Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #31555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-15 07:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-08-12 03:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-06-15 07:06 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-06-15 08:48 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-06-15 23:43 +0100
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-15 19:44 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-16 02:21 +0200
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-06-16 09:26 +0100
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-06-17 04:06 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-06-15 19:39 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-06-15 23:01 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-17 09:27 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-17 20:12 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-17 21:15 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-17 22:34 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-17 23:11 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-18 16:57 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-06-20 05:03 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-20 14:56 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-20 17:03 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-20 17:53 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-21 10:57 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 11:06 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-21 13:30 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 11:58 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-21 14:22 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-21 20:13 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 21:54 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-21 22:31 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-22 05:31 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-22 07:04 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-22 18:02 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-23 02:53 +0200
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-22 20:29 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-22 13:40 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-22 12:08 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX november.nihal@gmail.com - 2014-06-22 16:03 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-22 20:30 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 15:17 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 15:51 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-26 22:49 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-27 07:32 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-27 23:01 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 06:59 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 08:07 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-28 08:34 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-28 07:23 -1000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-28 22:46 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-07-27 02:06 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-07-28 07:31 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-07-28 11:23 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-07-28 19:21 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-07-28 20:59 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-07-29 11:10 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-07-29 09:45 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-07-29 07:44 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-07-29 17:48 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-07-29 11:14 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX mhx@iae.nl - 2014-07-29 12:57 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-29 18:36 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-07-29 20:38 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-29 21:43 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-07-29 23:05 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-30 22:20 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-07-31 00:19 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-07-30 01:41 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-30 21:42 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-07-31 01:08 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-07-31 20:25 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-08-01 02:23 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-08-01 12:54 +0200
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-08-01 19:57 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-08-02 04:18 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-07-27 02:14 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com - 2014-06-21 21:59 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-06-21 22:36 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-21 22:44 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-06-22 02:26 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-22 07:41 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-22 07:43 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-22 19:57 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-24 21:04 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-24 15:21 -1000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:21 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-25 03:16 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 12:08 +0300
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 14:08 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 19:13 +0300
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 17:14 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 21:03 +0300
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-26 12:13 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-25 16:14 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-06-25 17:27 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:24 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-26 03:27 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 17:50 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-06-27 03:13 -0500
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-27 12:30 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 03:46 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-06-25 16:15 +0000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 13:19 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:52 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 10:45 +0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 09:56 +0300
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 11:30 +0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-25 18:38 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-25 20:49 -1000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 17:54 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-07-26 21:53 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2014-06-22 22:22 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-23 07:31 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-24 17:05 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-24 20:55 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 19:52 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 13:09 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2014-06-23 00:17 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2014-06-23 00:27 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-23 07:45 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-23 07:54 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 00:56 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-06-27 03:33 +0200
