Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90165 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
/dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-19 21:20 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:53 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-19 23:42 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 00:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 03:59 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-20 10:10 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:15 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-20 23:30 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 01:18 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 09:52 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 08:12 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 11:16 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:57 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-22 06:17 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:50 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-24 17:42 +0300
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 23:53 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:27 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 00:56 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-23 04:01 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 03:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:50 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:35 +0200
Overwriting with random data (was: Re: /dev/tcp) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:34 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 20:57 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:26 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 08:45 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:39 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-26 18:08 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0200
Re: Overwriting with random data Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 15:19 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:33 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:18 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:34 +0000
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:52 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 12:11 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Overwriting with random data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:09 -0400
Re: Overwriting with random data The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:37 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:31 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:45 +0200
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:52 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:50 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:50 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:02 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:54 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:57 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-22 21:47 +0200
The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-22 23:50 +0000
Re: The hammer is best (Was: /dev/tcp) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 04:28 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 10:14 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:55 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:16 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-23 21:20 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:26 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:06 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:18 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 00:51 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Joed Oakes <lost@noway.home.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:42 -0400
Re: The hammer is best Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 23:56 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:25 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:14 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:50 +0200
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:56 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:53 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 06:42 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 23:34 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 04:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:29 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 18:52 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:19 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 09:29 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:03 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 21:31 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 22:18 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 11:28 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:07 -0400
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:39 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:23 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:05 +0100
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:43 +0200
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 08:35 +0100
Re: The hammer is best Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 20:21 +0000
Re: The hammer is best "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 23:14 +0200
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 19:08 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:38 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:22 +0100
Re: The hammer is best rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 00:00 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:44 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:49 -0400
Re: The hammer is best The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:20 +0100
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 01:23 -0400
Re: The hammer is best c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 22:16 -0400
Re: /dev/tcp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:41 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-21 22:58 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 22:28 -0400
ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-24 13:56 +0100
Bash vs. ksh - Does it matter? And the 'vi' mode thing... (Was: ksh (was: /dev/tcp)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 14:57 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-24 21:08 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-08-24 21:28 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 01:11 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-25 13:25 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 21:58 +0000
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-26 13:34 +0100
Re: ksh (was: /dev/tcp) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-27 02:23 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:40 -0400
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 02:25 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-25 18:26 +0000
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:03 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:17 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 15:22 +0000
