On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill",
> as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things
> Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and
> oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!
That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about
"experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ

The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels nor
value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
can do with what I got upstairs.

Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)
it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
for work he finds extremely important and valuable.

It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -
so that alone IMHO justifies him being here - contrary to some others my lawyer
told me not to engage with when it can be avoided.

c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're
the laughing stock of comp.lang.* since we talk a *lot* about our technology
without actually using it), but I've gotten used to all the infighting.

Hans Bezemer

On 25/09/2023 8:37 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>
> c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're
> the laughing stock of comp.lang.* since we talk a *lot* about our technology
> without actually using it), but I've gotten used to all the infighting.

Here's a thread from 30 years ago. Chastising c.l.f. seems to have been
as popular then as now :)

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/HD-MCTas1Nc/m/cEP8stnQLfAJ

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 5:41:52 AM UTC+2, dxf wrote:
> > c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're
> > the laughing stock of comp.lang.* since we talk a *lot* about our technology
> > without actually using it), but I've gotten used to all the infighting.
> Here's a thread from 30 years ago. Chastising c.l.f. seems to have been
> as popular then as now :)

Well, it is true, isn't it. Some of the longest threads here have everything to do with
bashing persons or have nothing to do with Forth itself (and yes, in the latter category
I'm also guilty as charged).

I rarely see newbies here (Which in a sense is understandable, because Forth has an
incredibly steep learning curve - so they quit quite quickly). It's rare to see that a newbie
is taking under the wings of a more senior programmer - gee, I was lucky.

We're still fighting wars, sometimes on the most basics of facilities - like strings, objects
or locals.

You rarely see full application - unless in the rare hardware related department. Source
code is a big no no at all in general. From time to time I still post code - but I can't say it's
an enjoyable experience. To give a few examples:

- A tiny dynamic strings package quickly ended up in a LONG discussion whether COMUS
words that have been with us for 30 years or more are "general enough for use in code";
- A little dabbling with ellipse circumference code ended up in a discussion whether FSQRT
is expensive.

Now - I don't need a repetition of those discussions here. We've covered that. We've been there.
But what would be more useful is:

"Thanks - that might be useful!";
"If you did it that way, I'd be more compact and even faster.";
"Here is a LOCALS version. It's even more compact.";
"There is an even faster algorithm. Here's the link."

Now, I'm not exclusively posting here. There is much more useful commenting on e.g.
Rosetta Code. Several times I got extremely smart and useful comment there. People on
comp.lang.c are very responsive and helpful. That's what makes a forum viable in the long
run IMHO.

I also have to defend the few people here that are STILL posting their code and sometimes
have their guts ripped out undeserved. I have off-clf worked with them and they are very
nice, helpful and talented people who really try to contribute. I don't know why they're still
taking all that abuse. And note - I'm a quirky individual who created and maintains a quirky
compiler and tends to write quirky code. But we seem to get along just fine..

Do I think c.l.f. will change? No, I think it's in the genes. On the other side, I think it's useful
to be confronted with your mirror image once in a while.

Hans

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 01:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 5:41:52 AM UTC+2, dxf wrote:
> > > c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're

[snip summary of things wrong with this NG]
>
> Now, I'm not exclusively posting here. There is much more useful commenting on e.g.
> Rosetta Code. Several times I got extremely smart and useful comment there. People on
> comp.lang.c are very responsive and helpful. That's what makes a forum viable in the long
> run IMHO.

I'm no C programmer, (nor even much of a Forth one) but I've heard of some
who got a right roasting in clc, back some years ago - seems some compiler
writers decided "undefined behaviour" meant they could mess up the
intentions of a coder with delight.

[]

>
> Do I think c.l.f. will change? No, I think it's in the genes. On the other side, I think it's useful
> to be confronted with your mirror image once in a while.
>
> Hans
>
>
>

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:37:20 AM UTC-5, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're
> the laughing stock of comp.lang.* since we talk a *lot* about our technology
> without actually using it), but I've gotten used to all the infighting.

This group isn't so bad.
The first news group, Philosophy, that I visited was nothing
but pure muck slinging by a core half dozen clowns. They were
trying to make it into an art form but none were close to an
Alexander Pope so it wasn't even entertaining.
(Cortes on return from his conquest took all the loot for
himself and his small inner circle. His men retaliated by
painting graffiti on his walls, in verse. These were common
soldiers.)
--
me

In article <20230926103830.cb69a2ff5b91dbc09825bc4f@127.0.0.1>,
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
<SNIP>
>I'm no C programmer, (nor even much of a Forth one) but I've heard of some
>who got a right roasting in clc, back some years ago - seems some compiler
>writers decided "undefined behaviour" meant they could mess up the
>intentions of a coder with delight.

