct that is on the heap and you pass the pointer to the > struct around with the xt of the closure, and also pass it into the > closure as a parameter. My working definitions are that a closure has > the local variables on the heap, and a quotation has the local variables > on a locals' stack (usually the return stack). This technique is > routinely done in C, and it can be done in ANS-Forth too. You are not > going to have syntax for your struct-based locals that is at all > comparable to normal syntax for locals. This technique is incredibly > ugly in C, and it would be in ANS-Forth too --- this is just a clunky > work-around that is done in languages that lack quotations (in 2014, > this is mostly just old-school languages such as C and ANS-Forth, as > most of the modern languages have either quotations or closures). > IIRC, your future Forth already has like a half-dozen stacks, so why don't you just add one more for locals? E.g., you've mentioned all of these so far: "single-cell" data "double-cell" data and strings "low precision" floating-point "high precision" floating-point return stack Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 04:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f7ca63d-8db5-4a81-878a-e1248f8d4c3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30353 |
Am Mittwoch, 14. Mai 2014 10:09:48 UTC+2 schrieb Rod Pemberton: > IIRC, your future Forth already has like a half-dozen stacks, > > so why don't you just add one more for locals? > Well, that was exactly my solution for the locals problem. By adding a stack exclusively for locals, you get another dimension of freedom. Since I'm using already 64 bit addresses, I've plenty of room to place such a stack. In C everything is mangled into 1 stack and you operate on a very strict processing corset. Chuck's genial idea was to divide this stack for everything into a parameter and a return stack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 05:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e25c8470-f0a3-4ae4-a40c-b6654433b70d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30362 |
On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 12:44:29 UTC+1, Stefan Mauerhofer wrote: > Well, that was exactly my solution for the locals problem. > By adding a stack exclusively for locals, you get another > dimension of freedom. Me too. http://turboforth.net/locals.html Once you have a locals stack it's very simple to implement. And I can still use >R ... R> if I want, there's no complication with accessing locals in DO...LOOPs etc. All the complexity goes away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-14 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfa40016-4828-4a0d-86a6-49566a08da83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30367 |
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:05:27 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote: > On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 12:44:29 UTC+1, Stefan Mauerhofer wrote: > > Well, that was exactly my solution for the locals problem. > > By adding a stack exclusively for locals, you get another > > dimension of freedom. > > Me too. http://turboforth.net/locals.html > > Once you have a locals stack it's very simple to implement. And I can still use >R ... R> if I want, there's no complication with accessing locals in DO...LOOPs etc. All the complexity goes away. Sure! Modern processors have 16 registers, so it is possible to dedicate a register to a locals stack. Mark's beloved TMS9900 processor was one of only a very few processors that had 16 registers in the 1980s, and definitely the least expensive one. Now TI has the MSP430 that also has 16 registers --- other than the 32-bit x86, there aren't any modern processors that have only 8 registers. As Rod pointed out, I have separate stacks for single-precision and double-precision integers, rather that mix them together on the same stack is done in ANS-Forth. A lot of ANS-Forth design decisions are a response to hardware limitations that haven't existed in 20 or 30 years. BTW: I don't have separate stacks for single and double precision floating point --- I only have one floating point stack --- I don't recall having ever said that I would have two float stacks, and if I did it was a mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-15 01:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ll1i4m$cpv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30391 |
On 5/14/2014 11:53 PM, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:05:27 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote: >> On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 12:44:29 UTC+1, Stefan Mauerhofer wrote: >>> Well, that was exactly my solution for the locals problem. >>> By adding a stack exclusively for locals, you get another >>> dimension of freedom. >> >> Me too. http://turboforth.net/locals.html >> >> Once you have a locals stack it's very simple to implement. And I can still use >R ... R> if I want, there's no complication with accessing locals in DO...LOOPs etc. All the complexity goes away. > > Sure! Modern processors have 16 registers, so it is possible to dedicate a register to a locals stack. Mark's beloved TMS9900 processor was one of only a very few processors that had 16 registers in the 1980s, and definitely the least expensive one. Now TI has the MSP430 that also has 16 registers --- other than the 32-bit x86, there aren't any modern processors that have only 8 registers. Is the GA144 not a modern processor? I believe it has less than 8 registers. The hardware stacks are only 8 elements deep in the circular part with another register for the return stack and two for the data stack. Oh, you mean processors that are actually used in designs... -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-18 22:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <990a7904-9185-4a15-b4df-431ff5748e09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30349 |
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:37:23 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:11:35 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > > On 10/05/2014 04:25, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > > 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 > > In that thread, Pelc said: > On Friday, July 20, 2012 4:12:21 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > There is a Forth example by Gerry Jackson which provides an > > example of lambda definitions. This example is in ANS Forth and > > runs on a range of systems. > > www.qlikz.org/forth/lambda.zip > > The link provided doesn't work, so I couldn't download the code and examine it. Are you the "Gerry Jackson" that he mentions? Can you make the code available again? I'm still interested in seeing your code. I speculated that your "local variables" were actually fields in a struct stored on the heap, and that the pointer to this struct gets passed around along with the xt of the "quotation" that needs access. I'm still interested in putting your