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 18:20 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 18:50 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-25 20:00 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-25 23:02 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-06-26 10:28 +0100
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-26 07:56 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-06-26 07:59 -1000
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 17:33 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 17:26 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-26 17:22 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-18 22:07 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-06-18 19:28 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-18 23:09 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-06-18 20:02 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-06-19 18:28 -0400
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-06-17 21:01 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX mhx@iae.nl - 2014-06-17 23:01 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX jyf <jyf1987@gmail.com> - 2014-06-19 22:13 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-06-19 22:34 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX brelliott18@hotmail.com - 2014-08-10 09:15 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-08-11 14:31 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-08-11 23:51 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX brelliott18@hotmail.com - 2014-08-12 03:14 -0700
Re: FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-08-12 03:51 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-15 07:06 -0700 |
| Subject | FORTH LITE TUTORIAL based on MPE VFX |
| Message-ID | <2d2eba75-5d44-422a-8a3f-751702d8cea6@googlegroups.com> |
It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that start. I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. Yes, it is for beginners Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by amazon Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth free to download. Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have no time to post this next week. Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-15 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93497052-bb65-4463-8e61-f61e102bc64b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31555 |
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:06:46 PM UTC+1, JUERGEN wrote: > It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that start. > > I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. > > > > Yes, it is for beginners > > Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by amazon > > Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth free to download. > > Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have no time to post this next week. > > Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook > > Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. > > NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. > > Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen. They were quicker than expected, here it is http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L0F32Q8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-15 23:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c06ls4FdtoaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #31556 |
JUERGEN wrote: > On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:06:46 PM UTC+1, JUERGEN wrote: >> It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that >> start. >> >> I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. >> >> >> >> Yes, it is for beginners >> >> Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by amazon >> >> Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth >> free to download. >> >> Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have >> no time to post this next week. >> >> Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook >> >> Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen >> here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. >> >> NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. >> >> Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen. > > They were quicker than expected, here it is > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L0F32Q8 <http://www.amazon.co.uk/FORTH-LITE-TUTORIAL-Tutorial-version-ebook/dp/B00L0F32Q8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1402871805&sr=8-4&keywords=juergen+pintaske> will get it for UK based Kindle Reader users. £2.44 -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-15 19:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lnlb3p$p26$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31556 |
On 6/15/2014 11:48 AM, JUERGEN wrote: > On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:06:46 PM UTC+1, JUERGEN wrote: >> It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that start. >> >> I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. >> >> >> >> Yes, it is for beginners >> >> Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by amazon >> >> Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth free to download. >> >> Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have no time to post this next week. >> >> Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook >> >> Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. >> >> NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. >> >> Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen. > > They were quicker than expected, here it is > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L0F32Q8 I'm not very familiar with Kindle/Amazon. Once I buy it is it downloaded into my PC to read or do I have to be online? They talk about an app I have to install which syncs across multiple machines and other things that makes me think this may not work so well if you aren't connected all the time. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-16 02:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lnldab$l34$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #31574 |
rickman wrote: > I'm not very familiar with Kindle/Amazon. Once I buy it is it > downloaded into my PC to read or do I have to be online? They talk > about an app I have to install which syncs across multiple machines and > other things that makes me think this may not work so well if you aren't > connected all the time. Reading Kindle offline (e.g. on an Android tablet) isn't a problem. Though I so far used my Kindle app only for free content; I'm not so much in e- books, as long as a printed version costs about the same, I prefer the dead tree version. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-16 09:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c07o2iFkc4sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #31574 |