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-27 17:55 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 18:17 +0000
Re: ksh Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200
Re: ksh Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-25 20:36 +0200
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:23 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:04 +0200
Re: ksh Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 10:03 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:50 -0400
Re: ksh The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 02:43 -0400
Re: ksh Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-25 22:01 +0000
Re: ksh "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-26 01:32 +0200
Re: ksh c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 21:46 -0400
Re: ksh rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 04:25 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-20 18:22 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:57 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:37 -0700
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:13 +0100
Re: /dev/tcp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-23 22:31 +0000
Re: /dev/tcp Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-24 19:08 +0100
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 04:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <shWdncRO7NioAxP3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90551 |
On 8/25/26 14:26, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-08-25, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >>>> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >>>> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. >>> >>> https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ >>> >>> I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. >> >> I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine >> scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. >> I think it took about 3-4 weeks. >> I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it >> >> By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were >> cheap enough to make it not my first choice. > > I found a CP/M version of Forth and got it running on my IMSAI. > I'm currently trying to resurrect that box - if I get it going > then maybe I can play with it some more. I did manage to write > a Sieve of Eratosthenes... > > Forth love if honk then FORTH has/had a specific PLACE in things. It was best for small CPUs, not much mem or speed. It'd typically come burnt into a PROM. One small step above ASM. Alas, to be MOST effective, a FORTH interpreter had to be CUSTOMIZED for a specific CPU - and writ in ASM. Know people, mostly 'scientific', who are fluent in FORTH. It was THE best solution for awhile for 'devices' back in the day. One, a displaced relative, we sometimes exchange FORTH jokes. Some of the current space probes, even Mars rovers, still have FORTH built in. It has it's place and function. It's NOT dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 18:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf8nu4FprcuU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90609 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:04:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Alas, to be MOST effective, a FORTH interpreter had to be CUSTOMIZED > for a specific CPU - and writ in ASM. Only a very small core functionality is in assembler. You cal get Loeliger's 'Threaded Interpreted Languages' at archive.org. It's a general guide to TILs rather than being FORTH specific. iirc his example is in Z-80 ASM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 03:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <G6-dnT1sRIAfeRL3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90639 |
On 8/26/26 14:00, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 04:04:49 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Alas, to be MOST effective, a FORTH interpreter had to be CUSTOMIZED >> for a specific CPU - and writ in ASM. > > Only a very small core functionality is in assembler. You cal get > Loeliger's 'Threaded Interpreted Languages' at archive.org. It's a > general guide to TILs rather than being FORTH specific. iirc his example > is in Z-80 ASM. Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. Remember THAT from the old days. Anyway, imagine you have been called upon to do software for like a Mars probe/rover. It's almost Black Art. If you want to have some easy 'versatility' you will surely include a FORTH interpreter in there somewhere - the latest probes STILL DO. But, for BEST effect, it has to be a FORTH that's been micro-customized for the EXACT processor. GFORTH just won't be nearly as good. As I said somewhere, a relative WAS deeply involved in scientific stuff back when FORTH ruled - and DOES understand what I'm saying here. There ARE funny "FORTH jokes/refs" that can be included in conversation. Said relative is mostly 'out of my sphere', but we both DO get little "FORTH jokes" :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 15:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nfb31cFprcuU22@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90663 |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A > customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. > Remember THAT from the old days. It's an interpreted language. It has some unique advantages but fast and tight isn't among them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-27 17:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116pq64$1l9sg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90686 |
On 27/08/2026 16:22, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Do a real-world comparison ... CPU cycles -> Desired Effect. A >> customized FORTH really IS faster/tighter. >> Remember THAT from the old days. > > It's an interpreted language. It has some unique advantages but fast and > tight isn't among them. Its very tight, and in a sense it is precompiled the moment you type it in. Its not necessarily ideal for modern processors with look ahead caches: It was designed for the most tight code to run on an 8 bit micro. And it is. Tighter than assembler by dint of the fact that EVERYTHING is effectively a subroutine. As I said, having to implement it made me gaze in wonderment at how the core kernel worked and pay my respects. BUT it was already 16 bit micros by then and it didn't make any sense vis à vis C... -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 02:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <ZfqcnXBt_dT4FBP3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90523 |