code in the novice package. I could write code like this myself, but it would be better if I used your code as you actually care about it, whereas I see it as useless "science-fair" programming. For comparison purposes, it would be helpful if you could implement a linked-list with an EACH function that is comparable to mine but uses your system with the struct on the heap. A recent trend I've noticed is that people will post non-working code that they claim comes from my novice package, but which they just fabricated themselves. Both Albert van der Horst and Julian Fondren have done this. It is a rather blatant lie, as anybody can download my novice package and see that my code is not what they posted, and that it does work. As I said though, this is just a demonstration of loyalty to the cult, so having it found out to be a lie doesn't diminish its value as such. I would never do such a thing however! If you provide your code to me, I will only put it into the novice package with your permission and I won't sabotage it. > In that thread, Pelc said: > On Friday, July 20, 2012 4:12:21 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > Maybe we first need a convincing example of the usefulness of > > quotations and closures. > > > Aside from looking obscure and clever and satisfying the "[x] > > can do it, why not Forth?" test, what on earth does this buy you? > > > What does a closure achieve that cannot be achieved by other > > scoping and persistence mechanisms such as a class and an object > > with heap allocation? Well, I read through that entire thread, and I found this gem earlier in the thread: On Monday, July 16, 2012 4:41:06 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > Elizabeth said: > >> Um, yeah. Aside from looking obscure & clever and satisfying the > >> "[x] can do it, why not Forth?" test, what on earth does this buy > >> you? > > Brilliant! I shall quote you on that. So, the declaration of ignorance that I found "painful" to read, was actually Elizabeth Rather's words being parroted by Stephen Pelc. I should have known! This is really strong evidence for Forth-200x being a cult --- only in a cult can the leader say that she doesn't know what on Earth technology is for, and have her followers call this "brilliant" and go on to parrot her word-for-word. Everybody is ignorant on a wide variety of subjects. What distinguishes an ignoramus however, is that the ignoramus is proud of being ignorant. The ignoramus believes that his or her ignorance of a subject proves that the subject is useless. By declaring ignorance of a subject, the ignoramus places him or herself above the great many people who have invested time and effort in learning the subject, effectively saying their their time and effort was wasted because the subject is useless anyway. Elizabeth Rather is an ignoramus. She has surrounded herself with sycophants who say that her ignorance is "brilliant." For the most part, these are novice-level programmers who don't want to invest any time and effort in learning more about programming --- by joining the Forth-200x cult, they can instantly promote themselves into expert-level status, with zero effort. This degrades people such as myself however, because when I tell people that I program in Forth they just roll their eyes and say: "Oh, you're a member of Elizabeth Rather's cult --- a total ignoramus!" I never signed up to be a member of any cult however, and I'm not a novice-level programmer --- I'm at least intermediate-level, I think. In the thread about quotations, Pelc said: > >It's a much cleaner way of creating words like DOES> and ACTIVATE that > >have historically been implemented by doing very non-portable things > >with the return stack. It gives the Forth programmer an entitlement > >to do something that has only been possible for the implementer. > > Most of us can see the point of quotations in generating "kewl > notations". Quotations as nested definitions have been discussed > from time to time for 20 years or more. However, nobody has > convinced me that they are required. "kewl" is a spelling that Passaniti used routinely. Isn't this purely homosexual terminology? Outside of comp.lang.forth, I've never known any straight person to use this word. Can anybody define this word and give an example of it being used without gay overtones? Getting back to the subject of Elizabeth Rather the cult leader, we have this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/EgdU0DWt8Ro%5B1-25-false%5D Here Elizabeth Rather explains that she doesn't know C, that she thinks that her ignorance of C puts her above all of the C programmers in the world. She also says that she wrote an article (presumably for a magazine, although she doesn't say where the article was published) in which she compared C and Forth. Brilliant! On Friday, May 9, 2014 4:21:09 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 5/9/14 9:30 AM, rickman wrote: > > On 5/9/2014 3:19 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> Maybe all the other folks in this conversation are good at C, but I am > >> not, and I know quite a few excellent Forth programmers without much C > >> experience. > > > Saying you are not "good" at C and that you could not read C code enough > > to understand it are two different things. Is that what you are saying, > > that you can't read C code? > > That is essentially correct. I have read K&R and some papers, and some > years ago was assigned to write a Forth/C comparison article, which I > did in conjunction with someone with C experience. To the extent that I > once spent time programming other languages (multiple assemblers, > Fortran, COBOL, and an Algol variant called Neliac) I can guess some > things, but in terms of understanding what's really going on and why > it's done that way, no. > > C is about the same age as Forth. When C came along, I was deeply > involved in Forth, and never had an incentive to learn C. Everyone I met > who was a C programmer learning Forth told me how much easier Forth was > for getting results, which was a continuing disincentive :-) I can easily find abundant other examples of Elizabeth Rather proudly declaring her ignorance of a subject, and offering this ignorance as proof that the subject is useless. ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are a cult! This is what most everybody said a quarter of a century ago (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth compiler, he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language."). At the time, I didn't believe this, and I wouldn't have persevered in Forth if I had believed it --- now I consider the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x standards to be a cult however --- I still consider Forth to be a programming language however (I distinguish between Forth the language and ANS-Forth the standard, with the latter being a screwed-up offshoot of the former).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-19 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5ecab74-52b7-4f90-8a59-a47b5f1aad6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30456 |