And they are. However the correct interpretation is that if a programmer
does not make its intentions clear, the compiler builder could go
out of its way to find that situation out, but they don't.
A C++ compiler is sufficiently complicated that this is not doable
anymore. One of the way out is to simply forbid "undefined behaviour",
meaning that in all circumstances the compiler generates a program
that behaves the same in all situations.
Actually this means that *all* compilers force the program to behave
the same on *all* systems. The industry is not willing to pay the
price for that.

Hugh
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -

On 26/09/2023 6:35 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> ...
> I rarely see newbies here (Which in a sense is understandable, because Forth has an
> incredibly steep learning curve - so they quit quite quickly). It's rare to see that a newbie
> is taking under the wings of a more senior programmer - gee, I was lucky.

I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from
sharing info about forth resources to showing off their latest forth programmed
gadget. Some hold down day jobs as programmers. If newbies aren't coming to
c.l.f. it could be as simple as they don't need us.

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:00:57 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:

> I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from

If I knew nothing of Forth, didn't know any better and
stumbled into this group, I would be out of here very
quickly. Not because of the bickering of silly people, but
because of the primary subject matter discussed here,
compliance and nazi coding. However, important it is to
the professionals and wantabes, it ain't of general
programming interest and makes Forth look difficult and
problematic.
Fig provided a nice small sufficient program to work with
and published Forth Dimensions that provided code bits,
ideas and news that fostered interest, very little of which
means anything to today's group here. So yes, retro is
a draw back when Forth was fun.
--
me

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 07:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
S Jack <sdwjack69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:00:57 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>
> > I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from
>
> If I knew nothing of Forth, didn't know any better and
> stumbled into this group, I would be out of here very
> quickly. Not because of the bickering of silly people, but
> because of the primary subject matter discussed here,
> compliance and nazi coding. However, important it is to
> the professionals and wantabes, it ain't of general
> programming interest and makes Forth look difficult and
> problematic.
> Fig provided a nice small sufficient program to work with
> and published Forth Dimensions that provided code bits,
> ideas and news that fostered interest, very little of which
> means anything to today's group here. So yes, retro is
> a draw back when Forth was fun.

Maybe. To others it looks as if the language is stuck in
the 80's.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

> So yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:00:12 AM UTC-5, Zbig wrote:
> > So yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI

https://youtu.be/8elAi-7G0OE?si=0gHUJ5XoYW75xNZk

> > > So yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI
> https://youtu.be/8elAi-7G0OE?si=0gHUJ5XoYW75xNZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb-KkVNEbw8

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:35:33 AM UTC-5, Zbig wrote:
> > > > So yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI
> > https://youtu.be/8elAi-7G0OE?si=0gHUJ5XoYW75xNZk
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb-KkVNEbw8

Oops, forgot the lyrics:
"Give me that old fashion Forth
A program that smoothly flows
Even when evil state is there
It carries on without a care"

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill",
> > as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things
> > Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and
> > oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!
> That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about
> "experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ

I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!

> The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels nor
> value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
> can do with what I got upstairs.

Hans also has an instructional video teaching the subject of implementing
a string stack, which he doesn't know how to do. His video provided a
graphical illustration of swapping two strings --- one string gets copied
into a pad somewhere, then the other string gets copied to where it was,
then the string in the pad gets copied to where that string was.
That was an hilarious video! Hans doesn't know what COW (copy-on-write)
is, or know that it is much faster to just swap the pointers to the strings
rather than swap the entire strings.
Hans doesn't have any knowledge "upstairs" --- just a lot of hot air --- what he
does with what he has upstairs is make hilariously stupid instructional videos.

> Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)
> it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
> for work he finds extremely important and valuable.

Hans is still not making any sense.
If I wanted "validation" I would have stayed on the Forth-200x mailing list
so my super-duper expert status would be validated by the Forth-200x
committee. Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is essentially the same
as having reference letters from Stephen Pelc, Anton Ertl, Bernd Paysan,
Peter Knaggs, etc., that can be used as validation of Forth expertise.
The whole point of being on the Forth-200x mailing list is so that,
in the unlikely case that a job in Forth is offered, the candidate can explain
that he is not just a mere Forth programmer, but he sets the standard for
the entire Forth community. All Forth programmers rely on the Forth-200x
experts to do their thinking for them! The Forth-200x committee considers
them to be the elite whose opinion on Forth is valuable. Woo hoo!