rickman wrote: > On 6/15/2014 11:48 AM, JUERGEN wrote: >> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:06:46 PM UTC+1, JUERGEN wrote: >>> It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that >>> start. >>> >>> I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, it is for beginners >>> >>> Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by >>> amazon >>> >>> Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth >>> free to download. >>> >>> Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have >>> no time to post this next week. >>> >>> Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook >>> >>> Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen >>> here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. >>> >>> NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. >>> >>> Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen. >> >> They were quicker than expected, here it is >> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L0F32Q8 > > I'm not very familiar with Kindle/Amazon. Once I buy it is it > downloaded into my PC to read or do I have to be online? They talk > about an app I have to install which syncs across multiple machines and > other things that makes me think this may not work so well if you aren't > connected all the time. Amazon keep track of what you have downloaded to read, but you get a copy on your devices (a multiple of your devices if you wish to read it on more than one). I mostly keep my real Kindle off-line but can also access and read the books on my Android Tablet which has the Kindle Reader App. The Real Kindle is sometimes easier to read. Regards Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET Systems Engineer -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 04:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6a1a16a-6d5e-45fc-ba31-0ace48547594@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31585 |
On Monday, June 16, 2014 9:26:58 AM UTC+1, Paul E Bennett wrote: > rickman wrote: > > > > > On 6/15/2014 11:48 AM, JUERGEN wrote: > > >> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:06:46 PM UTC+1, JUERGEN wrote: > > >>> It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that > > >>> start. > > >>> > > >>> I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it is for beginners > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by > > >>> amazon > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth > > >>> free to download. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have > > >>> no time to post this next week. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook > > >>> > > >>> Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen > > >>> here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. > > >>> > > >>> NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen. > > >> > > >> They were quicker than expected, here it is > > >> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L0F32Q8 > > > > > > I'm not very familiar with Kindle/Amazon. Once I buy it is it > > > downloaded into my PC to read or do I have to be online? They talk > > > about an app I have to install which syncs across multiple machines and > > > other things that makes me think this may not work so well if you aren't > > > connected all the time. > > > > Amazon keep track of what you have downloaded to read, but you get a copy on > > your devices (a multiple of your devices if you wish to read it on more than > > one). I mostly keep my real Kindle off-line but can also access and read the > > books on my Android Tablet which has the Kindle Reader App. The Real Kindle > > is sometimes easier to read. > > > > Regards > > > > Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET > > Systems Engineer Using the copy and paste on a PC as described in the book: on a Mac seems to give issues, not clear why - so for now PC and tablet only please. The plan was PC to try it out, tablet/mobile for reading. Kindle eBook as distribution channel, and so you can carry it around easily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-15 19:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lnlaqn$npa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31555 |
On 6/15/2014 10:06 AM, JUERGEN wrote: > It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that start. > I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. > > Yes, it is for beginners > Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by amazon > Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth free to download. > Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have no time to post this next week. > Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook > Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. > NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. > Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen. Ok, let's start with the negative... lol No, really, nice work; and I haven't even read it yet. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-15 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3bf66f8f-9e5f-46b0-9f23-a2fe5ffdebd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31555 |
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:06:46 PM UTC+1, JUERGEN wrote: > It might not be for most of the clf people - just for the ones that start. > > I just published on amazon a tutorial based on MPE VFX. > > > > Yes, it is for beginners > > Yes, it is not free - at least a couple of beers should be paid by amazon > > Yes, it is based on MPE VFX Forth - I wanted to use a commercial Forth free to download. > > Yes, you still have to wait, as amazon is still working on it but I have no time to post this next week. > > Yes, I would like feedback, but please to my email address in the ebook > > Yes, it was a lot of work, and based on some of the comments I have seen here, I will probably soon be getting the usual negative comments. > > NO, I do not care about such comments, wanted to do it and done now. > > Yes, a BIG THANK YOU to Leo and to Stephen. You can download the free Kindle version to your PC, get the ebook and read it offline. I can only speak for Windows, regarding Linux there are other people here who will know I assume. The link is in the ebook in the first pages, I tried to put all the links in. If there are more needed, please a private email, this was a start. I know it could be done better, but the aim was to have it, see the Forth answers or try them out yourself after downloading the free VFX demo version. This is a Tutorial to start, there are a lot more out there at a higher level. I had the printed version for corrections, and I might update it from eBook to a printed version - nicely bound just as the final step to finish the project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdc46d42-f43c-49a0-8d7b-3a1ce6fe6c4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31555 |
