Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #33600 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-09-30 19:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-10-16 01:03 -0400 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 91 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-09-30 19:25 -0700
Re: Why smudge? november.nihal@gmail.com - 2014-10-01 08:54 -0700
Re: Why smudge? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-01 19:09 +0000
Re: Why smudge? november.nihal@gmail.com - 2014-10-01 10:16 -0700
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-01 18:54 -0700
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Why smudge? Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-02 16:35 -0700
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-02 17:02 -0700
Re: Why smudge? Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-02 17:51 -0700
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-02 18:50 -0700
Re: Why smudge? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-10-04 00:30 +0100
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-03 17:40 -0700
Re: Why smudge? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-10-03 23:00 -0700
Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-04 21:14 -0700
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-05 03:42 -0500
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! Enoch <emc.consultants@gmail.com> - 2014-10-05 10:43 -0700
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-05 20:21 -0700
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-06 03:58 -0500
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-05 17:09 -0700
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-06 11:15 -0700
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-06 18:52 -0700
More ranting Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-07 03:48 -0500
Re: More ranting albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-07 12:43 +0000
Re: More ranting Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-10-07 16:23 +0200
Re: More ranting "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-16 01:03 -0400
Re: More ranting Just Ian <superian@gmail.com> - 2014-10-16 07:14 -0700
Re: More ranting Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-16 13:23 -0700
uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-07 15:36 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) mhx@iae.nl - 2014-10-07 15:07 -0700
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-10-08 03:11 +0200
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-08 13:25 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-09 16:22 -0700
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-17 21:58 -0400
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2014-10-12 11:18 +0200
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-08 12:35 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-07 15:27 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-08 12:56 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-08 08:24 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-08 15:32 +0000
Simplified automatic scoping (was: uninitialized ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-08 16:06 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-08 11:57 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-08 12:18 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-09 14:19 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-09 14:42 -0700
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-09 14:07 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-09 10:44 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-10 16:03 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-10 13:35 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-11 10:53 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-12 11:34 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-15 12:44 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-15 14:34 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-15 15:03 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-15 11:10 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-16 12:19 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-17 03:56 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-10-17 07:48 -1000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-17 19:26 -0700
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-18 12:55 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-18 13:21 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-10-18 08:44 -1000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-10-19 09:53 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-10-20 12:48 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-20 16:24 -0400
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-10-20 10:30 -1000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-20 16:23 -0700
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-26 04:16 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2014-10-26 11:32 +0200
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-10-26 14:27 +0000
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-26 13:56 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2014-10-26 20:32 +0200
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-26 16:18 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-26 15:05 -0700
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-26 17:53 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-26 16:30 -0700
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-27 01:45 -0400
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-27 12:21 -0500
Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-10-26 17:57 -0500