> It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -
> so that alone IMHO justifies him being here

There was this thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/hp1MbSkew08/m/os5OYTOeBAAJ
Hans said:

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 7:37:35 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> But maybe now you understand why I don't care about you, Hugh. Or anything
> you say about me. Or make me stop what I'm doing. To me, you're just a nobody
> with a crazy opinion I don't care for.
>
> Hans Bezemer
>
> BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.

Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.

Hans is a typical maintenance programmer --- they are all alike --- they
require somebody to write the code, then they rip it off and claim
that they wrote it themselves. Testra employed a string of maintenance
programmers after I left who claimed to be instant experts in MFX,
but all of them failed to learn to program in MFX --- maybe Testra will
hire Hans Bezemer next, as he seems to be their type.

On 28/09/2023 1:32 pm, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> ...
>> Hans Bezemer
>>
>> BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
>
> Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
> so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
> but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.

Hans wasn't saying you were behaving like a goose - it was BSD.
A BSD license would count for nothing if an author could revoke it.
You're the first person I'm aware who has tried.

On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:00:57 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>
>> I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from
>
> If I knew nothing of Forth, didn't know any better and
> stumbled into this group, I would be out of here very
> quickly. Not because of the bickering of silly people, but
> because of the primary subject matter discussed here,
> compliance and nazi coding. However, important it is to
> the professionals and wantabes, it ain't of general
> programming interest and makes Forth look difficult and
> problematic.
> Fig provided a nice small sufficient program to work with
> and published Forth Dimensions that provided code bits,
> ideas and news that fostered interest, very little of which
> means anything to today's group here. So yes, retro is
> a draw back when Forth was fun.

But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.

> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> of ANS-Forth.

The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
to choose from. :D

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> of ANS-Forth.

A bad thing?
Fig made Forth popular and the rest is nature.
Everyone could make a better forth, Forths abound
and need came to corral. At that time the Internet
was coming into public use, publications gave way
to news groups and podcasts.
The venue makes a difference. A publication provides
order, code and ideas presented in whole and bitching
relegated to small paragraph in letters to the editor.
News groups have different dynamics and chaos is
more the norm. A good place to hash stuff out by the
knowledgeable but a rough ride for ones with little
background and of little patience. Podcasts should be more palpable.
--
me

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > of ANS-Forth.

> The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> to choose from. :D

In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
jrh
Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 18:34:29 UTC+1, John Hart wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > > of ANS-Forth.
>
> > The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> > to choose from. :D
> In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
> The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
> another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
> it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
> which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
> jrh
> Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.

ANY idea or definition that avoids the availabitiy if 50 or 100+ Forths is to be applauded..
In comparison to other languages so many Forths just lead to death of this wondeful language.

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:23:20 PM UTC-4, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 18:34:29 UTC+1, John Hart wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > > > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > > > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > > > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > > > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > > > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > > > of ANS-Forth.
> >
> > > The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> > > to choose from. :D
> > In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
> > The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
> > another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
> > it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
> > which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
> > jrh
> > Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.
> ANY idea or definition that avoids the availabitiy if 50 or 100+ Forths is to be applauded..
> In comparison to other languages so many Forths just lead to death of this wondeful language.

Then we need to create the ultimate forth that can rule them all!

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:34:29 PM UTC-5, John Hart wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > > of ANS-Forth.
>
> > The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> > to choose from. :D
> In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
> The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
> another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because

Toyed with some ideas along that line:
i. Standard pigeon Forth
Only specifies the gist of the word. Since its not an executable
it can be a simple affair without "optimizations" just focusing
on intended behavior.
i. Standard behavior san names.
Specified behaviors with given numeric labels. User use any
names they want to fit a dialog that express their program.
And multiple names can be used with the same behavior to
fit the context where applied.
(Went so far as to build Forth with pointer in the name field
so names could be kept in one block and switched out with
with alternate name sets.)

Converting one Forth from and to standard forth is just a sed file.
It's not completely straight forward as sometimes order matters.
--
me

On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
>> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
>> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
>> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
>> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
>> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
>> of ANS-Forth.
>
> A bad thing?

Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
rather than code.

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> >> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> >> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> >> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> >> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> >> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> >> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> >> of ANS-Forth.
> >
> > A bad thing?
> Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
> and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
> Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
> eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
> rather than code.

Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.
--
me

On 29/09/2023 2:26 pm, S Jack wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>> On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
>>>> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
>>>> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
>>>> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
>>>> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
>>>> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
>>>> of ANS-Forth.
>>>
>>> A bad thing?
>> Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
>> and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
>> Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
>> eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
>> rather than code.
>
> Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.

In that case there ought to be countless Forth newcomers busily writing
applications :)