On 8/25/26 07:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/08/2026 07:52, rbowman wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 02:25:36 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> DO have a c-shell installed, always do, but have not USED it for >>> anything in 20 years. Also always install a FORTH ... but again >>> haven't USED it for anything in 20+ years. >> >> https://wellys.com/posts/rp2040_forth/ >> >> I briefly thought about playing with this -- very briefly. FORTH was VERY valuable when CPU power was very low and comms links were very slow. Have a cousin in the research trade who is an expert FORTH programmer, we sometimes trade FORTH jokes. It's not AS important now ... but some US space and planetary probes STILL use it to some degree. Runs on a very small/minimal ROM-based interpreter, a step above ASM. When I started fooling with micro-controllers FORTH was the neat-o viable option. Burnt it into EPROMS. Yea, remember the ones with the "windows" ? Had to make a UV-B/C box to erase them ? :-) If you are trying to get yer PIC or PICO to do the most shit in the least space/CPU while still being semi-comprehensible then FORTH is STILL a viable option. Sometimes the oldies ARE goodies. > I was paid to retype around 200 pages of 8086 assembler from a magazine > scan in to create a FORTH interpreter. > I think it took about 3-4 weeks. > I raised my mental hat to the idea of it, but I was never tempted to use it > > By that time C compilers, 32 bit chips and many megabytes of RAM were > cheap enough to make it not my first choice. When 8-bit and 110-baud ruled the world, FORTH looked a lot better. IMHO it STILL has a place for minimal/tight environs. As said, NASA still has it in space/Mars probes. Not sure what, or how much, it applies but it's THERE and doing SOMETHING. ANYHOW, by sheer habit, I *still* always install a FORTH on every box I own. IF I see a need/niche, well, then it's THERE. PREF dedicated over the GNU version. Also install a COBOL and FORTRAN ... but VERY rarely do anything with them except to "keep my hand in". Never let old skills completely deteriorate, ya never know. Now, these days, if you're GOOD with COBOL you can earn LOTS of money without hardly trying. SO many corporate/govt apps were writ in the 60s in COBOL and it's now unaffordable to replace them. So, if you know any COBOL ........ FORTRAN is still a little more common, esp in the academic/engineering universe. SO many GREAT, heavily tested/verified, math/stat solutions !!! Note how Python copied FORTRAN "list"-handling/parsing stuff. Only "old" thing I really tend to use, from the PDP-11 days, 'C'. Shit, I remember when it was the Great New Thing :-) Hmm ... once tried to write a FORTH-ish interpreter in 'C'. Soon realized that to get the maximum effect it has to be done for a very SPECIFIC chip, in ASM. Abandoned the project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 18:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf8osuFprcuU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90597 |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2026 02:35:06 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Yea, remember the ones with the "windows" ? Had to make a UV-B/C box > to erase them ? When I worked for Orion Research in the '80s I would get in earlier than the application programmers. My first tasks were making a pot of coffee and lining up the day's worth of 2764s in the UV eraser. Might have been 2732s. I forget. The 8748/8749 MCS-48 microcontrollers also were UV erasable and were used in the handheld instruments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 09:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116jhqk$3i5q2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90491 |
Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: > > But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes > with Bash. Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most widespread now. -- Gruß Marco Please send unsolicited mail to dustbin12@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 11:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <qi30mmxkn3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90502 |
On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote: > Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >> >> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes >> with Bash. > > Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most > widespread now. > Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are available, but the majority of people choose bash. Back in 1998 I choose bash, because it seemed other people were also using it. I don't know if my machine contains scripts in other shells, provided by the distro. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 20:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116knau$tror$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #90504 |
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote: >> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >>> >>> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes >>> with Bash. >> >> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most >> widespread now. >> > >Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the >name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are >available, but the majority of people choose bash. It's the default everywhere. The fact that other shells are installed makes it easier for people wanting them to configure their accounts, but in the default you get bash. And many users don't know about the alternatives. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 04:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf7821Fj154U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90553 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 20:36:14 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote: >>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >>>> >>>> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash. >>> >>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most >>> widespread now. >>> >>> >>Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the >>name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are >>available, but the majority of people choose bash. > > It's the default everywhere. The fact that other shells are installed > makes it easier for people wanting them to configure their accounts, but > in the default you get bash. And many users don't know about the > alternatives. I just upgraded? from Leap 16 to Tumbleweed so I can't be positive something wasn't lost in the translation, but there is no ksh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 10:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <m8j2mmxq4r.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90590 |
On 2026-08-26 06:23, rbowman wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 20:36:14 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > >> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote: >>>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >>>>> >>>>> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash. >>>> >>>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most >>>> widespread now. >>>> >>>> >>> Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the >>> name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are >>> available, but the majority of people choose bash. >> >> It's the default everywhere. The fact that other shells are installed >> makes it easier for people wanting them to configure their accounts, but >> in the default you get bash. And many users don't know about the >> alternatives. > > I just upgraded? from Leap 16 to Tumbleweed so I can't be positive > something wasn't lost in the translation, but there is no ksh. Interesting. I just looked in a more recently installed Leap, and it has kshell5, not ksh. I don't know what that is. The rpm is "kinit". For kdeinit, a process launcher. So, no ksh either. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 10:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116ma5j$g0qi$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90610 |
