On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:44:44 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> The PostScript graphics model has long been superseded by worthy
> successors, like Cairo.

Yes and no. I believe Keith Packard describes Cairo as PostScript
without the syntax: it shares the same page-display model, but is
presented as a set of C functions instead of a language.

--jkl

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!

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:16:28 +0000, James K. Lowden wrote:

> I believe Keith Packard describes Cairo as PostScript
> without the syntax ...

The PostScript graphics model (even Display PostScript) never progressed
beyond the concept of putting marks on paper.

While Cairo is clearly inspired by PostScript, it is also clearly an
improvement on it, adding features specifically to support interactive
graphics on a display screen, like operators and alpha channels. It also
has better Unicode support.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:57:08 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> The amount of code written in the language. I doubt game scripting
> amounts to much in the scheme of things.

And you base this assumption on...?

> Don't remember them tbh. A serious application IMO is something that
> impacts society as a whole in that if it didn't exist we'd be in
> trouble or something that benefits a persons ability to live their
> life. If games vanishes some teenagers and kidults might get a bit
> annoyed for a while before they went outside and played with a ball
> but society would carry on as before.

So you discount them because you didn't bother to pay attention before
firing off a response?

> Its a very relevant insult given these days every socially awkward
> moron decides they're on the spectrum so they can have some kind of
> disadvantage kudos.

Nobody in this discussion said any such thing.

In article <20240419160845.00000472@gmail.com>,
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
....
>And you base this assumption on...?
....
>So you discount them because you didn't bother to pay attention before
>firing off a response?
....
>Nobody in this discussion said any such thing.

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...

Or, something about wrestling with a pig...

--
I love the poorly educated.

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.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:08:45 -0700
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:57:08 -0000 (UTC)
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> The amount of code written in the language. I doubt game scripting
>> amounts to much in the scheme of things.
>
>And you base this assumption on...?

Its a standard metric. Go google it.

>> Don't remember them tbh. A serious application IMO is something that
>> impacts society as a whole in that if it didn't exist we'd be in
>> trouble or something that benefits a persons ability to live their
>> life. If games vanishes some teenagers and kidults might get a bit
>> annoyed for a while before they went outside and played with a ball
>> but society would carry on as before.
>
>So you discount them because you didn't bother to pay attention before
>firing off a response?

Non sequitur.

>> Its a very relevant insult given these days every socially awkward
>> moron decides they're on the spectrum so they can have some kind of
>> disadvantage kudos.
>
>Nobody in this discussion said any such thing.

Where did I say they did?

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.

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 Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:04:56 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> 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.

Well, I'm certainly no expert myself (just someone who runs into a lot
of Forth enthusiasts in other communities,) and c.l.forth seems fairly
active; I s'pose the question is more whether anyone has things left to
discuss along this 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.