It is not possible to 'over-estimate one's peers.' And a teacher thatWell, you have to define "peers" in order to discuss that any further. However, in order to have peers you somebody has to make them peers.
under- or over-estimates his peers is not as big as a problem as
doing the same with his audience.
The number of Forthers is reducingWhat you'd expect? The ones who have left taking over?
so the ones left take over.
Weird way of reasoning..
I kinda sorta "left". But I keep an eye, because Forth is an unusual technology, and sometimes that's the catalyst for something interesting and new.I can't blame you. Last time this kind of "ad hominem" attacks went left and right I wrote:
Sometimes.
Not at all. Take a good look at what I commented on. It is all concerning
THE PRODUCT. Personal smear is your particular skill and expertise.
Hans Bezemer <the.bee...@gmail.com> writes:
Not at all. Take a good look at what I commented on. It is all concerning THE PRODUCT. Personal smear is your particular skill and expertise.If it's something the person is doing non-commercially for fun, it's not
a product, even if they are sharing it with others.
Welcome to Forth. I hope you feel at home.
jpit...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 6. April 2022 um 08:53:36 UTC+2:Hi minf,
On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 03:29:09 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
On 6/04/2022 03:47, minf...@arcor.de wrote:It just shows the type of people you are.
...IOW book listings are reminiscent of the days pre-floppy and internet.
BTW I grew up with long assembly listings, so the documentation looks
fine to me ;-)
em.. thinking back in reality I grew up with tube radios .....
When folks had the luxury of 'getting it right the first time' because
there was a long time between technology changes.
If I like the work Howerd invested and post it,
then the rest of your comments is ripping his work apart.
Does it add anything to his work or post or colorforth?
It would be just like me saying:
What a waste of everybody' s time for 650 pages that hardly anybody will look at, or use.
You probably had your reasons?
But you do not have a clue why he did it like this.
DEMOTIVATION PURE.
And reflect carefully what you post here.
Or even if.
Well and good, I certainly had no demotivation in mind. So put your good advices elsewhere.
Back to cf: Again kudos to Howerd!
My remark on cf's exotic human interface was intended to perhaps discuss whether
it could be innovated to be more 'palatable' with normal hardware and for people with
visual deficiencies. But I guess this is an old discussion.
Again kudos to Howerd!Thanks again!
it could be innovated to be more 'palatable' with normal hardwarecf2022 should run on any x86 based PC, from a USB stick. No floppies
and for people with visual deficienciescf2022 has a colour-blind mode - just press F4.
On 6/04/2022 01:58, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 16:41:48 UTC+1, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:54:35 PM UTC+2, jpit...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Please show us what you have produced
that comes close to Howerd's work,I wish you hadn't said that - but had taken my remark seriously: https://thebeez.home.xs4all.nl/4tH/4tHmanual.pdf
so we can really compare and understand why you are so negative.
I assume we would like to understand how you define your documentation standard.
Thank you.You're welcome.
Hans Bezemer
Well, I had been there already
and looked quickly at the 650+ pages.
Let the Forth Community judge about quality of either.
Never heard such negativity from Howerd about work others did and were proud of,
but there we are.
Howerd is clearly a nice guy and I've certainly found his works useful -
even if not always for the purposes he intended. OTOH Hans does have a
point - namely why include a listing in a manual if nobody is going to
read it. That said I did enjoy reading about Howerd's background even
if it had little bearing on colorForth. If only my own background were
as colorful...
Howerd is clearly a nice guyThat's what I like to hear ;-)
why include a listing in a manualThe listings completely define the software being documented.
if nobody is going to read it.I might want to read it, to remind me, later...
That said I did enjoy reading about Howerd's backgroundThanks!
even if it had little bearing on colorForthThe connection to colorForth is that I am tring to explain why Forth and colorForth have such a hard time in today's corporate, capitalist world.
If only my own background were as colorful...I never thought of my background as being particularly colourful...
I've certainly found his works useful -I'm intrigued - please explain more.
even if not always for the purposes he intended
Howerd schrieb am Montag, 4. April 2022 um 22:44:03 UTC+2:
Hi Forthers,
I am pleased to announce an updated version of colorForth : cf2022.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/colorforth/
https://github.com/Howerd/colorForth
or from my website:
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/
Documentation is here :
http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Readme is here :
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/readme.txt
The main difference between cf2019 and cf2022 is that cf2022 has an
ASCII font, even though it still uses Shannon-Fano encoding for the cf
token names.
