Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31786 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 116 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-24 10:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 12:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 13:19 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 10:29 -1000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-24 13:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-06-24 22:47 +0200
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 15:02 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 12:50 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 05:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 13:39 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 17:04 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 14:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 15:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-26 11:47 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 13:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 18:47 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:21 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 04:53 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:56 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:45 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:14 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:20 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:43 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 14:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:24 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 17:45 -1000
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 15:05 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 05:03 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-26 09:29 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 12:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:10 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:15 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:29 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:28 -0500
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:22 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 10:30 -0500
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 08:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 11:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 12:32 -0700
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-27 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 15:32 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-27 13:01 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 13:29 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 16:14 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 02:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-28 12:22 +0000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 07:34 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 10:26 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 07:18 -1000
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 12:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 11:31 -1000
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 03:20 +0300
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:11 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:16 +0000
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 11:00 +0000
Re: There is no standard mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-29 05:12 -0700
Re: There is no standard Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 15:46 +0300
Re: There is no standard stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-06-29 14:48 +0000
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 18:43 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 05:58 -0700
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-29 06:35 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-29 11:03 -0400
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-28 12:13 -0500
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 20:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 06:33 -0700
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:25 -0500
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-28 14:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-29 15:01 +0200
Re: There is no standard Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-29 14:35 -0500
Re: There is no standard Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-30 03:20 +0200
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-28 21:30 -0700
Re: There is no standard albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-29 10:27 +0000
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 08:18 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-25 07:47 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 14:48 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:25 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 16:51 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 03:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 08:06 -1000
Re: There is no standard hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:08 -0700
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:46 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:54 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:55 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-27 00:00 -0400
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:13 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-30 06:38 -0400
Re: There is no standard bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-26 12:06 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 16:18 -0400
Re: There is no standard Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:23 -0700
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:31 -0400
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 16:01 -0400
Re: There is no standard Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-06-25 05:04 -0500
