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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31249 > unrolled thread

Apple's top secret Swift language

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

Contents

  Apple's top secret Swift language "VisualForth.com" <babruehl@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 18:30 -0700
    Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-06 15:47 -1000
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "VisualForth.com" <babruehl@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 18:55 -0700
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 05:12 -0700
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-07 10:58 -0700
          Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Clyde W. Phillips Jr." <cwpjr02@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 11:11 -0700
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 18:06 -0400
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Zbigniew <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2014-06-08 09:00 +0000
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "VisualForth.com" <babruehl@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 14:46 -0700
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-07 15:05 -0700
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-07 18:30 -0700
    Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 22:41 -0400
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-07 02:20 -0400
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 04:20 -0400
          Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-07 07:04 -0400
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-07 15:05 +0200
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 06:43 -0700
          Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 09:58 -0400
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-06-07 11:14 -0700
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 18:15 -0400
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-08 22:46 -0700
          Re: Apple's top secret Swift language albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-09 13:12 +0000
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 14:13 -0400
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-09 12:48 -1000
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 20:49 -0400
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-09 18:54 -0700
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-09 18:41 -0700
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 20:05 -0700
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language anonymous <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-10 00:21 -0400
                Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-09 18:43 -1000
                  Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-10 01:31 -0400
                  Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-10 15:55 -0700
                    Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-10 16:32 -0700
                      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-10 16:49 -0700
                      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-10 16:28 -1000
                      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-11 18:51 -0400
                      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-11 19:22 -0700
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-11 20:10 -0700
    Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-06-10 00:37 +0000
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-06-10 09:17 +0400
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language babruehl@gmail.com - 2014-06-11 20:14 -0700
          Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-11 20:48 -0700
          Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-12 01:24 -0400
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-11 20:28 -1000
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-06-12 12:00 +0100
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-12 15:06 +0200
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-12 13:22 -0400
    Re: Apple's top secret Swift language visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-07-16 13:34 -0700
    Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-07-21 14:16 -1000
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-21 21:39 -0700
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-07-22 07:49 +0300
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-07-22 02:21 -0400
          Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-07-22 04:10 -0400
            Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-07-21 22:09 -1000
              Re: Apple's top secret Swift language "VisualFORTH.com" <babruehl@gmail.com> - 2014-07-23 18:59 -0700
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-07-21 21:11 -1000
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-07-22 11:23 +0200
      Re: Apple's top secret Swift language Buz Powers <wpowers@ll.mit.edu> - 2014-07-24 10:58 -0400
        Re: Apple's top secret Swift language visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-07-25 11:35 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#31315

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 6:05:58 AM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > On 6/6/2014 9:30 PM, VisualForth.com wrote:
> >> Is Apple's top secret Swift language Swift Forth?
> 
> > Yeah, trademarks are one of those things that is use it (and defend it)
> > or lose it.  If you don't defend others infringement you lose your
> > trademark.

> You actually have a second option: You can sublicense a trademark.  That 
> way, you get a fee (how much doesn't need to be disclosed in public), and 
> your trademark is still protected, even though the other party can use it.
> 
> If I was Forth Inc., I would do so.  This prevents Apple from actually 
> owning "Swift", and at the same time they can continue to use it.  They 
> won't be in the position to block anybody else (e.g. someone who releases a 
> "GNU Swift" - these people would just need to go to Forth Inc. to buy a 
> sublicense), but could keep using that name.

The concept of trademark infringement implies that Apple is trying to steal Forth Inc.'s fame. For example, if I opened a restaurant called "Cheeseburgers in Paradise" and had pictures of Jimmy Buffet on the walls, then I would be stealing his fame and he would be in the right to demand that I stop. The idea of Apple stealing Forth Inc.'s fame, however, is absurd --- Forth Inc. doesn't have any fame --- Apple, by comparison, is quite famous. Any reasonable person would consider this to be an unjustified lawsuit. Elizabeth Rather is a sleazy parasite trying to suck some money out of Apple's deep pockets. People get killed for doing this kind of thing!