This is step in the direction of the rest of the programming world.
It occurred to me while I was updating cf2022 that I like colorForth
because it is as close to the metal as you can get - I see a connection
between colorForth and this video : https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
colorForth is the equivalent of the Surface Plate that everything else
can be referenced too. Just my 2c worth.
Thanks for keeping cf alive! It is one of the few refreshing aspects in the tiny Forth world.
Although I believe that cf's exotic human interface do/did more harm
to it than good...
BTW I grew up with long assembly listings, so the documentation looks
fine to me ;-)
em.. thinking back in reality I grew up with tube radios .....
Thanks for keeping cf alive!My pleasure :-) colorForth is too pretty to be allowed to die from
I believe that cf's exotic human interface do/did more harmAgreed. It is not good to force people to adopt an entirely new user
so the documentation looks fine to me ;-)Thanks!
em.. thinking back in reality I grew up with tube radios .....Me too. I used to collect old TVs from our local repair shop by the pram
On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:16:51 AM UTC+2, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:just a lazy code dump?
I just had a look at the documentation you didReally?! A three page primer? 24 page content - because the rest is
- brilliant and a lot of your time invested.
I don't know what your standards are concerning documentation - butthey're REALLY not mine..
Hans BezemerHi Hans,
A three page primer?That was Chuck's documentation, included for your convenience.
24 page content -The 24 pages in the PDF file are intended to give the reasons and
because the rest is just a lazy code dump?You miss the point here. 99% of my documentation effort can be found in
cf2022 has a colour-blind mode - just press F4.If you're colour-blind, you are already reading the code without colour. So what's
The code can then be read without the use of colour.
dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:Hi Paul,
Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
understood by our peers.
RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps.
Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and
re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will
want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence
to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few people
for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:44:03 PM UTC-4, Howerd wrote:Hi Myron,
Hi Forthers,
I am pleased to announce an updated version of colorForth : cf2022.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/colorforth/
https://github.com/Howerd/colorForth
or from my website:
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/
Documentation is here :
http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Readme is here :
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/readme.txt
The main difference between cf2019 and cf2022 is that cf2022 has an
ASCII font, even though it still uses Shannon-Fano encoding for the cf
token names.
This is step in the direction of the rest of the programming world.
It occurred to me while I was updating cf2022 that I like colorForth
because it is as close to the metal as you can get - I see a connection
between colorForth and this video : https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
colorForth is the equivalent of the Surface Plate that everything else
can be referenced too. Just my 2c worth.
Enjoy!
Cheers,
Howerd
Dear Howerd,
I too, like getting as close to the metal as I can. So I've been exploring how to design stack computers in Verilog for FPGAs, and their requisite assemblers in whatever language gets the job done (gforth, Common Lisp, Guile, Python3).
I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" section in cf2022_colorForth.pdf near the beginning that makes it clear that colorForth requires a legacy i386 box/BIOS. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting the "Under the Hood" section.
Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForth floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it". But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatible video hardware.
I admire your tenacity.
Respectfully,
Myron Plichota
I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" sectionGood idea, off the top of my head :
in cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForthIt is a steep learning curve...
floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it".
But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatibleThere were issues originally with incompatible floppy disk hardware.
video hardware.
I admire your tenacityThanks! But the difference between tenacity and stubborness is not
On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 18:57:24 UTC+1, Myron Plichota wrote:Hi Jurgen,
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-4, Myron Plichota wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
How does one spell yia, yia!?
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote: >>>>>> It certainly has a negative vibe to it.
I find it funny, that most of the posts here have nothing to do with
ANN: colorForth cf2022 257 views
But this seems to be the essence of Forth ....
Am 08/04/2022 um 20:39 schrieb Jurgen Pitaske:
On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 18:57:24 UTC+1, Myron Plichota wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-4, Myron Plichota wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote: >>>> How does one spell yia, yia!?
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote: >>>>>> It certainly has a negative vibe to it.
I find it funny, that most of the posts here have nothing to do with
ANN: colorForth cf2022 257 views
But this seems to be the essence of Forth ....Hi Jurgen,
clf does seems to produce a wealth of differing opinions.
Thank you for coming to my defence, against comments with a negative vibe.