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 15:44 -0400
Re: There is no standard googlegroups@mailfilter.33mail.com - 2014-06-25 13:52 -0700
Re: There is no standard barrym95838@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 14:16 -0700
Re: There is no standard m II <C@in.the.hat> - 2014-06-26 19:37 -0600
Re: There is no standard rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 22:35 -0400
Re: There is no standard Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-25 09:47 -0700
Re: There is no standard Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 10:10 -0700
Re: There is no standard "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:16 -0400
Re: There is no standard BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2014-06-28 13:52 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fde4277d-f8f7-4bd5-b498-6b76d79989fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31897 |
> Why not? Because I have no need to use any code from distant companies or sell my libraries. This is really important for mainstream languages, there are a tons of libraries to share. Forth has no such support, and more important thing in Forth is to find a more effective way to use its features in particular task. Hah! Go try writing a game engine and come back! > Standard means nothing in the case of rare language. What happens in the case of some problems with project? Are there any committee experts to provide a professional consultation? Are there any support teams to solve problems with Forth? Are there any ways to provide feedback? Without any serious ecosystem having standard looks like a sort of 'cargo cult'. This is just plain trolling. Can your argument get any more pointless?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 18:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xh22wz0c6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #31898 |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:08:48 -0400, Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Standard means nothing in the case of rare language. > > This is just plain trolling. Can your argument get any more pointless? Programming language etandards mean nothing without a well defined machine architecture. Someone can claim the standard means something specific, but without a defined computing architecture, which specifies the exact results, they can't prove it. It's like building a house in the clouds. There is no foundation without an architecture being defined. That's true of C and Forth. When the attempt to prove something in a standard actually means something, they're forced to cite a specific implementation that has specific capabilities. This happens whenever someone is arguing the any of the C standards or the ANS Forth standards. Fortunately, Forth defined the machine architecture for some of it's standards. Unfortunately, no foresight for future changes was designed into those earlier Forth standards. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <857aa763-442e-49a6-a0cb-d4d196d0fe34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31898 |
> > Why not? Because I have no need to use any code from distant companies or sell my libraries. This is really important for mainstream languages, there are a tons of libraries to share. Forth has no such support, and more important thing in Forth is to find a more effective way to use its features in particular task. > Hah! Go try writing a game engine and come back! I come back! :))) http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2916&start=5 I'm not sure, of course. This is my JFF replica of old ZX Spectrum Elite game, so graphics is as close to Speccy as possible. It is OpenGL based, but OpenGL is a worldwide standard de-facto, when ANS-Forth is not. Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine? > > Standard means nothing in the case of rare language. What happens in the case of some problems with project? Are there any committee experts to provide a professional consultation? Are there any support teams to solve problems with Forth? Are there any ways to provide feedback? Without any serious ecosystem having standard looks like a sort of 'cargo cult'. > > This is just plain trolling. Can your argument get any more pointless? If you are not agreed, this does not mean it is a trolling. When I use OpenGL functions, I'm sure the program will run on almost any PC, because almost any graphics controller can support OpenGL. If something fails in OpenGL, I can imagine the resources of Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft, Linux community etc. to fix this problem. If something fails in ANS-compatible Forth... what happens? I will get a tip like 'feel the spirit of Forth'? This is a real problem to support any language pretends to be worldwide, so why someone ever hope to organize all the forthers around himself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b197fa3-30df-45fa-bd7b-6f4f42c6e32d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31908 |
> > Hah! Go try writing a game engine and come back! > > I come back! :))) > > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2916&start=5 > > I'm not sure, of course. This is my JFF replica of old ZX Spectrum Elite game, so graphics is as close to Speccy as possible. It is OpenGL based, but OpenGL is a worldwide standard de-facto, when ANS-Forth is not. Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine? As far as I'm concerned ANS Forth is perfectly suitable, if not for 3D than for 2D. This is what I made with it: http://www.desura.com/games/the-lady Now, I would not wish coding all the low-level stuff I had to do on anyone - but somehow, I stayed motivated. I figure, if nothing works out with trying to distribute code and get help with it, at least I'll have a secret weapon. Adopting Forth94 was an attempt to help my chances. I consider it a legitimate standard. If you want to make a 3D game, helper libraries written in a faster language can help. This doesn't diminish the value of writing the control code in Forth in any way. I talk this way because I've solved a few deficiencies with Forth94 for myself. Perhaps when the toolbelt is in the hands of the public, people will start to see why I speak about Forth and Forth94 this optimistically. > If you are not agreed, this does not mean it is a trolling. When I use OpenGL functions, I'm sure the program will run on almost any PC, because almost any graphics controller can support OpenGL. If something fails in OpenGL, I can imagine the resources of Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft, Linux community etc. to fix this problem. If something fails in ANS-compatible Forth... what happens? I will get a tip like 'feel the spirit of Forth'? This is a real problem to support any language pretends to be worldwide, so why someone ever hope to organize all the forthers around himself? Wahh, wahh. Yup, that sure is the way things are at the moment. Deal with it! When there's more conversion, maybe things will change! For now, we are on our own, and whining isn't going to do much is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 20:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8695b941-d723-4e80-a92e-c9d297e4ea13@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31910 |
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:25:24 PM UTC-4, Roger Levy wrote: > If you want to make a 3D game, helper libraries written in a faster language can help. This doesn't diminish the value of writing the control code in Forth in any way. Seem like that was a normal approach in the early days of Forth ~ get the process working in Forth, profile find the speed bottlenecks, re-implement those words in a faster language (in those days that means assembler), repeat until its fast enough. If you have working low level code, give it a stack interface and export it to Forth as a word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 04:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a599349f-1ff3-495e-b765-c52402d28011@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31910 |
> As far as I'm concerned ANS Forth is perfectly suitable, if not for 3D than for 2D. This is what I made with it: http://www.desura.com/games/the-lady Oh well! So you agreed Forth can be used to write a game engine? :) Indeed, Forth capabilities in the scripting and defining 3D macros was very helpful. But this is a situation, when we should try to write a program, when try to determine, what should be standartized. > If you want to make a 3D game, helper libraries written in a faster language can help. This doesn't diminish the value of writing the control code in Forth in any way. Of course. This is what I really did with OpenGL. I consider rewriting 3D libraries in Forth is a pure wasting time, while graphics cards vendors provide an appropriate drivers. Writing game mechanics and debugging is pretty well in Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 06:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04d7e450-9ccf-44b6-b5e5-931946d30d3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31933 |
> Oh well! So you agreed Forth can be used to write a game engine? :) Indeed, Forth capabilities in the scripting and defining 3D macros was very helpful. But this is a situation, when we should try to write a program, when try to determine, what should be standartized. Much about the base Forth94 standard had to be enhanced or changed for the game to be written. It was a lot of work, and I plan to share it with the community. It will take some time before we can even think of standardizing anything I've done. For the time being, it will need people to trial it, and possibly submit their own improvements, before we could even think of it having "modestly widespread adoption" much less added to any kind of "standard". These things take time. I have no problem with my stuff not being standard, because a lot of it is still a WIP. In the meantime, I made a game. > Of course. This is what I really did with OpenGL. I consider rewriting 3D libraries in Forth is a pure wasting time, while graphics cards vendors provide an appropriate drivers. Writing game mechanics and debugging is pretty well in Forth. Agreed, so, what's up with the bitching about Forth94 not having 3D functions? No Forth system is currently optimal for it; someone would need to write a compiler that can generate code paths for all the CPU's with their different combinations of enhanced SIMD instruction sets. Sadly all the hardware was designed with C in mind. But look at GreenArrays, there is a possibility there to do efficient massive processing for games in a way that's suited to Forth. You'd need to outfit it with a PCI Express connection to a GPU to begin to compete with modern gaming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b423ef5-d0a7-4fa7-ba0b-be7770dbf16c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31939 |
> Agreed, so, what's up with the bitching about Forth94 not having 3D functions? Completely not. You asking me about game engine, and I give you a link to a simply game, based primarly on the OpenGL library, and less on the non-ANS Forth. What benefits will be added by ANS compatibility? Graphics performance will be the same, and I'm not sure about keeping code readability. So I can claim we still need to write a programs with 3D when analyze it and make some conslusions about standard for them. Any new market area, non-existing in 1994, requires the same actions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48f8ea2e-ab12-44b2-bd94-315801e3be4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31948 |
> Completely not. "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?" > You asking me about game engine, and I give you a link to a simply game, based primarly on the OpenGL library, and less on the non-ANS Forth. What benefits will be added by ANS compatibility? Collaboration. Compatibility. Distribution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35c7b10e-0e9d-4c33-a4ac-05384f649313@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31950 |