On a related topic, somebody did recently try to kill Elizabeth Rather (nobody on comp.lang.forth wants to talk about it, but I looked it up on the internet). I'm not saying that Apple hired Jill Hansen to kill Elizabeth Rather. I'm just saying that Elizabeth Rather has spent her entire life lying and cheating, and has left a long string of victims behind her. According to Jeff Fox, Forth Inc. ripped off Charles Moore for $40,000. Forth Inc. ripped me off for almost $500 by selling me SwiftForth-v2 that was full of bugs, but refusing to provide any bug fixes (although Leon Wagner finally did give me a working DLL for console mode, overriding Elizabeth Rather's insistence that I pay another $300 for this). AFAIK, Forth Inc. cheats every customer every time. One of these victims (not me, for the record) tried to kill Elizabeth Rather for this.

Jill Hansen has no record of violence. That 3rd-degree (misdemeanor) assault charge was for jumping on a surfer at the beach when he tried to walk away from her, and slapping him on the head. This was not really violence in the sense that she was trying to hurt him --- this was just her making a spectacle out of herself. She has never intentionally tried to run anybody over with her car; she is just a reckless driver and a general menace on the roads. Now however, she suddenly decides to try to kill somebody. She had to have some prompting --- she didn't make this quantum jump from typical bipolar nuttiness to homicide on her own --- most bipolar people never do anything violent, except child-like temper tantrums.

At the time of the attempted murder, Jill Hansen said: "My father made me do this; he is a high-powered attorney." While she was waiting for the police to arrive, she posted a facebook message that said: "I am becoming a professional [surfer]! I have worked SOOOO hard to get to today, I am so grateful for all the support of the surfers and the ASP [Association of Surfing Professionals]." After she was arrested, she asked: "How long is this going to take?" She is smirking in court and generally acting like she has the world by the tail. Most likely, she made Faustian bargain, in which she agreed to kill Elizabeth Rather in exchange for getting accepted by the ASP, and she was also told that high-powered attorneys had already pulled the necessary strings so that she would be acquitted. Of course, a person would have to be crazy to believe that a 1st-degree felony can be smoothed over like this --- but, according to most accounts, Jill is a whole lotta loca --- she really was fool enough to go for the deal. I predict that she is going to get murdered in prison --- whoever hired her is done with her, and will now hire some inmate to shank her.

Anyway, getting back to Forth Inc. suing Apple --- I would not do something like that --- lobbing lawsuits at deep-pocket targets is a good way to get yourself killed. I just work for a living --- I don't cheat anybody --- and I don't have to look over my shoulder for assassins.

I would not want to stand next to Elizabeth Rather --- some assassin might run her over with a Toyota, and hit me too. As the proverb says: "Bad company breeds bad luck."

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

#31326

In article <639ebceb-8b13-459d-8575-245d6de3f114@googlegroups.com>,
 <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>At the time of the attempted murder, Jill Hansen said: "My father made
>me do this; he is a high-powered attorney." While she was waiting for
>the police to arrive, she posted a facebook message that said: "I am
>becoming a professional [surfer]! I have worked SOOOO hard to get to
>today, I am so grateful for all the support of the surfers and the ASP
>[Association of Surfing Professionals]." After she was arrested, she
>asked: "How long is this going to take?" She is smirking in court and
>generally acting like she has the world by the tail. Most likely, she
>made Faustian bargain, in which she agreed to kill Elizabeth Rather in
>exchange for getting accepted by the ASP, and she was also told that
>high-powered attorneys had already pulled the necessary strings so that
>she would be acquitted. Of course, a person would have to be crazy to
>believe that a 1st-degree felony can be smoothed over like this --- but,
>according to most accounts, Jill is a whole lotta loca --- she really
>was fool enough to go for the deal. I predict that she is going to get
>murdered in prison --- whoever hired her is done with her, and will now
>hire some inmate to shank her.