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are a cult! This is what most everybody said a quarter >of a century ago (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth >compiler, he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language."). At the >time, I didn't believe this, and I wouldn't have persevered in Forth if I had >believed it --- now I consider the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x standards to be a >cult however --- I still consider Forth to be a programming language however (I >distinguish between Forth the language and ANS-Forth the standard, with the >latter being a screwed-up offshoot of the former). I'm not an expert in neither religion, programming languages nor philosophy. It is clear to me that Forth- as it comes from Chuck Moore- is a search for truth in simplicity, a philosophy of programming. I think it's disingenuous to call forth a religion, as all religions are philosophies, but not all philosophies are religions. Ms. Rather is an important person in the history of Forth. It may be that she is a Nathaniel Brandon to Chuck Moore's Ayn Rand. Objectivism is likely not the best Forth metaphor. The Cynics of ancient Greece may be appropriate now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-21 19:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <abf89d4f-166d-4f3e-9a49-e0ad73710945@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30460 |
On Monday, May 19, 2014 9:48:26 AM UTC-7, Whammo wrote: > On Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > > ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are a cult! This is what most everybody said a quarter >of a century ago (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth >compiler, he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language."). At the >time, I didn't believe this, and I wouldn't have persevered in Forth if I had >believed it --- now I consider the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x standards to be a >cult however --- I still consider Forth to be a programming language however (I >distinguish between Forth the language and ANS-Forth the standard, with the >latter being a screwed-up offshoot of the former). > I'm not an expert in neither religion, programming languages nor philosophy. > It is clear to me that Forth- as it comes from Chuck Moore- is a search for truth in simplicity, a philosophy of programming. > I think it's disingenuous to call forth a religion, as all religions are philosophies, but not all philosophies are religions. > Ms. Rather is an important person in the history of Forth. It may be that she is a Nathaniel Brandon to Chuck Moore's Ayn Rand. > Objectivism is likely not the best Forth metaphor. Well, I said: "cult" --- it was Philippe Kahn who said: "religion." A religion does have an underpinning philosophy, but a cult typically does not --- a cult just tells its members that in exchange for their loyalty they get to be God's Chosen People (woo hoo!). The comparison of Elizabeth Rather to Nathaniel Brandon is pretty good, as she is mostly a dealer in self-esteem. It is possible that Charles Moore fantasizes about being John Galt (lots of guys fantasize about being super-heroes), but I doubt that he believes in Objectivism --- he is intelligent, and two minutes of sober thinking is enough to reveal the gaping flaws in Objectivism as a real-world system. In "Atlas Shrugged," John Galt built an engine on a completely new design in his spare time using cast-off parts. That is not really the way that technology gets developed. You need some capital! Testra didn't pay very well, and I had to live in my van because I couldn't afford to rent an apartment, but they did pay me --- I wouldn't have written MFX for free. Also, you can't totally go your own way. PolyForth originally didn't provide access to the OS. The whole disk was a big random-access device of 1024-byte blocks. If the programmer wanted files, he had to write his own FAT or something like it. Who really has time for that nonsense? If you are going to have any productivity, you can't write every program entirely from scratch --- in the real world, you have to produce programs fairly quickly if you are going to be a professional. > The Cynics of ancient Greece may be appropriate now. Your analogies are getting more obscure rather than less... Still though, you may be the only person on comp.lang.forth who knows anything about philosophy at all, so I liked your post. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-22 00:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xf8vkhj86zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #30553 |
On Wed, 21 May 2014 22:50:48 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > In "Atlas Shrugged," [...] I never read it. People tell me I'd like it. Does it mention Forth? > In "Atlas Shrugged," John Galt built an engine on a completely new > design in his spare time using cast-off parts. That is not really the > way that technology gets developed. What? It isn't? With engines, you can do that even to this day. For example, VW Bug cylinders and heads combined with Chevy 454ci big-block rods and pistons. It just requires a custom block, most of which could just be welded together steel plates. E.g., EMPI makes VW Bug crankshafts with Chevy rod journals, allowing you to use Chevy rods and pistons, which costs about $250 USD. This allows for increased bore and stroke, and longer rod-to-stroke ratios. E.g., Pauter Machine makes high performance air-cooled four-cylinder VW Beetle clone engine block which uses Chevrolet big-block V8 connecting rods and pistons. They also make VW cylinder heads which use Chevy big-block springs, valves, and rockers. Pauter Machine - race engine http://pauter.com/parts/super-pro/ 215ci 980HP (3.5l 730kW) methanol four-cylinder turbo-charged air cooled ~$20K USD. I've not seen an engine with Harley Davidson motorcycle cylinders, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Professional Harley racing engines are produced for the drag strip. E.g., S&S Cycle makes pro stock air-cooled cylinders for HD motorcycle engines with bores up to about 5 inches (127 mm). They make 167 ci (2.74l) motors which is 4.8 inches (122 mm) of bore and 4.375 inches (111 mm) of stroke. So, most of the parts are probably out there for such a combination. > You need some capital! Money always helps. Of course, if you're spending over $1K USD on an engine, you're into racing engines and you might as well go really big: Cad Company produces high-performance Cadillac 500ci (8.2l) engines: http://www.cad500parts.com/ I.e., 4000 to 5000HP (~3670kW) with the correct turbo setup, or about 7500HP on nitro-methane. Was your post in any way related to Forth? Or, are you just using Forth as a pre-text to rant about other stuff? Rod Pemberton (I have no affiliation with any of these companies.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-19 22:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xf4z8rjq6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #30456 |