пятница, 27 июня 2014 г., 19:45:27 UTC+4 пользователь Roger Levy написал: > > Completely not. > > > > "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?" > > > > > You asking me about game engine, and I give you a link to a simply game, based primarly on the OpenGL library, and less on the non-ANS Forth. What benefits will be added by ANS compatibility? > > > > Collaboration. Compatibility. Distribution. 1. Collaboration. "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?". So where are another Forth implementations or another teams to base (!) any project on the ability to collaborate? 2. Compatibility. Again, "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?". This is just an application, not an OS or language. Do you want to write all the applications by standart way? 3. Distribution. With end-user product almost nobody cares what technologies was used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fc2572f-c72e-47bd-8d00-ed0e4b6bef43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31961 |
> 1. Collaboration. > > "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?". So where are another Forth implementations or another teams to base (!) any project on the ability to collaborate? > > > > 2. Compatibility. > > Again, "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?". This is just an application, not an OS or language. Do you want to write all the applications by standart way? > > > > 3. Distribution. > > With end-user product almost nobody cares what technologies was used. This conversation has completely fallen off the edge. I have no idea what you're talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44a74952-8817-4dee-9817-010c63d4c94f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31963 |
Ohhhh, no, I think I've got it. You're just incredibly negative. I'll respond now... > > "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?". So where are another Forth implementations or another teams to base (!) any project on the ability to collaborate? If you build it, they will come? How else do new technologies get started? ANS94 is just the foundation. I'm trying to make something better out of it, something with universal value. Why don't you use those brain cells to help out? > > 2. Compatibility. > > > Again, "Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine?". This is just an application, not an OS or language. Do you want to write all the applications by standart way? An extension to Forth is always a new language, when you're maximizing the language. That's why they're called lexicons and wordsets. > > With end-user product almost nobody cares what technologies was used. Programmers do. I meant code distribution. Ever use a library or framework before?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b1325a8-4667-4a3e-af00-e5e1b6967ffc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31964 |
> How else do new technologies get started? ANS94 is just the foundation. I'm trying to make something better out of it, something with universal value. Why don't you use those brain cells to help out? Because the Forth idea itself is a foundation, not implementation. Forth is very easy to create, so why don't create different Forth implementation, optimized for domains or even for applications? Forth can be just a kind of auxiliary module in a large software project, and no silver bullet can exist. > An extension to Forth is always a new language, when you're maximizing the language. That's why they're called lexicons and wordsets. And there is an edge between Forth and lexicons? Why I can't ise file IO words compatible with more common standards? > Programmers do. I meant code distribution. Ever use a library or framework before? How many Forth programmers you can see around? I can repeat, there is a significanty different situation with Forth. Nobody can be sure to do the same as for C# and hoping on the same results. The game with 'tons of libraries and frameworks to make Forth more popular' continuously played in russian Forth community, with no results. This is because most active standard defenders does not want to have Forth popular, they simply want to have a libraries for free. When community is very small, there are minimal hope on some mythical programmers that comes and will use your library. It is better to switch to end-user projects instead, when build up appropriate tools for specific domain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c04193ef-8012-44ac-801a-84532c1f23ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31967 |
> How many Forth programmers you can see around? I can repeat, there is a significanty different situation with Forth. Nobody can be sure to do the same as for C# and hoping on the same results. The game with 'tons of libraries and frameworks to make Forth more popular' continuously played in russian Forth community, with no results. This is because most active standard defenders does not want to have Forth popular, they simply want to have a libraries for free. When community is very small, there are minimal hope on some mythical programmers that comes and will use your library. It is better to switch to end-user projects instead, when build up appropriate tools for specific domain. OK, now we're making more sense. You're still a troll, but I'll respond. Originally I did intend to just make applications (games and tools) and keep my entire codebase to myself as a secret weapon, revealing it when it reached a level of maturity. Mainly the tools would be the big reveal. The code was unimportant. Turns out, I really needed a lot of SwiftForth's and Forth94's services to get the job done. My work is not independent. And I'm not the best systems programmer. Also, I realized that if I'm committing to using