That Jill Hansen figure is a dangerous psychopat. In the Netherlands
she would be medically examined, and put away for life, or such time
as she would be cured (unlikely). That lawyers have any say in this
is just proof that the USA is retarded.

Especially the bail system is ridiculously. At least in monopoly
you can't *buy* your "get out of jail free" card.

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]

#31340

On 6/9/2014 9:12 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <639ebceb-8b13-459d-8575-245d6de3f114@googlegroups.com>,
>   <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> At the time of the attempted murder, Jill Hansen said: "My father made
>> me do this; he is a high-powered attorney." While she was waiting for
>> the police to arrive, she posted a facebook message that said: "I am
>> becoming a professional [surfer]! I have worked SOOOO hard to get to
>> today, I am so grateful for all the support of the surfers and the ASP
>> [Association of Surfing Professionals]." After she was arrested, she
>> asked: "How long is this going to take?" She is smirking in court and
>> generally acting like she has the world by the tail. Most likely, she
>> made Faustian bargain, in which she agreed to kill Elizabeth Rather in
>> exchange for getting accepted by the ASP, and she was also told that
>> high-powered attorneys had already pulled the necessary strings so that
>> she would be acquitted. Of course, a person would have to be crazy to
>> believe that a 1st-degree felony can be smoothed over like this --- but,
>> according to most accounts, Jill is a whole lotta loca --- she really
>> was fool enough to go for the deal. I predict that she is going to get
>> murdered in prison --- whoever hired her is done with her, and will now
>> hire some inmate to shank her.
>
> That Jill Hansen figure is a dangerous psychopat. In the Netherlands
> she would be medically examined, and put away for life, or such time
> as she would be cured (unlikely). That lawyers have any say in this
> is just proof that the USA is retarded.
>
> Especially the bail system is ridiculously. At least in monopoly
> you can't *buy* your "get out of jail free" card.

I usually find Hugh's comments about Elizabeth to be repugnant and this 
time is no exception, but your comments really take the cake.  You write 
as if you actually knew something about the legal system we use in the 
US.  Instead you are woefully ignorant.

I will say there is some irony in Hugh talking about someone else as "a 
whole lotta loca".  Pot meet kettle... 8-o

-- 

Rick

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

#31353

On 6/9/14 3:12 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
...
>
> That Jill Hansen figure is a dangerous psychopat. In the Netherlands
> she would be medically examined, and put away for life, or such time
> as she would be cured (unlikely). That lawyers have any say in this
> is just proof that the USA is retarded.
>
> Especially the bail system is ridiculously. At least in monopoly
> you can't *buy* your "get out of jail free" card.

The bail system just guarantees that the person charged will show up for 
trial, which may be months from the time of arrest. Bail amounts depend 
on the judge's assessment of whether the person is a flight risk. 
Usually someone (either the accused or, more commonly, a "bail bondsman" 
= organization that does this charging interest for it) puts up 10% of 
the amount, charging interest for it. If the accused shows up as 
required, the 10% is refunded; if not, the full amt is assessed and the 
bail bondsman is responsible for producing the accused. Bail has nothing 
to do with post-trial sentencing.

In Jill's case, since she tried to flee at a preliminary proceeding, 
bail was set very high and no one in their right mind will post it.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#31358

On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 6/9/14 3:12 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> ....
>>
>> That Jill Hansen figure is a dangerous psychopat. In the Netherlands
>> she would be medically examined, and put away for life, or such time
>> as she would be cured (unlikely). That lawyers have any say in this
>> is just proof that the USA is retarded.
>>
>> Especially the bail system is ridiculously. At least in monopoly
>> you can't *buy* your "get out of jail free" card.
>
> The bail system just guarantees that the person charged will show up for
> trial, which may be months from the time of arrest. Bail amounts depend
> on the judge's assessment of whether the person is a flight risk.
> Usually someone (either the accused or, more commonly, a "bail bondsman"
> = organization that does this charging interest for it) puts up 10% of
> the amount, charging interest for it. If the accused shows up as
> required, the 10% is refunded; if not, the full amt is assessed and the
> bail bondsman is responsible for producing the accused. Bail has nothing
> to do with post-trial sentencing.
>
> In Jill's case, since she tried to flee at a preliminary proceeding,
> bail was set very high and no one in their right mind will post it.