On Mon, 19 May 2014 01:23:35 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > This is really strong evidence for Forth-200x being a cult --- only > in a cult can the leader say that she doesn't know what on Earth > technology is for, and have her followers call this "brilliant" and go > on to parrot her word-for-word. Has proclaiming a cult to be a cult ever incited any member to not drink the magic elixir? No, they all drink it ... The personal consequences of drinking it are irrelevant to the chosen ones because of their faith. Of course, it's obvious to everyone else, after the fact, that their faith is what was unfounded. Did I hear a distant echo of someone proclaiming that faith is a good thing for humanity? Faith simply hides the truth or prevents those who should or could otherwise recognize truth from doing so. But, no faith ranks higher than the truth. This is why logic and reason are so important to humanity and so threatening to religion. They eliminate ignorance, especially the ignorance resulting from faith. This means that those who are ignorant are that way by their own choice, not because they are forced to be ignorant by others, and not because they are forced to believe in something they don't. > Everybody is ignorant on a wide variety of subjects. What distinguishes > an ignoramus however, is that the ignoramus is proud of being ignorant. > The ignoramus believes that his or her ignorance of a subject proves > that the subject is useless. By declaring ignorance of a subject, the > ignoramus places him or herself above the great many people who have > invested time and effort in learning the subject, effectively saying > their their time and effort was wasted because the subject is useless > anyway. How do you quantify ignorance of someone other than yourself? Could you be simply declaring people to be ignorant because they've declared some such subject you value as useless? I would think that's so, but doing that doesn't necessarily mean they are ignorant of the subject. Was the time and effort of someone who learned calculus wasted once they learned Laplace transforms? I would strongly argue it was ... > (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth compiler, > he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language.") You're familiar with movie jokes about women, yes? "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." How does one define a programming language? Now, take all that away. Take away the syntax, the type system, the standard library, the code generation, the optimization, etc ... What are you left with? Forth. While that was a joke, it's also the truth. Forth is simply lacking everything that defines most other languages, both successful languages and blatant failures. So, if you don't "get it", "see it", or "grasp it", after that joke, I can't help you. You're blind to the truth, perhaps willfully and permanently so. > "kewl" is a spelling that Passaniti used routinely. Isn't this purely > homosexual terminology? Outside of comp.lang.forth, I've never known any > straight person to use this word. Can anybody define this word and give > an example of it being used without gay overtones? No. Unfortunately, according to Usenet archives, a _bunch_ of notable others here use "kewl" too. I'm not going to name them. They're probably not gay as you would most likely imply they are, simply because they happened to use the word "kewl" once. It's very "Euro". No, I'm not on that list, if we exclude this reply to you on the topic. It seems that you're on the correct track. A *large* abundance of gay porn sites come up when you search for "kewl" and sex terms, but not many "straight" porn websites. So, why were you trolling the gay porn sites? Was it to pick up the lingo or someone? Hugh, twinks are illegal. BTW, the gaytaxicab.com domain is already taken as well as most of the gaytaxicabdriver domains. If you're gay, I'm sorry to burst your bubble. Of course, if it happens they're registered to Passaniti, well, then, maybe, you two are in luck ... If you're not gay, then I hope the fact that there are gay websites dedicated to those who sexually fantasize about people in your job occupation creeps you out. Maybe, that's why the "closeted" "metrosexual" guys tip you so well? ... Did I hear an "Eww...."? Yeah, that's a an especially vile "Eww..." if you've ever been to New York city and _experienced_ some of the fat, ugly, foul, stinky, and repulsive taxicab drivers there. I can't even imagine a gay man wanting to have sex with some of them, or fantasizing about it. Horrid! Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-21 23:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lljb22$f11$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30456 |
On 19/05/2014 06:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:37:23 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > I'm still interested in seeing your code. I speculated that your "local variables" were actually fields in a struct stored on the heap, and that the pointer to this struct gets passed around along with the xt of the "quotation" that needs access. I'm still interested in putting your code in the novice package. I could write code like this myself, but it would be better if I used your code as you actually care about it, whereas I see it as useless "science-fair" programming. For comparison purposes, it would be helpful if you could implement a linked-list with an EACH function that is comparable to mine but uses your system with the struct on the heap. See my other reply to your previous post. > > A recent trend I've noticed is that people will post non-working code that they claim comes from my novice package, but which they just fabricated themselves. I can't say I've noticed that. Both Albert van der Horst and Julian Fondren have done this. It is a rather blatant lie, as anybody can download my novice package and see that my code is not what they posted, and that it does work. As I said though, this is just a demonstration of loyalty to the cult, so having it found out to be a lie doesn't diminish its value as such. I would never do such a thing however! If you provide your code to me, I will only put it into the novice package with your permission and I won't sabotage it. > > ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are a cult! This is what most everybody said a quarter of a century ago (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth compiler, he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language."). At the time, I didn't believe this, and I wouldn't have persevered in Forth if I had believed it --- now I consider the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x standards to be a cult however --- I still consider Forth to be a programming language however (I distinguish between Forth the language and ANS-Forth the standard, with the latter being a screwed-up offshoot of the former).. > I think you're