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-10-06 20:55 +0100
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-10-09 07:36 +0100
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-10-10 01:52 +0000
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-09 19:56 -0700
Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-17 23:11 -0400
Re: Why smudge? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-10-05 11:05 +0100
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-05 19:48 -0700
Re: Why smudge? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-10-06 07:53 +0100
Re: Why smudge? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-10-05 21:29 -1000
Re: Why smudge? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-10-09 15:16 -0700
Re: Why smudge? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-10-16 01:03 -0400
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-06 16:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! |
| Message-ID | <32789bfe-15c3-45d5-8611-96351977c4fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #33721 |
On Monday, October 6, 2014 12:55:55 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 06/10/2014 01:09, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > A couple of fairly minor comments. > > > false value expected# > > > : fill-localvars# ( -- ) > > [ <get-context> to expected# ] > > 1 2 3 locals| x y z | > > [ > > <get-context> expected# <> [if] > > <pop-context> to localvars# > > <get-context> expected# <> [if] .( *** FILL-LOCALVARS# can't find EXPECTED# ***) abort [then] > > localvars# <push-context> [then] > > ] ; > > Presumably the above is only executed once so you could put a marker > round it and forget it e.g. (untested) You are correct. After LOCALVARS# has been set, I could forget the section of code indicated above. That saves a little bit of dictionary space and, more importantly, makes it clear to the reader that the section of code is not referenced afterward. I'll do as you suggest. :-) > > wordlist constant test1# > > wordlist constant test2# > > > : test ( -- ) \ this tests SET-CONTEXT > > [ cr .( TEST1# = ) test1# u. ] > > [ cr .( TEST2# = ) test2# u. ] > > [ cr .( FORTH-WORDLIST = ) forth-wordlist u. ] > > [ set-forth order ] > > [ get-context cr .( context = ) u. order ] > > [ forth-wordlist set-context order ] > > [ test1# set-context order ] > > 1 2 3 locals| x y z | [ order ] > > [ get-context cr .( context = ) u. order ] > > [ test1# push-context order ] > > [ drop-context order ] > > [ test1# set-context order ] > > [ test2# set-context order ] > > [ test1# push-context order ] > > [ drop-context order ] > > ; > This doesn't execute fill-localvars# and hence not all of <set-context> FILL-LOCALVARS# never needs to be executed. You said earlier that it is "executed once" and can then be forgotten, but in fact FILL-LOCALVARS# is not executed even once --- the compilation of FILL-LOCALVARS# fills the LOCALVARS# at compile-time (all of the action takes place inside of the [ ] brackets). I think that I will include the following line in FILL-LOCALVARS# to make this point clear: TRUE ABORT" *** FILL-LOCALVARS# not supposed to be executed ***" Notice that I test SET-CONTEXT both prior to and after defining some local variables in TEST, so I am testing SET-CONTEXT for both those words that do not have local variables and those that do. Thanks for taking the time to read my code. :-) Look at it again to see how LOCAL-VARS# gets set, as I think you didn't grok that part. The rest of the code is pretty straight-forward --- each word just does what it did in the original naive implementations, but also checks to see if the LOCALVARS# wid is on top of the search-order, and if so removes it temporarily while doing its thing, and then puts it back on top unaffected. The original naive implementation is mostly still there (the words with the <xxx> names) and is used by the more sophisticated words that work-around the VFX bug. This code has been tested under VFX and it works. It should work on any ANS-Forth system that does not have this bug --- in this case, FILL-LOCALVARS# will fill LOCALVARS# with a FALSE, and all the words that look for LOCALVARS# in the search-order will not find it (there is presumably no such thing as a wid equal to zero), so they will just do their thing in a straight-forward manner. I can't guarantee that this code will work under any ANS-Forth implementation. It will have to be tested on a case-by-case basis. It will work on any system that has a bug similar to the VFX bug, in that a wid is pushed onto the search-order for the local variables inside of colon words with local variables, and removed by semi-colon. If the system has any other unexpected use of the search-order that gets in the way of the programmer's use of the search-order, then this code won't catch it. It will work on any system that does not have any bug at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 07:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! |
| Message-ID | <m15adr$790$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33722 |
On 07/10/2014 00:05, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to read my code. :-) Look at it again to see how LOCAL-VARS# gets set, as I think you didn't grok that part. Sorry, I didn't look at it closely enough. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-10 01:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! |
| Message-ID | <54373935.581382092@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #33699 |