Forth, and make real money off this enterprise (so far I've only made ~$2000), I really need to be able to target other platforms besides Windows. The amount of work required to do this is despairing. There is more - but at the least, it would require other people to be aware of what I was doing and have an understanding of the assumptions. As the complexity of my codebase reached a certain level, it got me thinking that I really didn't want to be alone in this anymore. The LEAST I can do, is get other people familiar with my toolbelt and components, and then show them how I use them in their current state. This in of itself is a ton of work; preparing things for publication. I want to attract people to Forth by molding it into something better, and Forth94 is just the baseline. On the bright side, it forced me to get my stuff to be much better organized, and to get a lot more disciplined about at least logging development. So now let's talk about Forth94 and what needs to be done and why. We all know that Forth94 is incomplete for modern development. How do you finish it? What to add? What to change? A lot of people take one of these strategies: throwing rocks, comparing it to other languages, insisting that it fulfills all their (outdated) needs, or just straight up pulling ideas out of their asses. I don't KNOW yet what Forth94 needs. I am just trying something, and it is working out okay. It has dawned on me that Forth might never have a common "flavor" (the same API for arrays, structs, etc), and that everyone is going to have their personal preferences. But Forth94 has a stack, a dictionary, words, and wordlists. It should be possible to agree on more standards, so that different flavors might be made interoperable to some extent. I'm dreaming of a time when people are able to write Forth94/200x+___? components in the words of their own toolbelt and say "here!" and people know what to do to get it working in their projects, and have it not be too much work to do so. My work is my usage case, a contribution to figuring out what the hell to do with Forth moving forward. How to use it to make more than embedded apps, Hanoi game examples, or, sorry to say, completely anachronistic game clones (good job though). Programming languages generally suck. They're terrible. Far too complicated than what they need to be. People spend more time dealing with the tool than being original or solving problems. From a game development perspective, I want something that has maximum freedom (Forth) but also the potential to compete (Forth94+___?). Take Unity3D. Great developer's interface, powerful game engine. You attach components to game objects instead of subclassing, and then fiddle with their parameters visually. But if you want to make a new component, you must learn one of 3 different languages, sometimes more than one, and dive deep into the API, which requires a lot of dots and a lot of subclassing to use - and tons of trial and error - no convenient aliasing or interactive testing for you. That rift, to me, is representative of programming culture. I want to do it differently. Interface and code should be much closer to each other in difficulty. It's not just a wish - I have viable ideas. They will take WORK. It would be *very nice* to not have to do it alone. To get to the point of even being able to share code that would work in such a system, we need to start by embracing the standard, not because it's good, but because it works. Replace the underlying standard later, sure, but first figure out more pressing problems, not bullshit like whether strings should be ASCIIZ or floats need an e. That, my friend, is bullshit. Low level junk that doesn't matter one way or the other right now. YES these things need to be addressed (and they can) but they don't have anything to do with if Forth94 is useful or not. I never claimed to expect anyone outside CLF to actually use Forth - yet. I tried making my work public before (Glypher, Tengoku, GC-Forth) when I didn't even know how to finish a game. (Talk about doing things out of order.) Now, I know how to finish games, and I am starting to learn how to make a good game engine, and on top of it I'm figuring out how to maximize Forth in general AND Forth94, to see if we can make it possible to share modular code and deal with the "multiple languages" problem, AND on top of all THAT, thinking about the evolution of Forth from a language and programmer's interface perspective. Ilya, you have valid points, although sometimes hard to understand at first, but your one-upping way of challenging people makes you a troll. There is no establishment to challenge - everyone in CLF is just an individual doing their own thing. People don't like trolls. You are smart, OK? If you needed someone to acknowledge that. Stop fighting the standard. It's already a done deal. Do your own thing if you want. Nobody will bother you. TLDR: Forth is great, Forth94 is incomplete but useful, collaboration is possible, and I'm trying to work on these problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <263d0ac0-4ac3-48a4-bc7c-c9eda3bc79ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31971 |