I applaud your work, but this reminds me that what Forth needs is some discourse on advanced high-level use! Maybe I'll write Forth DELUXE. There are so many existing publications on Forth fundamentals out there :P People have no shortage of tutorials on Forth which all seem to follow the same blueprint. If you took it at face value, you'd think that Forth programmers have no need for anything but the stack, definitions, and VARIABLEs and are therefore some kind of magic voodoo people. (of course I'm exaggerating a little, but all these concepts are VERY basic) We all know Forth development quite a bit more complicated and interesting than that. It seems to be a dark art mastered in private by individuals or small teams. Continued discussion of the fundamentals seems somewhat inappropriate if you want to actually encourage utilization. I think that maybe these types of tutorials started out in a much more dynamic, tight-knit climate, when programmers communicated more in general concepts than specific implementations (which is something I despise about the current climate), and the first tutorials assumed that the reader knew a LOT about higher-level general programming concepts and would really quickly come up with ways to use Forth's building blocks to create what they want. People are in some ways a lot more bogged down and need a little more spoon-fed to them, maybe. The information is there, but the implications are obscured. A sense of self-awareness regarding the language, in the face of the rest of the programming world these days, is missing. I and everybody else is interested/curious about what you can do beyond the basic elements. Forth is really a bonafide language-design-language and discussion on how we get from the fundamentals to implementations of well-known higher-level concepts would make for something fresh and hopefully more legitimizing. Just thinking aloud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a70ebf2f-6722-44af-935d-c7989f0aaf93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31613 |
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:27:52 AM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote: > I applaud your work, but this reminds me that what Forth needs is some discourse on advanced high-level use! Maybe I'll write Forth DELUXE. There are so many existing publications on Forth fundamentals out there :P People have no shortage of tutorials on Forth which all seem to follow the same blueprint. If you took it at face value, you'd think that Forth programmers have no need for anything but the stack, definitions, and VARIABLEs and are therefore some kind of magic voodoo people. (of course I'm exaggerating a little, but all these concepts are VERY basic) I've been programming in Forth since 1984, and I can tell you that the general programming populace does not think that Forth programmers are "magic voodoo people" who can work big wonders using only the stack, definitions and variables. What they think is that we are not working big wonders, or even medium-sized wonders, and that we don't deserve to be called "programmers" at all because we are just faking it and have never actually succeeded in getting a non-trivial program to work. > We all know Forth development quite a bit more complicated and interesting than that. It seems to be a dark art mastered in private by individuals or small teams. Continued discussion of the fundamentals seems somewhat inappropriate if you want to actually encourage utilization. I think that maybe these types of tutorials started out in a much more dynamic, tight-knit climate, when programmers communicated more in general concepts than specific implementations (which is something I despise about the current climate), and the first tutorials assumed that the reader knew a LOT about higher-level general programming concepts and would really quickly come up with ways to use Forth's building blocks to create what they want. People are in some ways a lot more bogged down and need a little more spoon-fed to them, maybe. When I started programming in Forth in 1984, I did not know: "a LOT about higher-level general programming concepts and would really quickly come up with ways to use Forth's building blocks to create what they want." I was 18; I did not know much of anything --- my background was in line-number BASIC. It would actually be years before I implemented structs in Forth. I had a vague idea of the concept from Pascal class in high school (structs are called "records" in Pascal), but I didn't know what they were for, and I had no idea how to implement them. NONE of the Forth literature explained any of this --- EVERYTHING that I learned about structs came from learning C --- actually, EVERYTHING that I know about computer-science came from other programming languages, and I brought it over to Forth myself. I can really empathize with programmers of other languages who think that Forth is a toy language unsuitable for application programming --- I would think so too if all I knew about Forth was what I learned from reading Forth literature --- everything that I know about Forth, I figured out on my own without benefit of any Forth literature. I remember my first non-trivial Forth program (on the Commodore Vic-20), which I wrote when I was 18. This generated the codes for a master-key system using Kwikset door-locks (this was for a motel, as 1984 was many years prior to the use of magnetic swipey cards at motels which are much more secure). My first effort was a total failure. I wrote the whole program and then tested it, and when I discovered that it didn't work I had no idea as to where to even begin to look for the bugs. I became frustrated and wanted to give up. Then I decided to do what the real Forth programmers (college students out at Isla Vista) said to do, which is to write short functions and test them immediately, and work up to a full program (bottom-up design). I did this, and I quickly got the program to work --- what had seemed complicated and near-impossible, suddenly seemed easy. I thought to myself: "Factoring is strong magic!" Suddenly I could imagine myself writing big programs that worked, whereas previously this had seemed about as likely as me slaying dragons with a sword. It was because of this experience that I stuck with Forth --- although, as I said, it would be years before I learned basic computer-science concepts such as what data-structures are. Forth is just stuck at the novice level. Today, in 2014, Elizabeth Rather continues to teach PAD. Way back in 1984, I knew that PAD was a bad idea. Obviously, PAD is only going to work in a very small program where you can read all of your code at a glance and be able to ensure that PAD is not used in multiple places in the program for conflicting purposes, and you only need to access one string at a time. As an 18YO boy, I didn't need any real programmers and/or literature to tell me that PAD is a bad idea, as common-sense was sufficient. Why is PAD in the ANS-Forth standard? This is stupid! Why is Elizabeth Rather considered to be a "leading expert" on Forth? She doesn't know even the most basic computer-science concepts that can be figured out with common-sense. No Forth Inc. book has ever explained how to implement structs, and I have no evidence to indicate that anybody at Forth Inc. knows what structs are --- I don't think that Forth Inc. has ever succeeded in getting a non-trivial program to work --- I think they are totally faking it. > The information is there, but the implications are obscured. The information is there??? Provide a link --- I'm not familiar with any Forth literature anywhere that provides any information beyond the basics (mostly a long-winded explanation of how a stack works). > A sense of self-awareness regarding the language, in the face of the rest of the programming world these days, is missing. I and everybody else is interested/curious about what you can do beyond the basic elements. Forth is really a bonafide language-design-language and discussion on how we get from the fundamentals to implementations of well-known higher-level concepts would make for something fresh and hopefully more legitimizing. "Legitimizing" --- that is what Forth needs!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5be1ebb2-75e3-433a-bb83-542f3763acb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31619 |