I believe you have the bail system pretty close, but not quite.  The 
court requires that the full bond be posted regardless.  To use a bail 
bondsman you give the bondsman 10% which you will not get back.  The 
bail bondsman puts up the full amount and usually requires collateral 
such as a house.  Whoever contracts with the bail bondsman is ultimately 
responsible for the full bail amount if it is lost.  The bail bondsman 
has a lot of leeway in pursuing a fugitive and recovering the bail 
money.  Once you flee they are rather unhappy people.  8-o

-- 

Rick

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

#31360

On Monday, June 9, 2014 3:48:50 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> In Jill's case, since she tried to flee at a preliminary proceeding, 
> bail was set very high and no one in their right mind will post it.

Actually, the bail was set high because the whole thing looks like a professional hit. It seems pretty obvious that somebody coerced her to do this --- she didn't just wake up one morning and decide to kill somebody, all on her own, without any prompting. The police want to know who this is, and hopefully get some evidence against that person. They need here in jail to do this. If she were bailed out, whoever hired her will kill her --- they are keeping her in jail for her own protection.

Anyway, how far is she going to flee given that she is entirely dependent upon her father for money? She doesn't have a car anymore, and she can't afford to buy one. Also, Oahu is an island, so a car isn't the best means of fleeing...

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

#31359

On Monday, June 9, 2014 6:12:19 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> That Jill Hansen figure is a dangerous psychopat. In the Netherlands
> she would be medically examined, and put away for life, or such time
> as she would be cured (unlikely). That lawyers have any say in this
> is just proof that the USA is retarded.

It seems unlikely that Jill Hansen is a psychopath. If she were, there would be a history of violence and/or threats of violence. There isn't. 

With Jill Hansen we mostly have a history of "its all about me" behavior and an obsession with becoming a professional surfer. There is actually a lot of similarity between Jill Hansen and Elizabeth Rather --- the latter having an obsession with being the "leading expert" on Forth programming, despite having never written a Forth program and not knowing the basics of computer science.

This is what I've picked up about Jill Hansen from reading internet gossip websites anyway --- not the best basis for a psychological evaluation. This whole thing is tabloid fodder, so we'll eventually learn more than we really want to know about Jill's sad life.

Anyway, in America a person gets put away for life for committing a crime, not for being "medically examined" and determined to be a psychopath. Also, there is no way to "medically examine" a person to diagnose mental illness --- are you going to hold a stethoscope up to the person's temple and listen for a "cookoo!" inside?

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

#31361

I just looked up the definition of a psychopath:

noun
a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

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

#31362

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:41:40 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It seems unlikely that Jill Hansen is a psychopath. If she were, there  
> would be a history of violence and/or threats of violence. There isn't.

She's probably untreated for paranoid schizophrenia and using hard drugs.

disassociative reality
bizarre behavior
money demands

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

#31363

On 6/9/14 6:21 PM, anonymous wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:41:40 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems unlikely that Jill Hansen is a psychopath. If she were, there
>> would be a history of violence and/or threats of violence. There isn't.
>
> She's probably untreated for paranoid schizophrenia and using hard drugs.
>
> disassociative reality
> bizarre behavior
> money demands

Hugh hasn't read all the articles, or he'd have seen more of it. But 
don't bother, the subject really isn't all that interesting.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#31366

On 6/10/2014 12:43 AM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:

> the subject really isn't all that interesting.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth

But inquiring minds want to know!  Oh, and Hugh too.

-- 

Rick

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

#31385

On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:43:38 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 6/9/14 6:21 PM, anonymous wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:41:40 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> It seems unlikely that Jill Hansen is a psychopath. If she were, there
> >> would be a history of violence and/or threats of violence. There isn't.
> 
> > She's probably untreated for paranoid schizophrenia and using hard drugs.
> 
> > disassociative reality
> > bizarre behavior
> > money demands

> Hugh hasn't read all the articles, or he'd have seen more of it. But 
> don't bother, the subject really isn't all that interesting.