> OK, now we're making more sense. You're still a troll, but I'll respond. > > > > Originally I did intend to just make applications (games and tools) and keep my entire codebase to myself as a secret weapon, revealing it when it reached a level of maturity. Mainly the tools would be the big reveal. The code was unimportant. > > > > Turns out, I really needed a lot of SwiftForth's and Forth94's services to get the job done. My work is not independent. And I'm not the best systems programmer. Also, I realized that if I'm committing to using Forth, and make real money off this enterprise (so far I've only made ~$2000), I really need to be able to target other platforms besides Windows. The amount of work required to do this is despairing. There is more - but at the least, it would require other people to be aware of what I was doing and have an understanding of the assumptions. > > > > As the complexity of my codebase reached a certain level, it got me thinking that I really didn't want to be alone in this anymore. The LEAST I can do, is get other people familiar with my toolbelt and components, and then show them how I use them in their current state. This in of itself is a ton of work; preparing things for publication. I want to attract people to Forth by molding it into something better, and Forth94 is just the baseline. On the bright side, it forced me to get my stuff to be much better organized, and to get a lot more disciplined about at least logging development. > > > > So now let's talk about Forth94 and what needs to be done and why. > > > > We all know that Forth94 is incomplete for modern development. How do you finish it? What to add? What to change? A lot of people take one of these strategies: throwing rocks, comparing it to other languages, insisting that it fulfills all their (outdated) needs, or just straight up pulling ideas out of their asses. > > > > I don't KNOW yet what Forth94 needs. I am just trying something, and it is working out okay. It has dawned on me that Forth might never have a common "flavor" (the same API for arrays, structs, etc), and that everyone is going to have their personal preferences. But Forth94 has a stack, a dictionary, words, and wordlists. It should be possible to agree on more standards, so that different flavors might be made interoperable to some extent. I'm dreaming of a time when people are able to write Forth94/200x+___? components in the words of their own toolbelt and say "here!" and people know what to do to get it working in their projects, and have it not be too much work to do so. > > > > My work is my usage case, a contribution to figuring out what the hell to do with Forth moving forward. How to use it to make more than embedded apps, Hanoi game examples, or, sorry to say, completely anachronistic game clones (good job though). > > > > Programming languages generally suck. They're terrible. Far too complicated than what they need to be. People spend more time dealing with the tool than being original or solving problems. From a game development perspective, I want something that has maximum freedom (Forth) but also the potential to compete (Forth94+___?). > > > > Take Unity3D. Great developer's interface, powerful game engine. You attach components to game objects instead of subclassing, and then fiddle with their parameters visually. But if you want to make a new component, you must learn one of 3 different languages, sometimes more than one, and dive deep into the API, which requires a lot of dots and a lot of subclassing to use - and tons of trial and error - no convenient aliasing or interactive testing for you. That rift, to me, is representative of programming culture. I want to do it differently. Interface and code should be much closer to each other in difficulty. It's not just a wish - I have viable ideas. They will take WORK. It would be *very nice* to not have to do it alone. > > > > To get to the point of even being able to share code that would work in such a system, we need to start by embracing the standard, not because it's good, but because it works. Replace the underlying standard later, sure, but first figure out more pressing problems, not bullshit like whether strings should be ASCIIZ or floats need an e. That, my friend, is bullshit. Low level junk that doesn't matter one way or the other right now. YES these things need to be addressed (and they can) but they don't have anything to do with if Forth94 is useful or not. > > > > I never claimed to expect anyone outside CLF to actually use Forth - yet. I tried making my work public before (Glypher, Tengoku, GC-Forth) when I didn't even know how to finish a game. (Talk about doing things out of order.) Now, I know how to finish games, and I am starting to learn how to make a good game engine, and on top of it I'm figuring out how to maximize Forth in general AND Forth94, to see if we can make it possible to share modular code and deal with the "multiple languages" problem, AND on top of all THAT, thinking about the evolution of Forth from a language and programmer's interface perspective. > > > > Ilya, you have valid points, although sometimes hard to understand at first, but your one-upping way of challenging people makes you a troll. There is no establishment to challenge - everyone in CLF is just an individual doing their own thing. People don't like trolls. You are smart, OK? If you needed someone to acknowledge that. Stop fighting the standard. It's already a done deal. Do your own thing if you want. Nobody will bother you. > > > > TLDR: Forth is great, Forth94 is incomplete but useful, collaboration is possible, and I'm trying to work on these problems. This is a style of answer what I waits for! Just look up and read how many arguments appears after my so-called 'trolling' :) Now I can see your project is not focused on the new Forth features and having a known base is more important for you. This kind of analysis is a hard work indeed, and more acceptable for a scientific environment. Although, this usually must be done for the better results. If you havn't a boss who hire you for Forth programming, you must be the boss for yourself and decide what should be done from strategic point of view. As for me, it is better to answer 100 sharp questions than reveal your fail from the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-28 14:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xh6f3mep6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #31971 |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:12:45 -0400, Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> wrote: > Programming languages generally suck. They're terrible. Far too > complicated than what they need to be. Which languages are exempt from "generally"? I'd guess that you'd say three languages: BASIC, C, Forth. BASIC because it's simple. C and Forth because they're close the machine. Is that a good guess? Or, do you mean C and Forth are "far too complicated" too? ... In that case, you're no longer criticizing the language, but criticing the complexity of the machine. I.e., you're saying the EE's (electrical engineers) who designed the machine are too smart for you because they designed in too much complexity for you to handle. > People spend more time dealing with the tool than being original > or solving problems. I don't see that as being the case with C. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8bd1689-2e33-4a55-a512-f15bc93c7362@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31967 |