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 21:14:05 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: ... much ranting ... >> VFX seems to be quickly patched to have local support without further tes= >ting or investigation. > >This may be an explanation for why VFX has a bug --- but it is not an expla= >nation for why Pelc didn't fix the bug after Gerry told him about it. VFX has had the brace notation since well before Forth-94. LOCALS| was added later for compatibility. >I think Pelc is not going to fix the bug, because he wants to make life as = >difficult as possible for cross-compiler writers. But I have written a work= >-around for the bug in VFX! What a waste of effort. Yours was the first request that included a usage case. However, since you just ranted, it had to wait until I got back from holiday and EuroForth. We have now done some testing on the fix, compiled and tested the big app with 1.1 million lines of source code, and rebuilt two cross compilers and four versions of VFX. Note that our cross compilers have been running for 30+ years and don't need your particular tricks. v4.71 of VFX Forth for Windows, Mac OS X, ARM Linux and Intel Linux are now available. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 19:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! |
| Message-ID | <b0c8c699-0047-42f7-bd44-371f692ce59d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #33796 |
On Thursday, October 9, 2014 6:52:18 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > >I think Pelc is not going to fix the bug, because he wants to make life as = > >difficult as possible for cross-compiler writers. But I have written a work= > >-around for the bug in VFX! > What a waste of effort. Yours was the first request that included a > usage case. However, since you just ranted, it had to wait until I got > back from holiday and EuroForth. We have now done some testing on the > fix, compiled and tested the big app with 1.1 million lines of source > code, and rebuilt two cross compilers and four versions of VFX. Gerry's request didn't include a usage case? He said above that he ran into the bug when he was writing his quotation code --- this usage case is going to go into Forth-200x afaik. Most likely, mine was the first request involving a cross-compiler, because not very many people write cross-compilers. Gerry said that when he wrote his cross-compiler, he followed the guidelines of the ANS-Forth document on the subject (what Jeff Fox encouraged me to not read) --- so I assume that these guidelines include their own work-around, or they just tell people to not use VFX --- but I'm not going to read the document to find out which it is, because I don't really care. > Note that our cross compilers have been running for 30+ years and > don't need your particular tricks. If you don't need my tricks, it must be because you have tricks of your own! One way or the other however, you have to work around the bug --- and it is a bug. Most likely, the "trick" that you use, it to just not use any local variables in the cross-compiler words --- UR/Forth didn't support locals, so MFX didn't have any local variables --- but doing everything with stack-juggling results in ugly code, and a cross-compiler is a complicated program by nature, so making the code as readable as possible helps everybody involved. When I first encountered the problem with SET-CONTEXT not working, I tried to use PUSH-CONTEXT and POP-CONTEXT for temporarily switching the context. This is possible, but it made the cross-compiler more complicated than necessary, and it is already pretty complicated by nature. If this is the "trick" that you use, then your cross-compiler is more complicated than mine --- I pity the luckless devil that you hire for the job of maintaining your cross-compiler. Note that MFX has been in continuous use for 20 years and the luckless devil who was my coworker back then has been maintaining it all of this time --- when I visited the other day, I was told that he had "grumbled" and had said that it was "complicated," but that it was always less expensive to maintain it than to rewrite it. > v4.71 of VFX Forth for Windows, Mac OS X, ARM Linux and Intel Linux > are now available. I'll download the new version and try it out. Thanks for fixing the bug! This is as compared to Forth Inc. that demands a $300 upgrade fee for bug fixes. Also, although it is true that I found your bug on my first day of VFX programming, it was a somewhat obscure bug that average programmers would not likely find. This is as compared to Forth Inc. that sells SwiftForth-v2 for over $400 and it crashes when (LOCAL) is used, which seems to indicate that nobody at Forth Inc. has ever written a program with local variables (or, at least, that they always used LOCALS| as their work-around as I did in my novice package). I'm only interested in the free evaluation version of VFX, as I'm way to cheap to pay for a Forth compiler. I won't buy a commercial VFX version until I'm sure that VFX is either bug-free or there are work-arounds for any bugs that it may have --- I have already been stung for over $400 on the bug-ridden generally-awful SwiftForth, so I'm a lot more cautious with my money now. Testing the bug-fix version of VFX isn't a priority as I have already got the work-around written and can continue to use the version with the bug in it --- also, my work-around may still be necessary for other ANS-Forth implementations that have a similar bug (I haven't tested SwiftForth or Gforth or anything else). I want my cross-compiler to be ANS-Forth, and not vendor-specific, which is why I don't use your >NAME or SMUDGE etc., that you recommended, although they would help immensely. If you knew that this stuff was useful, why didn't you push it through into the ANS-Forth standard? Perhaps you brought up the issue and Elizabeth Rather said: "Quiet in the peanut-gallery!" I can tell from Ray Duncan's remarks above that he didn't like where ANS-Forth was going, but he had been relegated to the peanut-gallery along with you and Charles Moore etc., and the chair wasn't listening to him --- he seems to have just abandoned Forth altogether after ANS-Forth came out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-17 23:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Pelc's effort to sabotage cross-compiler writing has a work-around now! |