mistaken about ANS Forth & Forth 200X being a cult and everybody treating Elizabeth Rather as a leader. I certainly don't regard anybody as a leader and I believe in Forth 200X and portable programs. Having said that I think that ANS Forth and Forth 200X are full of dross that is a legacy of the days when computers had limited resources and which wouldn't go into a new standard these days. It will take a long time for this stuff to be removed, if ever, because Forth Inc and MPE are commercial organisations that have a strong interest in legacy code that they want to keep running and they have a big say in what happens in the Forth 200X. Also people want Forth to run on small computers and resist changes to the standard, but the joke there is that Forths on resource limited computers tend not to follow ANS Forth anyway. Yet when anybody proposes throwing things out, there are howls of outrage from the traditionalists. I don't think others in c.l.f follow leaders anyway, witness the never ending inconclusive discussions we sometimes see. I reckon that if you take a dozen Forthers you'll find 12 leaders and no followers. The only cult I see is that around Charles Moore and I'm not a member of that either. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-21 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b49b94be-f719-4e1b-8d88-0e8c03a1c229@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30548 |
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:58:15 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: I received your email with the code. I have the flu right now, but I will look at it this weekend when I hopefully feel better. I did win a game of Go on KGS 5 minutes ago though, despite being sick --- so apparently the fever didn't completely addle my brains. :-) > On 19/05/2014 06:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are a cult! This is what most everybody said a quarter of a century ago (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth compiler, he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language."). At the time, I didn't believe this, and I wouldn't have persevered in Forth if I had believed it --- now I consider the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x standards to be a cult however --- I still consider Forth to be a programming language however (I distinguish between Forth the language and ANS-Forth the standard, with the latter being a screwed-up offshoot of the former).. > I think you're mistaken about ANS Forth & Forth 200X being a cult and > everybody treating Elizabeth Rather as a leader. I certainly don't > regard anybody as a leader and I believe in Forth 200X and portable > programs. Having said that I think that ANS Forth and Forth 200X are > full of dross that is a legacy of the days when computers had limited > resources and which wouldn't go into a new standard these days. It will > take a long time for this stuff to be removed, if ever, because Forth > Inc and MPE are commercial organisations that have a strong interest in > legacy code that they want to keep running and they have a big say in > what happens in the Forth 200X. I really don't understand why there can't be two standards. All of that "dross" will never go away! I think that ANS-Forth will inevitably die. It was pretty much still-born in 1994, and there are only a handful of diehards sticking with it. The goal here should be that Forth (the language) does not die with ANS-Forth (the standard). If there is a new standard that is incompatible with ANS-Forth, both standards will exist side-by-side for quite some time. MPE could support both, that way they are guaranteed to be on the winning side whichever standard perseveres. Forth Inc. will only support ANS-Forth, mostly because Elizabeth Rather won't be able to understand most of the concepts in the new standard (especially lambda functions). I will only support the new standard, because I'm the driving force behind it. I am really fed up with being stuck in this weird time-loop where it is continually 1979. The only code that Elizabeth Rather ever posts are snippets taken straight out of "Starting Forth." All of her programming advice (such as to use PAD for temporary storage) comes from that bygone era. I read "Starting Forth" when I was 18 years old --- the cartoons were cute --- but can we finally graduate to something a little more advanced? I insist that ANS-Forth is a cult --- this business of being stuck in the past is very cult-like --- similar to worshiping Elvis Presley and focusing on the 1950s as the "good old days." All cults have a very narrow focus like this, and ignore significant aspects of the real world around them --- people join cults to hide from the real-world, usually behind some leader who tells them that they are God's chosen people, although sometimes in a tiny enclosed world focused on some meaningless nonsense that supposedly trumps the real-world. Most likely you don't see ANS-Forth as a cult because you write code and have pride of accomplishment --- this is also why you rarely post on comp.lang.forth --- unlike many here who need Elizabeth Rather to repeatedly pump them up with self-esteem like a leaky inner-tube. The code they do write is pretty ugly, and some never write any code --- but they all get pumped up with self-esteem anyway. We can have two standards: ANS-Forth/Forth-200x and Lambda Forth. If ANS-Forth really is so great, then it should persevere and we will finally prove that all of that newfangled Lisp-derived technology is no good, and Elizabeth Rather was correct all along to refuse to understand it. On the other hand, we might discover that lambda functions actually are useful for writing general-purpose data-structures, and we no longer have to write every program totally from scratch --- that might boost productivity, do you think? > Also people want Forth to run on small > computers and resist changes to the standard, but the joke there is that > Forths on resource limited computers tend not to follow ANS Forth > anyway. Yet when anybody proposes throwing things out, there are howls > of outrage from the traditionalists. Your use of the word "traditionalists" for ANS-Forth proponents is pretty humorous. I was employed by Forth traditionalists in 1995, after ANS-Forth came out, and they wanted nothing to do with ANS-Forth. I think of "traditionalists" as being those who refused to accept ANS-Forth. This is reminds me of a book I have on pre-Raphaelite art. These were artists who came after Raphael made his mark, but who rejected his teachings --- so, despite working in the post-Raphael period, they called themselves "Pre-Raphaelites." Maybe we could call the new standard "pre-ANS-Forth" and explain that it is what should have been done in 1994 --- that would be pretty humorous in the year 2014 --- I just thought of that, but I think it would be a better name than "Lambda Forth." Anyway, my standard that I want introduced is for two languages. We have HostForth, that runs on desktop computers. HostForth