On Friday, June 27, 2014 2:43:26 PM UTC-4, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > > How else do new technologies get started? ANS94 is just the foundation. I'm trying to make something better out of it, something with universal value. Why don't you use those brain cells to help out? > Because the Forth idea itself is a foundation, not implementation. Forth is very easy to create, so why don't create different Forth implementation, optimized for domains or even for applications? Forth can be just a kind of auxiliary module in a large software project, and no silver bullet can exist. That's where Forth94 was such a big step ahead from Forth79 and Forth83, in that its offers much more freedom for a Forth implementer to implement the model they want to, and as long as they avoid attaching a non-standard behavior to a standardized word name, they are good. If they have some way to load stored source, they don't even have to have all of the CORE in the boot-up image, as long as they explain how to bring up the CORE. If you have an implementation that is a subset of the CORE, it still makes it easier for people to understand your implementation if you align it with Forth94. If you have any specific needs that are not addressed in Forth94, or not addressed to your satisfaction, just avoid re-using reserved Forth94 words, and you're OK. Many of the Forth94 words where that is most common have hyphenated names like OPEN-FILE which leaves ``open'' available for a file open word tailored to your situation. You seem to be arguing that Forth94 should grant you freedoms that it already grants everyone. > > An extension to Forth is always a new language, when you're maximizing the language. That's why they're called lexicons and wordsets. > And there is an edge between Forth and lexicons? I reckon it a subset/superset relationship. If its still appropriate to use the Forth stack words in combination with your extensions, they are an extension of Forth. If you are at a layer where the stack interface is internal to the words in use, you have an Application Specific Language written in Forth. (1) You can say "this is not Forth94" and any names can be attached to any behavior. That is telling the truth. (2) You can say "this is Forth94", and you cannot redefined a standard word to have a behavior incompatible with the specification. But any unreserved names can be attached to any behavior. That is telling the truth. (3) If you say "this is Forth94" and you attach a reserved name to a behavior that violates the standard specification, you are lying. Now, the standard itself has no enforcement mechanism, but other people will recognize (1) and (2) as honesty and (3) as lying. > Why I can't ise file IO words compatible with more common standards? You can. That's explicitly allowed by the standard. As long as you do not use a reserved Forth94 name for those operations, you are fine. Of course, if someone else hasn't implemented it the way you want it done, then you have to do it yourself, but that's not the standard's fault, that's just life. The standard is about what some specific words mean. Every word not reserved by the standard is available for you to give whatever meaning you want to give to it. And file operations are particularly good for this, since all the good names are available and all the reserved names are cumbersome. > > Programmers do. I meant code distribution. Ever use a library or framework before? > How many Forth programmers you can see around? How many awk programmers do you see around? But as long as AWK is required by some standard that the main Linux distributions and the BusyBox people respect, I'm good, because I use awk to script my own stuff. Anything that I would need to get a functional library from a thriving awk community (which used to exist, before Perl came along), I don't do in awk anyway. Programming language programmer populations are exponentially distributed. Big A-tier languages have multiples of the programmers of B-tier languages, which have multiples of the programmers of C-tier languages, and so on. That's because programming for many people is a social activity. Some want to program in the language others are programming in, so they can borrow what they are doing and add just a little bit of problem specific stuff of their own. Some want to program for people to use their stuff, and so they want to program in more popular languages. So language popularity is a positive feedback loop, like operating system popularity. Fragmenting is more problematic when there are fewer people doing open source code. In a big language community, you can find dozens of things that are roughly what you want. In a smaller community, there may be just the one source, and if you have to do a lot of work to adapt it, then unless you want to write from scratch, that's what you have to do. > I can repeat, there is a significanty different situation with Forth. Nobody can be sure to do the same as for C# and hoping on the same results. The game with 'tons of libraries and frameworks to make Forth more popular' continuously played in russian Forth community, with no results. Its not Forth94's fault if they have got cause and effect confused. What makes a