The subject of Jill Hansen isn't very interesting, because Jill is a tool. More precisely: Jill is "ordinance." What is more interesting, is the question of why anybody would want to kill you.

SwiftForth-v2 had severe bugs. For example, (LOCAL) would crash the system. This isn't a subtle bug that somehow got passed the testers. Obviously, there was no testing at all. Also, nobody at Forth Inc. is writing any programs. If they had written even one non-trivial program, they would have needed to use locals in at least some of the functions, and they would have discovered the bug. This is why I think that Forth Inc. cheats every customer every time. You don't even make an attempt at writing the customers' program for them --- you just take the customers' money and then say: "Fuck you very much! Bye!"

This is what you said to me:
"Hugh has been hanging around c.l.f for several years, now. He originally got mad at FORTH, Inc. because we insisted on charging for an upgrade to SwiftForth 3.0 for people who had bought 2.x > a year earlier. 
...
Hope you are doing well. Ned and i are enjoying life in Hawaii, and hope you are, too! 
Aloha, 
Elizabeth"

I never asked for an upgrade to SwiftForth-v3. You are lying about that. All I asked for was bug fixes for the myriad severe bugs in SwiftForth-v2 that I paid $400 for. Bragging about Hawaii after ripping me off for $400 was putting salt in the wound. Bitch!

For me, it was only $400. You do that for $40,000 though, and you will very likely get killed. Heck, there are people who will kill you for $4000, or even $400. 

Now you are taking "appropriate action" (presumably a lawsuit) against Apple because of their Swift language, as if you had invented the word "swift." It is just a meaningless word, like "acme" or whatever. From Apple's standpoint, you are demanding money from them, and you aren't giving them anything in return. This is called "extortion" --- people get killed for extortion. You are likely taking "appropriate action" against a wide variety of deep-pocket targets --- one of them doesn't negotiate with extortionists --- this is why an attempt was made on your life.

My concern is that I will apply for a job, and I will mention in the interview that I program in Forth. The interviewer will then say: 
"I have heard about you Forthers! You are totally incompetent; you don't have the slightest idea how to write general-purpose data-structures, and so you write everything from scratch every time. Your software is full of bugs, and you demand an extra $300 to provide a bug fix. You sue people who have done you no harm and are minding their own business. The only way to make a Forth programmer stop harassing the innocent, is to hire a lunatic to drive over the Forth programmer with a Toyota. If the assassin fails to back up over the Forth programmer and finish the job, then the Forth programmer is too dumb to get the message, and will continue harassing the innocent. As soon as you said 'Forth,' I called security to have you escorted out of the building. If you return, you will be shot on sight. This is our policy for Forth programmers and rabid dogs. Goodbye!"

Actually, the interviewer won't say all of that. The interviewer will just say: "We don't feel that your Forth experience makes you a good match for our company." But the above is what the interviewer is actually thinking.

The Forth language will never be successful until Forth Inc. and ANS-Forth and disassociated with Forth. Forth Inc. is a liability.

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

#31387

Dude I don't like to bash people but you are displaying the attitude of a child and on top of that are being outrageously rude. 

> SwiftForth-v2 had severe bugs. For example, (LOCAL) would crash the system. This isn't a subtle bug that somehow got passed the testers. Obviously, there was no testing at all. Also, nobody at Forth Inc. is writing any programs. If they had written even one non-trivial program, they would have needed to use locals in at least some of the functions, and they would have discovered the bug. This is why I think that Forth Inc. cheats every customer every time. You don't even make an attempt at writing the customers' program for them --- you just take the customers' money and then say: "Fuck you very much! Bye!"

Did I read that right?  They should be writing your programs for you?  Or did you just say that they actually steal from customers who pay them to write applications?  And not just one or two ... but ALL of them?  