requires a 64-bit processor. This can be used as a general-purpose programming language (I will use it for CAM), but it is mostly used as a platform for TargForth. TargForth is a cross-compiled language that can target any size of processor from 16-bit up to 32-bit. TargForth is mostly for micro-controllers. I'm not really planning on TargForth having lambda functions because they are difficult to implement efficiently on a small processor, and are not particularly useful for machine-control programs. It is possible though; I'll think about it. Mostly what is useful for micro-controller programs is interactive development (what C and BASIC lack) and some continuity from one processor to another so programs don't have to be totally rewritten from scratch for each processor (I/O is slightly different on every board, but there is enough similarity for that stuff to be abstracted out significantly). Also, it helps a lot if the cross-compiler is simple and has good error-checking --- to do this, it is necessary for the host language to have reflection (the ability to examine an xt and determine what word-list it was defined in) --- there are some other features that are also useful (my :NAME was originally proposed to help with cross-compiling, although I used it for general-purpose defining words in the novice package).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-22 11:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <537dda0f$0$24930$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #30548 |
In article <lljb22$f11$1@dont-email.me>, Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >On 19/05/2014 06:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:37:23 PM UTC-7, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I'm still interested in seeing your code. I speculated that your "local variables" were actually >fields in a struct stored on the heap, and that the pointer to this struct gets passed around along >with the xt of the "quotation" that needs access. I'm still interested in putting your code in the >novice package. I could write code like this myself, but it would be better if I used your code as you >actually care about it, whereas I see it as useless "science-fair" programming. For comparison >purposes, it would be helpful if you could implement a linked-list with an EACH function that is >comparable to mine but uses your system with the struct on the heap. > >See my other reply to your previous post. > >> >> A recent trend I've noticed is that people will post non-working code that they claim comes from my >novice package, but which they just fabricated themselves. > >I can't say I've noticed that. > >Both Albert van der Horst and Julian Fondren have done this. It is a >rather blatant lie, as anybody can download my novice package and see >that my code is not what they posted, and that it does work. As I said >though, this is just a demonstration of loyalty to the cult, so having >it found out to be a lie doesn't diminish its value as such. I would >never do such a thing however! If you provide your code to me, I will >only put it into the novice package with your permission and I won't >sabotage it. I admit in making a mistake in posting what I honestly thought was the random generator code of Hugh. This was promptly corrected by Paysan. By the way, the conclusion was that it was a decent generator as far as linear congruentual generators go. I'm going to keep my promise to Hugh to add a fair assessment to the wikipedia page, but I thought I'd wait till the controversy 4 out. Not yet, apparently. -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-22 23:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78d585b2-f1ac-47a6-b6ae-cd2775fa1c1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30560 |
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:05:51 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote: > >On 19/05/2014 06:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > >> A recent trend I've noticed is that people will post non-working code that they claim comes from my > >novice package, but which they just fabricated themselves. > ... > >Both Albert van der Horst and Julian Fondren have done this. > I admit in making a mistake in posting what I honestly thought was the > random generator code of Hugh. This was promptly corrected by Paysan. > By the way, the conclusion was that it was a decent generator as far > as linear congruentual generators go. You posted incorrect versions of my code in that thread more than once, and different each time. Considering that the function in question is a one-liner, I find it difficult to believe that these are honest mistakes. What do you mean, "as far as linear congruentual generators go."? It was on the linear-congruential page of Wikipedia, so of course it was linear-congruential generator. > I'm going to keep my promise to Hugh to add a fair assessment to the > wikipedia page, but I thought I'd wait till the controversy 4 out. > Not yet, apparently. You remind me of Passaniti, in that you think I want a "fair assessment," or an unfair assessment, or any other kind of assessment from you. I never asked for your opinion --- tighten up your sphincter and keep it to yourself. This is the thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/qqlp1gZnVic This is actually one of the best examples of how ANS-Forth is a cult. We have Elizabeth Rather proudly proclaiming her ignorance of a subject, and we have a cult member gushing about how this "inspires confidence." Here it is: On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:21:20 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <ivudnSVTlIfurQnPnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@supernews.com>, > Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > >On 11/25/13 9:32 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > >> Hugh suggests that the only difference with his LC53 is that > >> Anton Ertl and Elizabeth Rather inspire more confidence than he does. > > >Thank you, but I never wrote a random number generator and don't intend > >to! I've been blessed by having some brilliant programmers around me. > >But most of FORTH, Inc.'s customers aren't in fields where a strong RNG > >is a necessity, so we keep it simple. > > Hugh can learn something from this. > > Why does this answer inspire confidence? > 1. Offloading work to experts > 2. A conscious decision about quality > 3. polite, well formulated and to the point > > Am I prejudiced? (Impression before this discussion.) > Seeing the FORTH inc. rng: > "It [can't] be too shabby. Surely someone has looked into this." > Seeing LC53 in the wikipedia: > "Someone is promoting his crap abusing wikipedia."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-23 11:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <537f323e$0$3031$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #30598 |