On 2026-08-26, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-08-26 06:23, rbowman wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 20:36:14 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: >> >>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote: >>>>> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >>>>>> >>>>>> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes with Bash. >>>>> >>>>> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most >>>>> widespread now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the >>>> name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are >>>> available, but the majority of people choose bash. >>> >>> It's the default everywhere. The fact that other shells are installed >>> makes it easier for people wanting them to configure their accounts, but >>> in the default you get bash. And many users don't know about the >>> alternatives. >> >> I just upgraded? from Leap 16 to Tumbleweed so I can't be positive >> something wasn't lost in the translation, but there is no ksh. > > Interesting. > > I just looked in a more recently installed Leap, and it has kshell5, > not ksh. > > I don't know what that is. The rpm is "kinit". For kdeinit, a process > launcher. So, no ksh either. My guess would be the shell (in the sense of EXPLORER.EXE) for KDE 5. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 21:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <ZfqcnXht_dQ12xP3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90504 |
On 8/25/26 05:24, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-08-25 09:56, Marco Moock wrote: >> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >>> >>> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes >>> with Bash. >> >> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most >> widespread now. >> > > Well... ksh is installed by default on opensuse. I don't remember the > name of other shells to check. tcsh? It is there. AFAIK all shells are > available, but the majority of people choose bash. > > Back in 1998 I choose bash, because it seemed other people were also > using it. > > I don't know if my machine contains scripts in other shells, provided by > the distro. Well, shells, to each their own. There are a LOT of shell pgms. Z-shell is fairly popular, tcsh is still used, ksh as well. You can install all of them quite easily if you want - but then WILL have to specify which one yer script is using in a shebang. These days, unless it's super simple, I only use Python scripts - bash/ksh/whatever is just a handy launcher.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 12:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116ju7k$3l7js$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90502 |
On 25/08/2026 08:56, Marco Moock wrote: > Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >> >> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes >> with Bash. > > Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most > widespread now. > Yeah, Unless there is a real good reason, go with the herd -- "Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold." ― Confucius
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 02:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <shWdncpO7NixFhP3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90524 |
On 8/25/26 07:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 25/08/2026 08:56, Marco Moock wrote: >> Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >>> >>> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes >>> with Bash. >> >> Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most >> widespread now. >> > Yeah, Unless there is a real good reason, go with the herd Really, NOT any 'good reason' - so go with bash. I have tcsh and z-shell installed, but haven't used them for anything in decades. ksh is kinda bash-like, but, these days, what's the point ? Essentially, I see bash as a convenient way to launch Python scripts now. Most any shell can do that, but bash is *everywhere*. USED to write much longer/complex scripts for bash ... but now, why bother ??? Python does SO much more SO much more easily/comprehensibly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 22:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <116l3c7$4nha$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90502 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:56:04 +0200, Marco Moock wrote: > Because [bash] is standard in most Linux distributions and they are > most widespread now. It is the most popular shell for interactive use, user scripts etc. But note that many Linux distributions (including Debian and derivatives) are careful not to conflate “/bin/sh” with bash. They typically ensure that the “sh” and “/bin/sh” commands invoke a closely POSIX-compliant shell of some description; if the writer of a shell script wants to rely on bash functionality, they explicitly say so with “/bin/bash” on the shebang line.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 01:32 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <d9l1mmx3cb.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90574 |
On 2026-08-26 00:01, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:56:04 +0200, Marco Moock wrote: > >> Because [bash] is standard in most Linux distributions and they are >> most widespread now. > > It is the most popular shell for interactive use, user scripts etc. > > But note that many Linux distributions (including Debian and > derivatives) are careful not to conflate “/bin/sh” with bash. They > typically ensure that the “sh” and “/bin/sh” commands invoke a closely > POSIX-compliant shell of some description; if the writer of a shell > script wants to rely on bash functionality, they explicitly say so > with “/bin/bash” on the shebang line. I always write “/bin/bash” on the shebang line, even if I could use sh. bash is what I know, so that is what I use, and I say so in the script. I don't care for sh. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-25 21:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <shWdnc9O7Ngc2BP3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90502 |
On 8/25/26 03:56, Marco Moock wrote: > Am 25.08.26 um 08:25 schrieb c186282: >> >> But for a LONG LONG time, most everybody goes >> with Bash. > > Because it is standard in most Linux distributions and they are most > widespread now. Super-easy to install a bunch of other shells. I have tcsh installed too ... just never found much reason to use it. Unless it's something very short/simple I don't use bash for much either, except as a handy launcher for Python scripts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-26 04:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ksh |
| Message-ID | <nf7866Fj154U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90578 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 21:46:21 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Super-easy to install a bunch of other shells. I have tcsh installed > too ... just never found much reason to use it. I used it before everyone went to bash. I did have to rewrite some of my aliases to bash functions. bash aliases are rather simple minded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web