> I've been programming in Forth since 1984, and I can tell you that the general programming populace does not think that Forth programmers are "magic voodoo people" who can work big wonders using only the stack, definitions and variables. What they think is that we are not working big wonders, or even medium-sized wonders, and that we don't deserve to be called "programmers" at all because we are just faking it and have never actually succeeded in getting a non-trivial program to work. A few people know that I have gotten a non-trivial program to work (The Lady) and merely say they've never heard of Forth when I tell them. Taking the comp.lang.forth community as representative of all Forth programmers, I am inclined to agree with you. Little more than discussion of Forth implementation and inconsequential minutiae seems to characterize most discussion at the moment - you don't hear about serious applications, and you definitely don't see much in the way of sharing code beyond basically toys and thought experiments. But maybe it's not all our fault. Forth is just not popular; support is low. It's hard to concentrate on things that are not mentioned in the working world - things like application-oriented language design. Instead people discuss things they can chew on, which happens to be the stuff that is oft-repeated due to there being a descent from the original literature into a sort of feedback loop. Forthers these days are also victims of the trend - said another way, everyone has been pigeon-holed into the position of a "consumer", and productive thought is rare or delegated to the "ruling classes". So Forth is still a dark art and the smartest people who get to use it in their day jobs know how to use it but don't talk about it. Myself, I'm trying to buck that trend, though I'm aware my perception could be out-of-date. AFAIK there are people still using it in the professional world to do serious programs, but correct me if I'm wrong. I know I haven't even properly defined "serious program", but let's just say that that means programs with at least 500 definitions. > When I started programming in Forth in 1984, I did not know: "a LOT about higher-level general programming concepts and would really quickly come up with ways to use Forth's building blocks to create what they want." I was 18; I did not know much of anything --- my background was in line-number BASIC. It would actually be years before I implemented structs in Forth. I had a vague idea of the concept from Pascal class in high school (structs are called "records" in Pascal), but I didn't know what they were for, and I had no idea how to implement them. NONE of the Forth literature explained any of this --- EVERYTHING that I learned about structs came from learning C --- actually, EVERYTHING that I know about computer-science came from other programming languages, and I brought it over to Forth myself. I can really empathize with programmers of other languages who think that Forth is a toy language unsuitable for application programming --- I would think so too if all I knew about Forth was what I learned from reading Forth literature --- everything that I know about Forth, I figured out on my own without benefit of any Forth literature. Exactly. The literature and support has always kind of sucked. There is so much I have learned over the years that could have easily been transcribed without corrupting Forth's simplicity. All one has to do after describing features is add clauses that go "this feature lets you do things such as..." and that would help greatly. The examples we have in books like Thinking Forth are barely relevant today. > I became frustrated and wanted to give up. Then I decided to do what the real Forth programmers (college students out at Isla Vista) said to do, which is to write short functions and test them immediately, and work up to a full program (bottom-up design). I did this, and I quickly got the program to work --- what had seemed complicated and near-impossible, suddenly seemed easy. I thought to myself: "Factoring is strong magic!" Suddenly I could imagine myself writing big programs that worked, whereas previously this had seemed about as likely as me slaying dragons with a sword. It was because of this experience that I stuck with Forth --- although, as I said, it would be years before I learned basic computer-science concepts such as what data-structures are. I am so jealous that you actually got to talk to Forth programmers around your age, and that they were actually near you. I have had a hell of a time trying to get any of my friends to touch it. They get excited at first but then when they see it they decide they don't have the time. So maybe the books were as not-so-helpful then as they seem now? Was there a philosophy of "no better knowledge than that gained through experience"? I am still trying to discern why people never dared to go beyond the basics when discussing things, or mentioning things in passing. The whole thing is shrouded in mystery. I'm terrible at writing about software. I never graduated college, and I never really formally studied software development. I don't know all the jargon - all the names for "patterns" people have come up with over the years. So I don't think I'm the person to do it, at least not alone, but I think I know what's missing. > Forth is just stuck at the novice level. Today, in 2014, Elizabeth Rather continues to teach PAD. Way back in 1984, I knew that PAD was a bad idea. Obviously, PAD is only going to work in a very small program where you can read all of your code at a glance and be able to ensure that PAD is not used in multiple places in the program for conflicting purposes, and you only need to access one string at a time. As an 18YO boy, I didn't need any real programmers and/or literature to tell me that PAD is a bad idea, as common-sense was sufficient. Why is PAD in the ANS-Forth standard? This is stupid! Why is Elizabeth Rather considered to be a "leading expert" on Forth? She doesn't know even the most basic computer-science concepts that can be figured out with common-sense. No Forth Inc. book has ever explained how to implement structs, and I have no evidence to indicate that anybody at Forth Inc. knows what structs are --- I don't think that Forth Inc. has ever succeeded in getting a non-trivial program to work --- I think they are totally faking it. You seem to get riled up over Elizabeth easily. Leaving personal grudges alone, I also thought PAD was an odd thing to have in a standard. It