> "Hugh has been hanging around c.l.f for several years, now. He originally got mad at FORTH, Inc. because we insisted on charging for an upgrade to SwiftForth 3.0 for people who had bought 2.x > a year earlier. 

What's wrong with charging an upgrade fee?  Why should they fix bugs in an old version that they've probably already fixed in the new one?  Now, I can't afford to keep my copy up-to-date, but maybe since you don't need to worry about upgrades given your stance, and having the source code, you could fix the bugs yourself?  

> I never asked for an upgrade to SwiftForth-v3. You are lying about that. 

Looking at that quote, I believe she never said you did?  She only implied that they told you if you wanted bug fixes then you needed to pay to upgrade, but you took umbrage to that.  There's nothing in there about demanding a free copy of v3.

> For me, it was only $400. You do that for $40,000 though, and you will very likely get killed. Heck, there are people who will kill you for $4000, or even $400. 

That sounds like a sort of indirect death threat.  What the hell man?

> Now you are taking "appropriate action" (presumably a lawsuit) against Apple because of their Swift language, as if you had invented the word "swift." It is just a meaningless word, like "acme" or whatever. From Apple's standpoint, you are demanding money from them, and you aren't giving them anything in return. 

It seems like for this to be extortion some kind of deception needs to be involved.

> Big crazy flight of fantasy

Dude that was completely off the handle.  Wow.  What?

> The Forth language will never be successful until Forth Inc. and ANS-Forth and disassociated with Forth. Forth Inc. is a liability.

Interesting notion, but ... you haven't really illustrated how your made up story makes Forth Inc. a liability...?

Now, I myself am not overly impressed with Forth Inc.'s business strategy, but that's a far cry from outright DESPISING them for what sounds like issues you personally have with Forth itself, not the company.  You seem to also be concentrating all of those negative feelings directly onto Elizabeth Rather, who is rather undeserving.  I dare say I don't think publicly harassing a 73 year old woman on the internet is going to get you far, regardless of if there is even a kernel of truth to anything you say.

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

#31388

I suppose that I ought to say something.

I've used SwiftForth 2.2.2.9 for years and it has suited me fine.  I don't have a need to upgrade as I am stuck on XP.  I don't feel that upgrading would benefit me anytime soon. 

If it contains many bugs, I have not encountered them.  SwiftForth 2.2.2.9 is just fine for me.

I don't feel cheated.  

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

#31391

On 6/10/2014 1:32 PM, Roger Levy wrote:
>> "Hugh has been hanging around c.l.f for several years, now. He originally got mad at FORTH, Inc. because we insisted on charging for an upgrade to SwiftForth 3.0 for people who had bought 2.x > a year earlier.
> What's wrong with charging an upgrade fee?  Why should they fix bugs in an old version that they've probably already fixed in the new one?  Now, I can't afford to keep my copy up-to-date, but maybe since you don't need to worry about upgrades given your stance, and having the source code, you could fix the bugs yourself?
>
>> >I never asked for an upgrade to SwiftForth-v3. You are lying about that.
> Looking at that quote, I believe she never said you did?  She only implied that they told you if you wanted bug fixes then you needed to pay to upgrade, but you took umbrage to that.  There's nothing in there about demanding a free copy of v3.
>

FWIW (not that it will change Hugh's attitude, but just to keep the 
record straight) his problem was in the character interface to the 
Windows command screen, which we had fixed more than a year earlier. 
When he became angry at the upgrade fee we sent him a fixed version of 
the screen interface routine at no charge. Of course, that means any 
later improvements that would have been included in the upgrade weren't.

Cheers,
Elizabetg

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#31422

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:32:41 -0400, Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Why should they fix bugs in an old version that they've probably already  
> fixed in the new one?