niche language grow in popularity is because somebody wants to do something and they see that there is some approach to it done in some niche language that is so compelling that they are willing to invest in learning the niche language. But that is not the bread and butter of a niche language. The bread and butter is using it to solve problems, and sharing what you've done. If somewhere along the way, something that is done attracts additional interest, maybe the niche language will experience an increase in popularity. If not, at least you have the solutions to the problems you were looking for, and you haven't wasted a lot of time on the low odds chase for getting a big hit application. > This is because most active standard defenders does not want to have Forth popular, they simply want to have a libraries for free. Forth94 is not the cause of people in small groups behaving that way. The fact that they are people is the problem, in that case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 17:45 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <H5SdnWShyJF1dTHOnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31908 |
On 6/26/14 1:03 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >>> Why not? Because I have no need to use any code from distant companies or sell my libraries. This is really important for mainstream languages, there are a tons of libraries to share. Forth has no such support, and more important thing in Forth is to find a more effective way to use its features in particular task. >> Hah! Go try writing a game engine and come back! > > I come back! :))) > http://fforum.winglion.ru/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2916&start=5 > > I'm not sure, of course. This is my JFF replica of old ZX Spectrum Elite game, so graphics is as close to Speccy as possible. It is OpenGL based, but OpenGL is a worldwide standard de-facto, when ANS-Forth is not. Can you list any ANS94 words related to 3D free flight engine? Graphics is an application area. OpenGL is a graphics-specific set of functions, while Forth is a general purpose language, so not a valid comparison. One can, of course, write graphics routines in Forth, and many have. >>> Standard means nothing in the case of rare language. What happens in the case of some problems with project? Are there any committee experts to provide a professional consultation? Are there any support teams to solve problems with Forth? Are there any ways to provide feedback? Without any serious ecosystem having standard looks like a sort of 'cargo cult'. >> >> This is just plain trolling. Can your argument get any more pointless? > > If you are not agreed, this does not mean it is a trolling. When I use OpenGL functions, I'm sure the program will run on almost any PC, because almost any graphics controller can support OpenGL. If something fails in OpenGL, I can imagine the resources of Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft, Linux community etc. to fix this problem. If something fails in ANS-compatible Forth... what happens? I will get a tip like 'feel the spirit of Forth'? This is a real problem to support any language pretends to be worldwide, so why someone ever hope to organize all the forthers around himself? If something fails in ANS Forth you can complain to whoever provided the Forth system you're using, or bring you problems here. Of course, if it's a Forth you wrote yourself, you have only to complain to your mirror. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-26 15:05 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <BeqdnRQ7Gav0XjHOnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31897 |
On 6/26/14 12:06 PM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: ... >> Pointy haired bosses would like to imagine a world where programmers, and any other creative profession, are interchangeable commodities, and "Standard Program" and "Standard System" panders to that fantasy. > > Standard means nothing in the case of rare language. What happens in the case of some problems with project? Are there any committee experts to provide a professional consultation? Are there any support teams to solve problems with Forth? Are there any ways to provide feedback? Without any serious ecosystem having standard looks like a sort of 'cargo cult'. When companies have problems with Forth projects they usually call in a Forth expert. They're not that hard to find. Vendors such as MPE and FORTH, Inc. provide support to our customers as well as other Forth users. Folks here in c.l.f support the free & PD systems. Even old projects on versions of Forth that aren't supported any more get support: FORTH, Inc. is currently involved with a company helping with revisions to a project built on an antique 68HC11 Forth. That system was not coded to ANS Forth standards; if it had been, it would have been easier for us and cheaper for the customer to do what is necessary. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-27 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <800aafe3-d084-4168-a8b9-b6e0c377dab2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31913 |
> > When companies have problems with Forth projects they usually call in a > Forth expert. They're not that hard to find. Vendors such as MPE and > FORTH, Inc. provide support to our customers as well as other Forth > users. Folks here in c.l.f support the free & PD systems. Even old This is just company-to-company relations. Nevertheless, this is not my hating of committee or wishing some kind of 'satisfaction'. I can see more and more 'dead loops' when any person asks for a good Forth, but don't want to use existing ones. In practice, starting with demanding of standard, IDE, libraries, ForthOS etc. leads to nothing. If you want to keep this and just wait for a thousands of new users, this has a low chances and things will going worse and worse. Or, perhaps, you have another statistics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web