contradicts what I'd think a standard was meant to encourage; e.g. distribution, modularity, etc etc. PAD is like Forth's GOTO. Really unstructured. If I had a say I'd deprecate the shit out of it. If you want PAD in your lexicon have at it, but do it in a safe way by allocating your own chunk of memory for it or something. Structs are implemented as SWOOP, I believe. I use my own struct system. It would have been amazing to have run across a book on various Forth struct lexicons with their advantages and disadvantages. > The information is there??? Provide a link --- I'm not familiar with any Forth literature anywhere that provides any information beyond the basics (mostly a long-winded explanation of how a stack works). Hah. I meant, the basic information. I was more referring to the "voice" though, like, the tendency of programmers to go on and on about the "what" but not venture too much into the "why". We get caught up in the details. Forth is great for avoiding that trap - wish I could get my friends to see that. > "Legitimizing" --- that is what Forth needs! You said it. I think critical and constructive discussion as a way of kind of upending the table is one good way to start. And I'm going to keep on making games. Maybe if I get to a certain point the fact that I'm superhumanly productive in Forth will turn a few important heads. I wouldn't say it's quite "superhuman" yet though, but it's getting there. Sucks that I had to discover all the secret truths myself! Getting so deep into Forth has definitely been a bizarre trip.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 22:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfd2068a-74a8-4b36-ab09-8234095c2917@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31624 |
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:15:15 PM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote: > So Forth is still a dark art and the smartest people who get to use it in their day jobs know how to use it but don't talk about it. Myself, I'm trying to buck that trend, though I'm aware my perception could be out-of-date. AFAIK there are people still using it in the professional world to do serious programs, but correct me if I'm wrong. I know I haven't even properly defined "serious program", but let's just say that that means programs with at least 500 definitions. My definition of a "serious program" is one with commercial application. The motion-control board based on the MiniForth that Testra sells, for example, was used in laser etching. I have no idea how many definitions were in the motion-control program because I didn't see the source-code, and I don't know about MFX either because I didn't bother to count them (although I think what I wrote was over 500 because I tend to factor a lot, and MFX was way over 500 if you take into account all of the functions that my code automatically generated thanks to Forth's meta-programming capability). On a related note, have any of Charles Moore's Forth engines ever been used in commercial applications? I think the Novix was used in race-car engine control --- anything else? > > I became frustrated and wanted to give up. Then I decided to do what the real Forth programmers (college students out at Isla Vista) said to do, which is to write short functions and test them immediately, and work up to a full program (bottom-up design). I did this, and I quickly got the program to work --- what had seemed complicated and near-impossible, suddenly seemed easy. I thought to myself: "Factoring is strong magic!" Suddenly I could imagine myself writing big programs that worked, whereas previously this had seemed about as likely as me slaying dragons with a sword. It was because of this experience that I stuck with Forth --- although, as I said, it would be years before I learned basic computer-science concepts such as what data-structures are. > > I am so jealous that you actually got to talk to Forth programmers around your age, and that they were actually near you. I have had a hell of a time trying to get any of my friends to touch it. They get excited at first but then when they see it they decide they don't have the time. I can remember bicycling around Santa Barbara and Isla Vista (I didn't have a car when I was 18) and seeing cars with a bumper-sticker that said: "Forth [heart] if honk then" --- pulling alongside their car and saying "hello" was the best way to meet Forth programmers. You are young? You weren't around in the 1980s? The world was different back then --- Forth was taken seriously as a candidate for personal computers and micro-controllers (both of which were limited to 64KB total, and more typically had 8KB of RAM or less and 16KB of ROM or less) --- C was tightly coupled with Unix (an expensive OS used on very expensive hardware by big institutions) and seemed like an unlikely candidate for personal computers and much less for micro-controllers (C on a 6502 or Z80 was grossly inefficient and everybody just programmed in assembly-language back then). > So maybe the books were as not-so-helpful then as they seem now? Was there a philosophy of "no better knowledge than that gained through experience"? I am still trying to discern why people never dared to go beyond the basics when discussing things, or mentioning things in passing. The whole thing is shrouded in mystery. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a not-very-friendly competition between Forth and C --- Forth lost --- and history is written by the winners, so all discussion of Forth dried up. It is not that mysterious. I get riled up at Elizabeth Rather because I blame her personally for Forth's failure to become popular. She is a non-programmer sales-person --- she embarrassed the Forth community every day with her idiotic pronouncements about the technical aspects of programming, as well as the jarring lack of quality in PolyForth (QBasic was routinely compared favorably to PolyForth) --- and her ANS-Forth totally killed Forth in 1994 (that is what you get when you put a salesperson in charge of standardization). > And I'm going to keep on making games. Maybe if I get to a certain point the fact that I'm superhumanly productive in Forth will turn a few important heads. I wouldn't say it's quite "superhuman" yet though, but it's getting there. Sucks that I had to discover all the secret truths myself! Getting so deep into Forth has definitely been a bizarre trip. We haven't seen any of your Forth code yet, so we know nothing of your Forth style or technique. Certainly "The Lady" was non-trivial, and a program like that would likely be beyond my ability (because I have no experience implementing games and don't really know anything about the subject). I enjoy designing games though (mostly card games) and playing games (mostly Go, but also card games and board games for lighter fare). I don't like morbid games such as "The Lady" as I think that they promote mental-illness, and that this is a contributing factor in the general malaise in America (and, more seriously, in the recent mass-murders that we have had). Would you be interested in collaborating on a game that could be a show-case for Forth programming? This would be a fairly simple game that would be quick to implement and small enough for people (game programmers who don't know Forth) to study. It would be one of my many designs (not morbid!) --- I write the AI that gives the computer-opponent reasonable tactics and strategy, and you write the user-facing stuff (graphics, sound, etc.). Although you just began visiting C.L.F., you are the only person here that I know of who has written a non-trivial Forth program (most on C.L.F. are primarily experienced in implementing Forth compilers that never get used for any serious application).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-17 23:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45f5f8f9-e2c0-42f1-8640-8108c55d397f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31627 |