In article <78d585b2-f1ac-47a6-b6ae-cd2775fa1c1c@googlegroups.com>, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:05:51 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> >On 19/05/2014 06:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> A recent trend I've noticed is that people will post non-working code that they claim >comes from my >> >novice package, but which they just fabricated themselves. >> ... >> >Both Albert van der Horst and Julian Fondren have done this. > >> I admit in making a mistake in posting what I honestly thought was the >> random generator code of Hugh. This was promptly corrected by Paysan. >> By the way, the conclusion was that it was a decent generator as far >> as linear congruentual generators go. > >You posted incorrect versions of my code in that thread more than once, and different each >time. Considering that the function in question is a one-liner, I find it difficult to believe >that these are honest mistakes. > >What do you mean, "as far as linear congruentual generators go."? It was on the >linear-congruential page of Wikipedia, so of course it was linear-congruential generator. I didn't want to give the casual reader the impression that lcg's are the current state of the art, nothing to do with you. > >> I'm going to keep my promise to Hugh to add a fair assessment to the >> wikipedia page, but I thought I'd wait till the controversy 4 out. >> Not yet, apparently. > >You remind me of Passaniti, in that you think I want a "fair assessment," or an unfair >assessment, or any other kind of assessment from you. I never asked for your opinion --- >tighten up your sphincter and keep it to yourself. I've given up on you a long time ago. When I add something to wikipedia it is because I think people can learn something from a fair assesment of your generator. Nothing to do with you. Did you think that? > >This is the thread: >https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/qqlp1gZnVic > >This is actually one of the best examples of how ANS-Forth is a cult. We have Elizabeth Rather >proudly proclaiming her ignorance of a subject, and we have a cult member gushing about how >this "inspires confidence." Here it is: > >On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:21:20 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> In article <ivudnSVTlIfurQnPnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@supernews.com>, >> Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> >On 11/25/13 9:32 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: >> >> Hugh suggests that the only difference with his LC53 is that >> >> Anton Ertl and Elizabeth Rather inspire more confidence than he does. >> >> >Thank you, but I never wrote a random number generator and don't intend >> >to! I've been blessed by having some brilliant programmers around me. >> >But most of FORTH, Inc.'s customers aren't in fields where a strong RNG >> >is a necessity, so we keep it simple. >> >> Hugh can learn something from this. >> >> Why does this answer inspire confidence? >> 1. Offloading work to experts >> 2. A conscious decision about quality >> 3. polite, well formulated and to the point >> >> Am I prejudiced? (Impression before this discussion.) >> Seeing the FORTH inc. rng: >> "It [can't] be too shabby. Surely someone has looked into this." >> Seeing LC53 in the wikipedia: >> "Someone is promoting his crap abusing wikipedia." So you want to use my confession that I was prejudiced against me? Be my guest. Taking the blame is inherent in a confession. Instead you could ask yourself why you inspire prejudice. Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aca00b75-a4e7-4737-b6a8-1c7d9d5ac87c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30548 |
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:58:15 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 19/05/2014 06:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are a cult! This is what most everybody said a quarter of a century ago (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth compiler, he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language."). At the time, I didn't believe this, and I wouldn't have persevered in Forth if I had believed it --- now I consider the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x standards to be a cult however --- I still consider Forth to be a programming language however (I distinguish between Forth the language and ANS-Forth the standard, with the latter being a screwed-up offshoot of the former).. > I think you're mistaken about ANS Forth & Forth 200X being a cult and > everybody treating Elizabeth Rather as a leader. I certainly don't > regard anybody as a leader and I believe in Forth 200X and portable > programs. Having said that I think that ANS Forth and Forth 200X are > full of dross that is a legacy of the days when computers had limited > resources and which wouldn't go into a new standard these days. It will > take a long time for this stuff to be removed, if ever, because Forth > Inc and MPE are commercial organisations that have a strong interest in > legacy code that they want to keep running and they have a big say in > what happens in the Forth 200X. Your response was so self-contradictory as to be almost schizophrenic. You don't regard anybody to be a leader??? But you program in ANS-Forth, while admitting that ANS-Forth has no purpose except to support Forth Inc. and MPE legacy code? Unless you actually work for Forth Inc. or MPE, why would you program in ANS-Forth? Just btw, what do you do for work? > Also people want Forth to run on small > computers and resist changes to the standard, but the joke there is that > Forths on resource limited computers tend not to follow ANS Forth > anyway. Yet when anybody proposes throwing things out, there are howls > of outrage from the traditionalists. I have said many times that there should be two Forths --- HostForth for 64-bit desktop computers, and TargForth for 16-bit to 32-bit micro-controllers. It makes no sense for a language to be for such disparate environments --- it will be a "Jack of all trades and a master of none." One big chuck of "dross" is that Forth originated at a time when desktop computers and micro-controllers used the same processors (a 6502 or Z80). That continued to be true with x86 versions (the 80186 and the NEC Vxx stuff) being used as micro-controllers, but they were over-priced and under-performing compared to real micro-controllers, and that was a long time ago anyway. Nowadays, there is a big distinction between the processors used for desktop computers and micro-controllers. > I don't think others in c.l.f follow leaders anyway, witness the never > ending inconclusive discussions we sometimes see. I reckon that if you > take a dozen Forthers you'll find 12 leaders and no followers. People on c.l.f. just have too much free time on their hands, and they blabber endlessly about nonsense. None of them really care about Forth; they're followers, not leaders. Albert, for example, is mostly a Wikipedia editor, meaning that he is an expert on everything and can blabber about any nonsense at all. > The only > cult I see is that around Charles Moore and I'm not a member of that either. Cults are always highly vocal about how they are better than everybody else (the "Marine Corp" was Elizabeth Rather's claim). I never hear anything from Charles Moore or the handful of people working with him on the GA144. That is not a cult. That is just an obscure hobby --- comparable to building a ship in a bottle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-27 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lm23f8$pk4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30767 |