| Message-ID | <op.xnwog2dnmk81un@localhost> |
| In reply to | #33798 |
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:56:01 -0400, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'll download the new version and try it out. Thanks for fixing the bug! > This is as compared to Forth Inc. that demands a $300 upgrade fee for > bug fixes. The fee is most likely to eliminate nuisance complaints and/or set up a small amount of continuous cash flow to sustain operations. It's trivial for a small business to pay that. For unknown reasons, every company seems to have a few hostile customers who go into a rage of complaints that never ends, much like you. A company I worked for had one customer who would plug the electric mains into the output ports of his product and return it, every month, month after month, for years until the repair technician finally complained to management. Repairs were free. Eventually, they gave him a new unit. He blew it up and returned it too. They started charging for repeated repairs after that. That put an end to him and a few others returning product repeatedly but less frequently. If you had a serious complaint, submitted for free, they likely would've fixed it at some point as part of their product improvement cycle. > I'm only interested in the free evaluation version of VFX, as I'm > way to cheap to pay for a Forth compiler. I thought you were coding your own. Supposedly, you did so once already for Testra. Repeat the process. You'll be happy with the result. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-05 11:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m0r54v$84c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33687 |
On 04/10/2014 01:40, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > On Friday, October 3, 2014 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: [...] > I doubt that Pelc thought that this "was not considered important enough to fix." More likely, he purposely strives to undermine anybody's independent effort to write a cross-compiler, because cross-compilers are how he makes his money primarily. This is also why he made sure that SMUDGE was not in ANS-Forth --- the only people who need SMUDGE are those writing cross-compilers --- people writing Forth application programs are happy so long as : and ; behave as if they are internally using SMUDGE and UNSMUDGE (aka HIDE and REVEAL) --- weirdly enough, the ANS-Forth document requires : and ; to behave as if they are using SMUDGE and UNSMUDGE, but makes no mention at all of SMUDGE (not even in the section on porting programs from old standards to ANS-Forth). > You shouldn't ascribe machiavellian motives to everything that someone does. After all Stephen Pelc is not listed as a (presumably voting) member of the ANS Forth Technical Committee, only as a contributor. I prefer the cockup side of the cockup vs conspiracy theory (look up Hanlon's Razor that I hadn't previously heard of before. Off topic: as an aside that led me to Sturgeon's Law which I like). > Are you writing a cross-compiler? I wrote one in about 2005/6 which I have been using ever since. I used the ideas given in the Forth cross-compiler paper regularly mentioned on c.l.f. That uses wordlists. However other aspects of my cross-compiler are now over-complicated and it needs a simplifying re-write. > I can't think of any other reason why you would be doing word-list manipulations at compile-time inside of a colon word. I think I hit the problem in the quotations code you mention below. I worked around the problem so the details are a bit hazy now. I think it is during the scanning phase where words like ; [: ;] S" etc need to do something and they are (re)defined in a separate wordlist. I believe a similar technique is used in systems that have different wordlists for interpreter and compiler states. Wordlists are handy for a domain specific language that has words overlapping standard Forth word names. Also some people use wordlists to define private words in modules. > I'm writing one for the ARM Cortex-M3 right now. If you are interested in getting involved, contact me by private email. Thanks for the offer, I've got too many things on my plate in the foreseeable future. > I liked your quotation code that you sent me Thanks [...] > If your "it" referred to PREVIOUS, that is unlikely --- I don't think this is inconsistent --- more likely, it was QUIT that was called due to the crash, and it did an ONLY. I think that it is okay for QUIT to do ONLY because we want to get back to a rational state. I prefer that QUIT does the minimum so that if a program hits a QUIT I can investigate the state of the system when it went wrong (if it did). > I do wonder at why ONLY doesn't leave FORTH on the top of the search-order though --- putting us back in the REPL without FORTH in the search-order is not exactly putting us in a "rational state." Dunno, but if it did it would be better with a different name. ONLY does the same thing as -1 SET-ORDER so it does seem redundant in a standard. [...] > all of the word-list jugglers have access to LOCALSVAR just like any other wid. > >> I agree that system wids should >> not be placed in the search order. > > It would have actually be quite easy to implement this correctly. Pelc could have put his locals in LOCALVARS but not put LOCALVARS in the search order. He could have just written FIND so that it does a SEARCH-WORDLIST of LOCALVARS first (giving LOCALVARS the "privileged position" that ANS-Forth requires), and then done a normal FIND of the search-chain. Yes that's essentially what my system does and is simple to implement. [...] > BTW: Gerry --- did you know Ray Duncan? No, I've only seen his name mentioned on c.l.f, apart from what you say I have no idea what he did. > He didn't fix two bugs in UR/Forth that I told him about. For the most part though, he was a good guy and his UR/Forth was a good system --- it would have been difficult for me to write MFX in any of the other Forth systems available at that time. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-05 19:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6a2cfda-83a8-4685-9b2a-ef74938dbc16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #33705 |
On Sunday, October 5, 2014 3:05:23 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 04/10/2014 01:40, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > I doubt that Pelc thought that this "was not considered important enough to fix." More likely, he purposely strives to undermine anybody's independent effort to write a cross-compiler, because cross-compilers are how he makes his money primarily. This is also why he made sure that SMUDGE was not in ANS-Forth --- the only people who need SMUDGE are those writing cross-compilers --- people writing Forth application programs are happy so long as : and ; behave as if they are internally using SMUDGE and UNSMUDGE (aka HIDE and REVEAL) --- weirdly enough, the ANS-Forth document requires : and ; to behave as if they are using SMUDGE and UNSMUDGE, but makes no mention at all of SMUDGE (not even in the section on porting programs from old standards to ANS-Forth). > > You shouldn't ascribe machiavellian motives to everything that someone > does. After all Stephen Pelc is not listed as a (presumably voting) > member of the ANS Forth Technical Committee, only as a contributor. I > prefer the cockup side of the cockup vs conspiracy theory (look up > Hanlon's Razor that I hadn't previously heard of before. Off topic: as > an aside that led me to Sturgeon's Law which I like). I hadn't actually read the top of the ANS-Forth document where the names are listed. I had just assumed that Pelc was a voting member. I see now that he is listed in the "peanut gallery" along with Ray Duncan, Charles Moore, etc., who had exactly zero influence on ANS-Forth and who ignored ANS-Forth completely after it came out. So maybe I'm giving him too much credit (actually blame) for ANS-Forth, and he was just an innocent by-stander. Since you seem to be familiar with the list of names at the top, can you tell me how many were employees of Forth Inc., or at least had some financial reason to support Forth Inc.? I got out of Forth-200x primarily so I wouldn't have my name listed in the peanut-gallery section of the Forth-200x document --- the whole mailing-list is just a charade to make Forth-200x seem to be a product of the entire Forth community, rather than just SwiftForth with pretensions of being the standard --- why should I lend my name to a Forth Inc. marketing scheme? Pelc does make his money selling cross-compilers, so I doubt that he wants competition. This is my first-ever VFX program, and I have only been programming in VFX for less than a month --- yet I am aware of the bug --- it seems difficult to believe that Pelc has remained unaware of the bug for all of these years. I predict that Pelc will not thank me for spending a week of my time writing a work-around for the bug in VFX so people can now use VFX to write cross-compilers. He is going to continue to say that I know nothing about Forth, haven't read the manual, etc.. After the 9-11-2001 attack, I became interested in conspiracy theory, as I could readily see some gaping holes in the official story. Actually, I was already aware that there were gaping holes in the Oklahoma City story, so it didn't take long to notice the parallels. All in all, I'm not too impressed by Hanlon's Razor --- historically speaking, Machiavellian conspiracies have been the norm not the exception. Also, there are a huge number of people in prison for conspiracy to commit a crime, without having actually committed a crime --- so why is conspiracy considered to be real enough to put people in prison for it, but not real when common citizens rather than the police are the ones to point it out? It seems like a remarkable coincidence that this bug in VFX, that can be found by novices on their first day, is also a bug that largely prevents people from using VFX to compete against Pelc in the cross-compiler field where he makes his money. Well, you can call me a "conspiracy theorist" if I get to call you a "coincidence theorist." ;-) I have found bugs in these ANS-Forth systems: SwiftForth, Gforth, Win32Forth, and now VFX. Doing paid work in ANS-Forth is problematic for me because I might run into a bug in the compiler and then find myself in the awkward position of explaining to my boss that I spent the entire week writing a work-around for a bug in the compiler, and have accomplished zilch on the program that I'm getting paid to write (I would likely get fired). I have written work-arounds for the bugs in all of these Forth systems, and provided the work-arounds for free in the novice package, but I just get attacked for doing this --- nobody wants a light shined on the bugs in their compiler --- they prefer to present an image of a having a bug-free compiler in order to attract more users. > > Are you writing a cross-compiler? > > I wrote one in about 2005/6 which I have been using ever since. For what target?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-06 07:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m0te8l$2ca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #33711 |