> On a related note, have any of Charles Moore's Forth engines ever been used in commercial applications? I think the Novix was used in race-car engine control --- anything else? This is something I'd like to know too. And how is GreenArrays doing in the market? > I can remember bicycling around Santa Barbara and Isla Vista (I didn't have a car when I was 18) and seeing cars with a bumper-sticker that said: "Forth [heart] if honk then" --- pulling alongside their car and saying "hello" was the best way to meet Forth programmers. God damn it. > You are young? You weren't around in the 1980s? The world was different back then I'm 30. > > I get riled up at Elizabeth Rather because I blame her personally for Forth's failure to become popular. She is a non-programmer sales-person --- she embarrassed the Forth community every day with her idiotic pronouncements about the technical aspects of programming, as well as the jarring lack of quality in PolyForth (QBasic was routinely compared favorably to PolyForth) --- and her ANS-Forth totally killed Forth in 1994 (that is what you get when you put a salesperson in charge of standardization). Well, I don't know that much about Elizabeth, but I am fine with ANS Forth. I programmed The Lady in SwiftForth. I don't think the standard hampered me substantially. > We haven't seen any of your Forth code yet, so we know nothing of your Forth style or technique. Certainly "The Lady" was non-trivial, and a program like that would likely be beyond my ability (because I have no experience implementing games and don't really know anything about the subject). I enjoy designing games though (mostly card games) and playing games (mostly Go, but also card games and board games for lighter fare). I don't like morbid games such as "The Lady" as I think that they promote mental-illness, and that this is a contributing factor in the general malaise in America (and, more seriously, in the recent mass-murders that we have had). Don't get the symptoms confused with the cause. It's an art game, it doesn't intend to frame mental illness as something good, but to express what it's like to have chronic anxiety disorder. It's not for kids. I didn't conceive the game, so don't think I'm morbid or something. That's just a side of me ;) I programmed it for a guy who hired me, Michael Patrick Rogers. He came up with it. I was working on a musical space-invaders type game the other week of basically my own design, but it's on the back burner right now. I am working on getting my codebase in order so that I can share the code - but it's a commercial thing, I need to figure out a pared down version or something. Also, right now, just packaging things up for distribution in a way that doesn't alter my workflow significantly is a puzzle. I don't even know how to manage versions of components right now (see the topic I just started) > Would you be interested in collaborating on a game that could be a show-case for Forth programming? This would be a fairly simple game that would be quick to implement and small enough for people (game programmers who don't know Forth) to study. It would be one of my many designs (not morbid!) --- I write the AI that gives the computer-opponent reasonable tactics and strategy, and you write the user-facing stuff (graphics, sound, etc.). Although you just began visiting C.L.F., you are the only person here that I know of who has written a non-trivial Forth program (most on C.L.F. are primarily experienced in implementing Forth compilers that never get used for any serious application). That sounds like a good idea. Email me your game design and if it's something I'd like to work on then we'll talk possibilities. (Important note, my game engine only officially supports Windows 7 & 8 so hopefully you have a machine with one of those.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-18 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ad192b0-6c5b-462c-8d19-cad563dbf974@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31629 |
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:11:41 PM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote: > > I can remember bicycling around Santa Barbara and Isla Vista (I didn't have a car when I was 18) and seeing cars with a bumper-sticker that said: "Forth [heart] if honk then" --- pulling alongside their car and saying "hello" was the best way to meet Forth programmers. > > God damn it. Younger people think of Forth as a very fringe language (because it is), and they assume that it was always fringe like this --- that C was destined to dominate, and there never was any question about this. I can remember that Forth was popular at one time, and that it did have a good chance for success. If Forth hadn't failed, it would have succeeded! This is like in the movie, "On the Waterfront," where the guy says: "I coulda been a contender --- instead of a bum, which is what I am." In the movie, he is mad at his older brother who was his manager, and who coerced him to take a fall in the boxing match. The same thing happened with Forth: the fight was fixed --- Forth Inc. forced the Forth community to take a fall --- this was due to their greed, in that they wanted to make money off of the name "Forth Inc." and their association with Charles Moore, without being required to learn enough basic computer-science so as to be able to write programs that would satisfy their customers and make Forth look good. Elizabeth Rather was already old (43) in 1984. Her background was in Fortran and COBOL, and she was too old to learn modern programming concepts and techniques. She was more than willing to betray all of those young Forth programmers, such as the ones I knew in Isla Vista. All she cared about was money. Forth was popular, and (to use a surfing analogy) she wanted to "catch the wave" and ride it for all that it was worth --- but she didn't want to contribute in a positive way --- like all salespeople, she wanted to sell sell sell, and make money while avoiding work, and take credit for other people's accomplishments, and brag about how she hobnobs with celebrities. Nowadays, I tell every young person I know that the best advice I can give them is to never trust anybody over 40 --- especially when they offer unsolicited advice!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-20 05:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <557e2d7a-6003-42af-803b-5d21a00315bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31649 |