On 26/05/2014 19:44, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:58:15 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: >> On 19/05/2014 06:23, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: >>> ANS-Forth and Forth-200x are a cult! This is what most everybody said a quarter of a century ago (when Philippe Kahn was asked if Borland would produce a Forth compiler, he said: "Forth is a religion, not a programming language."). At the time, I didn't believe this, and I wouldn't have persevered in Forth if I had believed it --- now I consider the ANS-Forth and Forth-200x standards to be a cult however --- I still consider Forth to be a programming language however (I distinguish between Forth the language and ANS-Forth the standard, with the latter being a screwed-up offshoot of the former).. > >> I think you're mistaken about ANS Forth & Forth 200X being a cult and >> everybody treating Elizabeth Rather as a leader. I certainly don't >> regard anybody as a leader and I believe in Forth 200X and portable >> programs. Having said that I think that ANS Forth and Forth 200X are >> full of dross that is a legacy of the days when computers had limited >> resources and which wouldn't go into a new standard these days. It will >> take a long time for this stuff to be removed, if ever, because Forth >> Inc and MPE are commercial organisations that have a strong interest in >> legacy code that they want to keep running and they have a big say in >> what happens in the Forth 200X. > > Your response was so self-contradictory as to be almost schizophrenic. > You don't regard anybody to be a leader??? But you program in ANS-Forth, > while admitting that ANS-Forth has no purpose except to support Forth > Inc. and MPE legacy code? I don't see how you can read such an admission into the above. Standards such as ANS Forth and its successor, Forth 200X, exist to support portable software. It doesn't exist support Forth Inc and MPE, that's arse about face (look it up). I believe in portable Forth programs, that requires a standard to be followed, ANS Forth and its successor Forth 200X, are the only modern Forth standards available (Forth 83, 79 and FigForth are much worse and obsolete). So the choice is to follow those, despite the accumulated dross, or write non-portable software. My choice is the former and, at times I do wonder whether it is worth it. I think development of a standard should phase out the rubbish as well as introducing new features. There seems to be a reluctance to do the weeding. > Unless you actually work for Forth Inc. or MPE, why would you program > in ANS-Forth? To write portable software that runs on GForth, iForth, Win32 Forth ... (including Swift Forth and VFX Forth). Why would I want to constrain users to work with only one system? I'd rather my stuff got used. > > Just btw, what do you do for work? I don't anymore. > >> Also people want Forth to run on small >> computers and resist changes to the standard, but the joke there is that >> Forths on resource limited computers tend not to follow ANS Forth >> anyway. Yet when anybody proposes throwing things out, there are howls >> of outrage from the traditionalists. > > I have said many times that there should be two Forths --- HostForth for > 64-bit desktop computers, and TargForth for 16-bit to 32-bit micro- > controllers. It makes no sense for a language to be for such disparate > environments Funnily enough I agree and thought so long before you raised the matter. IMO the embedded computer people do inhibit development of the standard. But then some say Forth is only good for embedded systems - use other languages for desktop computers. If you agree with that why have a desktop Forth? > --- it will be a "Jack of all trades and a master of none." > > One big chuck of "dross" As an aside, why put dross in inverted commas, it's a perfectly good English word meaning rubbish. [...] > >> I don't think others in c.l.f follow leaders anyway, witness the never >> ending inconclusive discussions we sometimes see. I reckon that if you >> take a dozen Forthers you'll find 12 leaders and no followers. > > People on c.l.f. just have too much free time on their hands, and they > blabber endlessly about nonsense. [...] Not everybody fortunately. I usually ignore the "blabberers". > >> The only >> cult I see is that around Charles Moore and I'm not a member of that either. > > Cults are always highly vocal about how they are better than everybody else > (the "Marine Corp" was Elizabeth Rather's claim). I never hear anything from > Charles Moore or the handful of people working with him on the GA144. > That is not a cult. That is just an obscure hobby --- comparable to building > a ship in a bottle. > A dictionary definition of a cult (well one meaning anyway): " A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object." That's the sense in which I meant my comment. Whether cult members are vocal or not is irrelevant. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-27 10:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lm27hr$oud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30838 |
On 5/27/2014 9:20 AM, Gerry Jackson wrote: > > A dictionary definition of a cult (well one meaning anyway): > > " A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a > particular figure or object." > > That's the sense in which I meant my comment. Whether cult members are > vocal or not is irrelevant. There is no real point to discussing this with Hugh. Nothing you say will change his mind. Just like most trolls, he is best ignored until he says something worth responding to. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-27 19:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fced189-92f1-435f-9bd6-1c894f9043a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30838 |
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:20:41 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 26/05/2014 19:44, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > You don't regard anybody to be a leader??? But you program in ANS-Forth, > > while admitting that ANS-Forth has no purpose except to support Forth > > Inc. and MPE legacy code? > > I don't see how you can read such an admission into the above. You said: "Forth Inc and MPE are commercial organisations that have a strong interest in legacy code that they want to keep running and they have a big say in what happens in the Forth 200X." Not just a big say, but the only say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web