You paid for the old version.  It's defective.  It's the company's job
to fix it.  That's the customer's perspective.  It's also a cliche for
companies to say: "The customer is always right."  But, companies also
fail to: "Eat their own dog food."  That, of course, includes their
philosophies on the customer, such as: "The customer is always right".
In time, that cliche becomes: "Screw thy customer."  Hence, the "right"
to charge customers for upgrades or non-warranty repairs which fix
products that were defective when originally sold.  Such products are
called "lemons" in other industries.

In more depth, the issue is whether software should be treated as an
intangible product owned by the company that is licensed for use by
the consumer, as it is now, or whether software should be treated like
a physical product which is sold the consumer, such as candy or a car,
that is expected to be free of defects or if not, fixed or replaced.

Treating software as an intangible was fine during the development
of the software industry in the U.S. while it was still an
insignificant portion of the economy, but today, software is a major
component of the retail industry.  The software industry is developed
enough today that their products should have the same standards of
quality that physical products do  I.e., if it has defects, it's the
company's responsibility to fix it.


Rod Pemberton
P.S. I'm disregarding the Hugh aspects of this.  He could've coded
something useful in the time he's spent on rants which are ancient
history, that no one cares about, which are unlikely to be resolved.

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

#31430

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:32:41 PM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote:
> > SwiftForth-v2 had severe bugs. For example, (LOCAL) would crash the system. This isn't a subtle bug that somehow got passed the testers. Obviously, there was no testing at all. Also, nobody at Forth Inc. is writing any programs. If they had written even one non-trivial program, they would have needed to use locals in at least some of the functions, and they would have discovered the bug. This is why I think that Forth Inc. cheats every customer every time. You don't even make an attempt at writing the customers' program for them --- you just take the customers' money and then say: "Fuck you very much! Bye!"
> 
> Did I read that right?  They should be writing your programs for you?  Or did you just say that they actually steal from customers who pay them to write applications?  And not just one or two ... but ALL of them?  

Customers hire software companies (such as Forth Inc.) to write programs for them. I don't think Forth Inc. is writing programs in SwiftForth, or they would have discovered the egregious bugs in SwiftForth. They are just taking the customers money and not giving them anything in return. 

If Forth Inc. is not capable of writing software, then they would do this to every customer. It seems unlikely that they are sometimes capable, but sometimes not capable. They never succeed at getting programs to work --- they always just muddle around until the customer gives up and writes off the money they already spent as a loss.
> 
> > "Hugh has been hanging around c.l.f for several years, now. He originally got mad at FORTH, Inc. because we insisted on charging for an upgrade to SwiftForth 3.0 for people who had bought 2.x > a year earlier. 
> 
> What's wrong with charging an upgrade fee?  Why should they fix bugs in an old version that they've probably already fixed in the new one?  

There is a huge difference between an upgrade and a bug-fix. Any legitimate company will stand behind their product. If they deliver software that has bugs, they will fix those bugs, and this will be covered by the customer's original payment (the customer paid for working software).

An upgrade is when new features are added. There are some customers who will try to get new features without paying for them, by describing this work as a bug-fix. I've been through that as a programmer. This is easy to prevent by having clear specifications as to what the program is supposed to do. Anyway, this is not the situation with SwiftForth --- SwiftForth-v2 has gross bugs that needed to be fixed.

> > For me, it was only $400. You do that for $40,000 though, and you will very likely get killed. Heck, there are people who will kill you for $4000, or even $400. 
> 
> That sounds like a sort of indirect death threat.  What the hell man?

I'm not making any death threat, indirect or direct.

I am pointing out that if Forth Inc. makes a practice out of cheating their customers, incidents like the recent attempt on Elizabeth Rather's life are going to happen.

> Now, I myself am not overly impressed with Forth Inc.'s business strategy, but that's a far cry from outright DESPISING them for what sounds like issues you personally have with Forth itself, not the company.  You seem to also be concentrating all of those negative feelings directly onto Elizabeth Rather, who is rather undeserving.  I dare say I don't think publicly harassing a 73 year old woman on the internet is going to get you far, regardless of if there is even a kernel of truth to anything you say.