On 06/10/2014 03:48, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > I hadn't actually read the top of the ANS-Forth document where the names are listed. I had just assumed that Pelc was a voting member. I see now that he is listed in the "peanut gallery" along with Ray Duncan, Charles Moore, etc., who had exactly zero influence on ANS-Forth and who ignored ANS-Forth completely after it came out. So maybe I'm giving him too much credit (actually blame) for ANS-Forth, and he was just an innocent by-stander. Since you seem to be familiar with the list of names at the top, can you tell me how many were employees of Forth Inc., or at least had some financial reason to support Forth Inc.? I am not familiar with people in the list, they are just names to me and, apart from the two obvious ones, I haven't a clue whether they have any connection to Forth Inc or not. > > For what target? > Same as the host - Windows desktop PC. I had intentions to re-target it once the system was proven but never got round to it. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-05 21:29 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <dqidnSbKvKVK2a_JnZ2dnUU7-YWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #33716 |
On 10/5/14 8:53 PM, Gerry Jackson wrote: ... > > I am not familiar with people in the list, they are just names to me > and, apart from the two obvious ones, I haven't a clue whether they have > any connection to Forth Inc or not. No organization was permitted more than one vote by ANSI rules. There were typically 14 members at each meeting. 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 | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e027c7cb-df4f-4b6c-8d8a-3ec6d3334823@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #33705 |
On Sunday, October 5, 2014 3:05:23 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote: > On 04/10/2014 01:40, hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote: > > I doubt that Pelc thought that this "was not considered important enough to fix." More likely, he purposely strives to undermine anybody's independent effort to write a cross-compiler, because cross-compilers are how he makes his money primarily. This is also why he made sure that SMUDGE was not in ANS-Forth --- the only people who need SMUDGE are those writing cross-compilers --- people writing Forth application programs are happy so long as : and ; behave as if they are internally using SMUDGE and UNSMUDGE (aka HIDE and REVEAL) --- weirdly enough, the ANS-Forth document requires : and ; to behave as if they are using SMUDGE and UNSMUDGE, but makes no mention at all of SMUDGE (not even in the section on porting programs from old standards to ANS-Forth). > > You shouldn't ascribe machiavellian motives to everything that someone > does. After all Stephen Pelc is not listed as a (presumably voting) > member of the ANS Forth Technical Committee, only as a contributor. I > prefer the cockup side of the cockup vs conspiracy theory (look up > Hanlon's Razor that I hadn't previously heard of before. Off topic: as > an aside that led me to Sturgeon's Law which I like). In my ongoing study of VFX, I cycled through the complete "Tip of the Day" file. He has Hanlon's Razor in there: "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." Then, in the next tip, he has Richard Bos's Corollary: "Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice" ;-) Well, I have already written a work-around for the bug, so there is no point in beating up Stephen Pelc forever on the subject; I might as well maintain cordial relations --- I think that it is inevitable that Pelc will eventually write a compiler for my language. ANS-Forth is a dead end; he is aware of this, and has been for 20 years (that is why VFX contains >NAME SMUDGE and various other goodies denied to ANS-Forth programmers). I'm the only person on C.L.F. who knows how to implement quotations, and quotations are the future, so it is inevitable that the entire Forth community will eventually be assimilated --- resistance is futile! My aside about uninitialized locals was trivial and unimportant compared to this bug regarding word-lists that cost me a week's labor in fixing. I find it humorous that everybody jumped on this triviality and analyzed it to death --- a rather obvious effort to divert the discussion away from the bug in VFX --- afaik, you are the only person who has read my code and understood what it does. And Pelc's silence is deafening...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-16 01:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xns4cqv9mk81un@localhost> |
| In reply to | #33705 |
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 06:05:19 -0400, Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > You shouldn't ascribe machiavellian motives to everything that someone > does. After all Stephen Pelc is not listed as a (presumably voting) > member of the ANS Forth Technical Committee, only as a contributor. I > prefer the cockup side of the cockup vs conspiracy theory (look up > Hanlon's Razor that I hadn't previously heard of before. Off topic: as > an aside that led me to Sturgeon's Law which I like). > I think Wikipedia's pages on the Peter principle and Dunning-Kruger effect are far more interesting. Dunning-Kruger has come up here in the past. Hopefully, Hugh and Bernd may read them some day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web