On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:40:17 +0200
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:40:25 +0200
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:59:01 +0200
>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:28:38 +0200
>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:05:34 +0200
>>>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sorry Muttley, I have to give this one to John. His argument is
>flawless
>>>
>>>>>>>>> and spot on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Says a sock puppet who's never posted before. Nice try John.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please keep the jokes coming. I find you most entertaining! =)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That hand up your arse must be getting annoying by now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep em coming! =)
>>>>
>>>> I suspect thats what you'll be doing at some point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Brilliant! Next!
>>
>> Your turn Dee.
>
>Quality dropping a bit here. But I'm sure you'll rebound shortly.

You got nothing then? Awww, bless. Well you tried, thats the main thing.

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 12:40:17 +0200
> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:40:25 +0200
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:59:01 +0200
>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:28:38 +0200
>>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:05:34 +0200
>>>>>>>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry Muttley, I have to give this one to John. His argument is
>> flawless
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and spot on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Says a sock puppet who's never posted before. Nice try John.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please keep the jokes coming. I find you most entertaining! =)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That hand up your arse must be getting annoying by now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep em coming! =)
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect thats what you'll be doing at some point.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Brilliant! Next!
>>>
>>> Your turn Dee.
>>
>> Quality dropping a bit here. But I'm sure you'll rebound shortly.
>
> You got nothing then? Awww, bless. Well you tried, thats the main thing.

There you go Mutt! Good boy!

On 18/04/2024 10:31, David Brown wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 10:36, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:30:49 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> With the list of pointers design of Forth, you can just
>>> redefine these "local" words as you need to, and ignore any previous
>>> definitions.
>>
>> So, they reinvented local variables, and thought it was some great
>> innovation ...
>
> "word" in Forth terminology is more like "function" in common imperative
> languages.  (It is not exactly the same, since Forth "words" are much
> more flexible - that is both a good thing and a bad thing.)
>

Why not include c.l.forth?

In article <v08bu7$1kl1e$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Harnden <richard.harnden@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 18/04/2024 10:31, David Brown wrote:
>> On 18/04/2024 10:36, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:30:49 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> With the list of pointers design of Forth, you can just
>>>> redefine these "local" words as you need to, and ignore any previous
>>>> definitions.
>>>
>>> So, they reinvented local variables, and thought it was some great
>>> innovation ...
>>
>> "word" in Forth terminology is more like "function" in common imperative
>> languages. (It is not exactly the same, since Forth "words" are much
>> more flexible - that is both a good thing and a bad thing.)
>>
>
>Why not include c.l.forth?
>

And maybe change the Subject title?

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/RepInsults

On 23/04/2024 15:09, Richard Harnden wrote:
> On 18/04/2024 10:31, David Brown wrote:
>> On 18/04/2024 10:36, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:30:49 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> With the list of pointers design of Forth, you can just
>>>> redefine these "local" words as you need to, and ignore any previous
>>>> definitions.
>>>
>>> So, they reinvented local variables, and thought it was some great
>>> innovation ...
>>
>> "word" in Forth terminology is more like "function" in common
>> imperative languages.  (It is not exactly the same, since Forth
>> "words" are much more flexible - that is both a good thing and a bad
>> thing.)
>>
>
> Why not include c.l.forth?
>

Sure - if you would like to continue in this line, then you could bring
in some experts. I have no idea how popular c.l.forth is, or how much
more you'd learn from them that you wouldn't get from others here such
as John Ames.

For my own part, I think Forth is interesting to know about, but it's
not a language I am likely to use, and I've learned a little more now
(thanks to John), and I am satisfied. But if you or others want more
depth, it probably makes more sense to drop the "comp.unix" groups and
add "comp.lang.forth", and - as Kenny suggests - change the subject.
(Or even just start a new thread!)

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 01:48:30 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> You do realize you're arguing with a moron, don't you?
>
> Something about arguing with a moron - they just bring you down to
> their level...

What can I say, I like walking 'em through the process of demonstrating
their ignorance to everyone else. But yes, we seem to have reached the
point where he's stopped even pretending to construct an argument.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:34:41 +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:

> [Forth] is a very small language and has almost no syntax.

Forth has more syntax than PostScript.

Consider: Forth actually has the concept of “compile time” versus “run
time”. In PostScript, nothing much happens at “compile time”, except the
construction of executable arrays.

On 17/04/2024 07:34, Andreas Eder wrote:
> On Di 16 Apr 2024 at 14:00, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2024 12:58, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-16, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forth is alive and well, albeit not very common. It is used in embedded
>>>> systems - it is almost certainly the smallest language and run-time
>>>> system where you can have a extendable high-level language, and runs
>>>> directly on even very small microcontrollers.
>>> It has also been used since circa 1999 as the embedded language of
>>> the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
>>> end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
>>> being replaced with Lua now.
>>>
>>
>> People who have used Forth a lot tend to be very enthusiastic about it, but
>> it has a long learning curve to get up to speed.
> Really? It is a very small language and has almost no syntax.
> I thought it was one of the easiest languages toe learn ib comparison to
> C++ or Java.
>

It doesn't take long to learn the actual language - as you say, it's
small. It takes a long time and a lot of practice to get confident with
it, to learn the tricks you can do with it, to understand the idioms and
be confident in reading other people's code as well as writing your own.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:34:41 +0200
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:

> Really? It is a very small language and has almost no syntax.
> I thought it was one of the easiest languages toe learn ib comparison
> to C++ or Java.

*Syntactically* it's very simple, but explicit stack-orientation with
reverse-Polish notation is a *very* different programming paradigm than
practically everything else out there; even Lisp is closer to "normal,"
at least for functional-programming types. And that's before you even
get to the fairly idiosyncratic vocabulary or the type model that's
somehow both explicit and loose...