You are using the term "Forth itself" as being synonymous with "ANS-Forth." That has never been true. ANS-Forth is just SwiftForth with pretension of being the standard for the entire Forth community.

Forth Inc.'s business strategy reflects on the entire Forth community. This is especially true when Forth Inc. uses unjustified lawsuits to make money --- they give all Forth programmers the reputation for being crooks. Nobody is going to hire any Forth programmer if the Forth programming community has a reputation for being incompetent and crooked --- and this will always be the reputation of Forth programmers, so long as we accept Elizabeth Rather as our "leading expert on Forth." The only way that Forth will succeed, and gain any respect in the real world, is for the Forth community to jettison Forth Inc..

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

#31431

On Saturday, June 7, 2014 6:05:58 AM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > Yeah, trademarks are one of those things that is use it (and defend it)
> > or lose it.  If you don't defend others infringement you lose your
> > trademark.

> You actually have a second option: You can sublicense a trademark.  That 
> way, you get a fee (how much doesn't need to be disclosed in public), and 
> your trademark is still protected, even though the other party can use it.
> 
> If I was Forth Inc., I would do so.  This prevents Apple from actually 
> owning "Swift", and at the same time they can continue to use it.  They 
> won't be in the position to block anybody else (e.g. someone who releases a 
> "GNU Swift" - these people would just need to go to Forth Inc. to buy a 
> sublicense), but could keep using that name.

I just remembered that you had said that your B16 was used by Apple as a battery monitor in their smart-phones.

This is a quantum leap --- you go from working for Apple, to plotting ways to extort money from Apple using an unjustified lawsuit (coerce Apple to pay Forth Inc. for the use of the word "swift").

There seems to be only two ways that you could have made such a quantum leap:
1.) Your story about working for Apple was just a fantasy, and now you are fantasizing about cheating Apple, having forgotten about your previous fantasy about working for Apple.
2.) You did work for Apple, but things went badly for you and they no longer need your services. Now you are plotting to cheat Apple, as revenge for getting dumped.

Realistically, Apple is not going to pay anybody for the right to use the word "swift," which is a common synonym for "fast." You are not going to have an amicable business relationship with Apple, in which they send you a check every month. Apple is going to do everything in their power to defend themselves from you.

Big deep-pocket companies such as Apple get hit by lawsuits all of the time. Maybe somebody was texting while walking, fell down and hurt his back, and is now suing Apple for a million dollars. The big deep-pocket companies don't pay any of these people --- they always defend themselves --- usually they can just get the lawsuit thrown out for being frivolous, but sometimes they need a more stern response.

I think that you are underestimating how easy it is for a big company to have somebody killed. Typically they just hire a local thug to do it, then kill him afterward themselves. The case with Jill Hansen is unusual because it was a surfer-girl --- this is why it is in the newspapers --- it wouldn't have made the newspapers if it had been a male with a history of violence. Maybe there weren't any local thugs available in Waikiki --- Hawaii is a pretty mellow place, and there aren't any bad neighborhoods --- so they had to use a bipolar rich-girl instead.

Anyway, my point is that you are a member of the Forth-200x committee and supposedly a leader. You are making the entire Forth community look sleazy by publicly plotting scams on comp.lang.forth..

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

#31357

VisualForth.com <babruehl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is Apple's top secret Swift language Swift Forth?

Or perhaps not quite so swift?
<http://www.splasmata.com/?p=2798>

I have not looked closer at the results.

-- 
Marc

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

#31364

Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes:

> VisualForth.com <babruehl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is Apple's top secret Swift language Swift Forth?
>
> Or perhaps not quite so swift?
> <http://www.splasmata.com/?p=2798>
>
> I have not looked closer at the results.
>
> -- 
> Marc

There is a discussion on stackoverflow concerning Swift's perfomance:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24101718/swift-performance-sorting-arrays 

The conclusion is if you want to get it run almost as fast as C++ you
need to compile it with -Ofast switch. That yet, as was said, "changes
the semantics of the language a lot" (like switching off checks for
integer overflows and array index overflow).

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web