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:57:30 AM UTC+1, hughag...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:11:41 PM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote: > > > > I can remember bicycling around Santa Barbara and Isla Vista (I didn't have a car when I was 18) and seeing cars with a bumper-sticker that said: "Forth [heart] if honk then" --- pulling alongside their car and saying "hello" was the best way to meet Forth programmers. > > > > > > God damn it. > > > > Younger people think of Forth as a very fringe language (because it is), and they assume that it was always fringe like this --- that C was destined to dominate, and there never was any question about this. I can remember that Forth was popular at one time, and that it did have a good chance for success. If Forth hadn't failed, it would have succeeded! > > > > This is like in the movie, "On the Waterfront," where the guy says: "I coulda been a contender --- instead of a bum, which is what I am." In the movie, he is mad at his older brother who was his manager, and who coerced him to take a fall in the boxing match. The same thing happened with Forth: the fight was fixed --- Forth Inc. forced the Forth community to take a fall --- this was due to their greed, in that they wanted to make money off of the name "Forth Inc." and their association with Charles Moore, without being required to learn enough basic computer-science so as to be able to write programs that would satisfy their customers and make Forth look good. > > > > Elizabeth Rather was already old (43) in 1984. Her background was in Fortran and COBOL, and she was too old to learn modern programming concepts and techniques. She was more than willing to betray all of those young Forth programmers, such as the ones I knew in Isla Vista. All she cared about was money. Forth was popular, and (to use a surfing analogy) she wanted to "catch the wave" and ride it for all that it was worth --- but she didn't want to contribute in a positive way --- like all salespeople, she wanted to sell sell sell, and make money while avoiding work, and take credit for other people's accomplishments, and brag about how she hobnobs with celebrities. > > > > Nowadays, I tell every young person I know that the best advice I can give them is to never trust anybody over 40 --- especially when they offer unsolicited advice! So, do not trust your parents and your grand parents, not forgetting the other part of your family as they are older??? I assume their advice was always free unsolicited and probably as well unwelcome. Experience comes with age as it takes time to acquire it?? Do you know Elizabeth, have you met her? Talked to her?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-20 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f326482-9c1a-485f-bcb4-a450922eae15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31696 |
Don't look to deep into it. America's baby boomer generation is weird.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-20 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ceaa31-134f-4503-8a49-e07b4061b301@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31696 |
On Friday, June 20, 2014 5:03:31 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote: > Do you know Elizabeth, have you met her? Talked to her? This is a typical exchange that I've had with Elizabeth Rather on comp.lang.forth: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/OSGAn7bsDU0 On Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:09:59 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/26/13 2:27 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > > In article <043a32ac-c009-4aff-beda-aa4041daadcb@googlegroups.com>, > > <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 11:44:35 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >>> But my point is that you can define data objects to behave *exactly* the > >>> way you want them to, to solve the problem at hand. > > >> I totally disagree with this. It is foolish to custom-implement basic > >> data structures such as arrays for every application. It is easy to > >> write a general-purpose array or linked-list or whatever, that works > >> exactly the way that you want it to for *every* application. > Does "*every* application" you write use exactly the same kind of data > arranged in the same way? If so, having written it once you can reuse it > often. If not, you either have to rearrange your data to make it work or > modify your "general-purpose" structure. To a large extent, this is a loyalty test. If you want to prove that you are loyal to Elizabeth Rather (and you obviously do!), then you are expected to agree with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data-structures in my novice package. Don't be shy! State clearly that you agree with her!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-20 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29b02601-d43c-4f76-8f3a-02bb4855a09a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #31704 |
> To a large extent, this is a loyalty test. If you want to prove that you are loyal to Elizabeth Rather (and you obviously do!), then you are expected to agree with Elizabeth Rather's critique of my data-structures in my novice package. Don't be shy! State clearly that you agree with her! I know you're talking about Elizabeth again but I must say I agree that defining general purpose arrays is not a bad thing if you're doing a lot of stuff that requires them. Then again, sometimes I implement custom arrays or other data structures. I don't try to shoehorn every problem into my arrays and that's what makes Forth great; doing either is no big deal, you don't need to lean on any set of structures all the time, but sometimes you come up with an idea with nearly universal use. (Oh god, I'm channeling Chuck) I think that the REAL danger is being afraid of either extreme. I think people should do whatever is practical for them and try to control complexity by either compartmentalizing complexity, and encapsulating/grouping things that could change. But yeah Elizabeth's statement was pretty... frustrating. It's not an all-or-nothing thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-21 10:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xMudnWent_7oNjjOnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #31705 |
On 6/20/14 7:53 PM, Roger Levy wrote: > I must say I agree that defining general purpose arrays is not a bad thing if you're doing a lot of stuff that requires them. Then again, sometimes I implement custom arrays or other data structures. I don't try to shoehorn every problem into my arrays and that's what makes Forth great; doing either is no big deal, you don't need to lean on any set of structures all the time, but sometimes you come up with an idea with nearly universal use. (Oh god, I'm channeling Chuck) > > I think that the REAL danger is being afraid of either extreme. I think people should do whatever is practical for them and try to control complexity by either compartmentalizing complexity, and encapsulating/grouping things that could change. > > But yeah Elizabeth's statement was pretty... frustrating. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. What did I say about all-or-nothing things? After all, Forth 200x has a general purpose array, BUFFER: 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]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web