Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36218

Re: Reducing C,

From "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: Reducing C,
Date 2015-02-02 15:08 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <mao3sf$qfa$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <mameqt$pal$1@speranza.aioe.org> <5pGdnRQigfSwXFPJnZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@supernews.com> <8f3a931d-9697-411b-8e8e-4d6d8f08005a@googlegroups.com> <mannmi$8ep$1@dont-email.me> <98faaf9b-74c0-4d5a-b8f8-3c99211580af@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

on 02/02/2015 13:24:14, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 11:40:37 UTC, Alex McDonald  wrote:
>> What an awful solution. How long have you been writing Forth?
> 
> Nice bit of drive-by trolling there, Alex. Could you not be a bit
> more specific? What specifically is so awful about it?

As Albert points out, please stop over-trimming your posts. The entire
sense is in danger of being lost. I quote it below. 


> You have never posted any code on comp.lang.forth except for code
> examples copied directly out of "Starting Forth" (and you get those
> wrong most of th e time, because you try to do it from memory) --- the
> reason why you are op posed to "more code" is because you can't write
> it.
> 
> This is a trivial coding challenge --- I was going to let the OP do it
> hims elf, but since you have spoken out against the writing of Forth
> code, I wil l write it myself:
> 
> variable original-depth
> 
>: string[ ( -- )
> depth original-depth ! ;
> 
>: numbers-count ( -- count )
> depth original-depth @ - ;
> 
>: reverse-numbers ( numbers... count -- numbers... )
> 0 ?do  I roll  loop ;
> 
>: good-char? ( n -- flag )
> 256 u< ;
> 
>: ]string ( numbers... -- )
> numbers-count >r
> r@ reverse-numbers
> r@ c,
> r> 0 ?do
> dup good-char? 0= abort" *** ]STRING given a bad char ***
> c,  loop ;
> 
> 
> This is a test of the code under VFX:
> 
> create hey  ok
> string[ char H char E char Y char ! ]string  ok
> hey count type HEY! ok
> 

"Beauty is more important in computing than anywhere else in technology
because software is so complicated. Beauty is the ultimate defence
against complexity."

Questions you might want to ask yourself.

1. Why are there two DO LOOPs for each string generated? 
2. Why is there a ROLL on the stack for every character before it is
stored? 3. Is REVERSE-NUMBERS really needed? Could it be removed?
4. Why test for "invalid" characters; but no test for a negative result
in NUMBERS-COUNT; and no test for a STRING[ ]STRING in excess of 255
CHARs? 5. Why the test for a GOOD-CHAR? rather than a "bad char" as it
needs 0= for the ABORT" ?

No-one can teach you how to create beautiful code, but ugliness is pretty
easy to spot. It's generally because the algorithm is bad in the first
place, as is the case here. So this was not a drive-by troll; I assumed
(wrongly in your case) that most people would look at the code with a
critical eye and come to the same conclusion. Elizabeth is right, btw;
unless there's a large amount of this data it's syntactic sugar. None of
the offered solutions contribute much except more (ugly) code.

As Albert points out, please stop over-trimming your posts. The entire
sense is in danger of being lost.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-01-28 04:07 -0800
  Re: Reducing C, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 05:02 -0800
  Re: Reducing C, Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-28 07:42 -0800
    Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-01-28 08:17 -0800
  Re: Reducing C, "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-01-29 03:37 +1100
  Re: Reducing C, visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-01-28 12:53 -0800
  Re: Reducing C, humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 14:03 -0800
  Re: Reducing C, humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 20:39 -0800
    Re: Reducing C, humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 20:51 -0800
      Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-01-29 06:28 -0800
  Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-29 21:18 -0800
    Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-01-30 05:38 -0800
      Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-01-30 15:11 +0000
        Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-01-30 08:34 -0800
      Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-01-31 20:26 -0800
        Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-01 11:16 -0800
          Re: Reducing C, "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-02 11:03 +1100
            Re: Reducing C, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-01 14:13 -1000
              Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-01 17:22 -0800
              Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-01 17:36 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-02 11:40 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 05:24 -0800
                Netiquette was: Re: Reducing C, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-02 13:40 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-02 15:08 +0000
                Politeness, was Re: Reducing C, "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-02 19:30 -0500
                Re: Politeness, was Re: Reducing C, awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-03 01:57 +0100
                Re: Politeness, was Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-03 11:59 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-03 02:31 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-03 12:06 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-03 19:47 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-03 14:06 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-03 21:19 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-04 12:10 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-04 18:22 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-04 19:04 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-02-05 11:33 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 19:39 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-02-06 11:50 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 11:28 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-05 04:37 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-06 21:47 +1100
                Re: Reducing C, "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-13 09:45 +1100
                Re: Reducing C, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-13 05:24 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-15 13:53 +1100
                Re: Reducing C, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 01:07 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-16 15:02 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-19 14:22 +1100
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-05 13:18 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-05 07:02 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-05 07:14 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-07 07:12 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-04 07:12 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, november.nihal@gmail.com - 2015-02-04 09:38 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-04 21:08 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, josv@planet.nl - 2015-02-05 06:45 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-06 13:21 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-05 17:36 +0100
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-05 17:06 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-05 18:17 +0100
                Re: Reducing C, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-05 10:40 -1000
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 20:25 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-06 11:39 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-06 12:48 +0100
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 17:28 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-07 12:38 +0100
                Re: Reducing C, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-06 14:40 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 18:33 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-06 13:49 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-06 14:15 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-03 21:23 -0800
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-04 12:41 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-04 18:19 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-04 20:54 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-04 09:41 +0000
                Re: Reducing C, "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-04 12:54 +0000

csiph-web