Re: LC53, a respectable random generator?

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: LC53, a respectable random generator?
Date	2013-11-28 15:57 +0100
Organization	1&1 Internet AG
Message-ID	<l77lks$5vi$1@online.de> (permalink)
References	<5290d6f8$0$3170$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> <58796979-6dbf-4918-a8c7-abfb0d608101@googlegroups.com> <o8ednSk74d31JgjPnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@supernews.com> <e489ae8d-5001-4ffc-a19e-29399c3cddc3@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

hughaguilar96@yahoo.com wrote:

> I had abandoned C.L.F. because it is just a platform for people to fake up
> expertise on subjects that they know nothing about (Bernd Payson's
> "quotations" being the last straw, because he was doing that as a
> representative of the Forth-200x committee, rather than just as a yahoo
> working with a bad Forth implementation that can be ignored).

I only was explaining to you the difference of three technical terms. 
Quotation, nested function, and closure.  You want nested functions, fine.  
You called them closures, not fine.  And you confuse quotations with them, 
even worse.

These are different things, and they have different names for good reasons.  
To get your actions right, you need to set the words right first, because 
otherwise, everybody will be confused.

To use quotations well, you have to take the effort in a higher order 
function so that the quotation can access the stack.  To use nested 
functions right, you have to take the effort so that the nested function can 
access the surrounding locals.  Both is effort, at different places.

I think all three approaches have their place: Closures in functional 
programming languages that support the necessary garbage collection.  Nested 
functions in Algol-like languages that have locals everywhere.  And 
quotations in stack languages where you have the stack to pass your 
parameters and results.

Yes, it's totally easy to implement quotations, as they are just :noname 
within another function.  That's the Forth way: Do something very simple and 
ignore that other people use more complex ways to achieve about the same.  
Therefore, the suggestion is as always: If you feel so bad with Forth, and 
want something different, go and leave.  We are not stopping you, rather the 
contrary, we will celebrate it!

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

Thread

LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-23 16:25 +0000
  Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-23 17:34 -0800
    Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-23 19:03 -0800
    Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-24 04:58 +0000
  Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-11-24 04:57 -0500
    Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-24 14:17 +0000
      Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-24 08:12 -0800
        Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-24 16:46 +0000
        Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-24 23:53 +0100
          Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-24 15:41 -0800
            Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-24 17:57 -0800
            Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-25 19:32 +0000
              Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-25 14:22 -0800
              Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-26 00:20 +0100
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-26 03:29 +0000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? thomas.bartscher@gmail.com - 2013-11-25 23:08 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-26 05:06 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-26 14:03 +0000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-26 21:59 +0100
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? thomas.bartscher@gmail.com - 2013-11-28 01:32 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-25 19:43 -0800
              Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-25 19:31 -0800
              Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-11-25 19:24 -1000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-26 05:17 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-26 14:21 +0000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-28 18:49 -0800
            Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-25 13:52 -0800
          Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-24 18:03 -0800
          Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2013-11-25 13:41 +0100
            Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-25 10:23 -0800
              Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-25 13:43 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? mhx@iae.nl - 2013-11-25 15:16 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-26 13:38 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-26 20:42 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-27 11:46 +0000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-27 18:35 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-26 21:41 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-27 03:21 -0600
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-27 15:37 +0000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-27 23:01 +0100
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-27 23:39 +0000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-28 05:41 -0600
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-28 13:47 +0000
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-28 09:10 -0600
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-28 16:22 +0100
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-28 09:34 -0600
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-28 18:39 -0800
                Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-27 16:44 +0000
            Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-25 19:51 +0100
      Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-24 11:13 -0800
        Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-11-25 09:52 +0100
  Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-24 13:07 -0800
    Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-25 02:18 +0000
      Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-24 19:36 -0800
  Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-11-26 12:57 +1100
    Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-26 21:25 -0800
    Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-11-27 15:48 +0000
  Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-27 01:10 -0800
    Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-11-27 03:29 -0600
      Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-27 19:49 -0800
        Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-11-28 15:57 +0100
          Re: LC53, a respectable random generator? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-11-28 18:14 -0800

csiph-web