But do not worry - the folks here have presented what I interpret as constructive criticism, and mostly I agree with them!
To be my own devil's advocate, some brutally blunt Q and A's :
Q. Why would a seemingly intelligent guy like Howerd waste his time on a programming language that nobody else uses?
A. Because I like colorForth. I love the way colorForth is complete -
when you run cf2022 you can see everything, you can change everything
and you can understand everything (theoretically, at least).
Q. Isn't it really about idolising Chuck Moore?
A. No, I like and respect Chuck, and I only idolise Chuck's ideas.
Q. Is this about making colorForth a religion, with a heirarchy of
priests and demi-gods?
A. Absolutely - I can show you the way to enlightenment for a small fee. Alternatively you can just read the documentation and give it a try ;-)
Q. What about ANS Forth?
A. Jeff Fox hated ANS Forth, Chuck thinks it is not good. I love it
because it makes Forth respectable in the corporate workplace because it
has an ISO number : ISO/IEC 15145. cf2022 is not ANS compatible.
Q. colorForth uses a difficult "keypad" user interface, Shannon-Fano encoding, and blocks instead of files - couldn't you just use ASCII
files and a normal keyboard?
A. No.
Q. What about colour-blind people?
A. Press F4.
I'm still feeling very motivated!
;-)
Cheers,
Howerd
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:Hi Andy,
The number of Forthers is reducingWhat you'd expect? The ones who have left taking over?
so the ones left take over.
Weird way of reasoning..
I kinda sorta "left". But I keep an eye, because Forth is an unusual technology, and sometimes that's the catalyst for something interesting and new.
Sometimes.
Andy Valencia
Home page: https://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: https://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
Forth is an unusual technology, and sometimes that's the catalyst for something interesting and new.Indeed.
Sometimes.Other times it is just following a dead end.
On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:54:24 AM UTC-5, Howerd wrote:Hi me,
cf2022 has a colour-blind mode - just press F4.If you're colour-blind, you are already reading the code without colour. So what's
The code can then be read without the use of colour.
the use of F4 :)
--
me
On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 15:15:08 UTC+1, Howerd wrote:Hi Jurgen,
Am 08/04/2022 um 20:39 schrieb Jurgen Pitaske:
On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 18:57:24 UTC+1, Myron Plichota wrote:Hi Jurgen,
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:46:42 PM UTC-4, Myron Plichota wrote:
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote: >>>>>> How does one spell yia, yia!?
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote: >>>>>>>> It certainly has a negative vibe to it.
I find it funny, that most of the posts here have nothing to do with
ANN: colorForth cf2022 257 views
But this seems to be the essence of Forth ....
clf does seems to produce a wealth of differing opinions.
Thank you for coming to my defence, against comments with a negative vibe. >>
But do not worry - the folks here have presented what I interpret as
constructive criticism, and mostly I agree with them!
To be my own devil's advocate, some brutally blunt Q and A's :
Q. Why would a seemingly intelligent guy like Howerd waste his time on a
programming language that nobody else uses?
A. Because I like colorForth. I love the way colorForth is complete -
when you run cf2022 you can see everything, you can change everything
and you can understand everything (theoretically, at least).
Q. Isn't it really about idolising Chuck Moore?
A. No, I like and respect Chuck, and I only idolise Chuck's ideas.
Q. Is this about making colorForth a religion, with a heirarchy of
priests and demi-gods?
A. Absolutely - I can show you the way to enlightenment for a small fee.
Alternatively you can just read the documentation and give it a try ;-)
Q. What about ANS Forth?
A. Jeff Fox hated ANS Forth, Chuck thinks it is not good. I love it
because it makes Forth respectable in the corporate workplace because it
has an ISO number : ISO/IEC 15145. cf2022 is not ANS compatible.
Q. colorForth uses a difficult "keypad" user interface, Shannon-Fano
encoding, and blocks instead of files - couldn't you just use ASCII
files and a normal keyboard?
A. No.
Q. What about colour-blind people?
A. Press F4.
I'm still feeling very motivated!
;-)
Cheers,
Howerd
Sorry Howard,
when I appreciated your post, I did not expect what I triggered.
But this is CLF.
I must say, that you should move into politics ....
Am 07/04/2022 um 23:42 schrieb myronp...@gmail.com:
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:44:03 PM UTC-4, Howerd wrote:
Hi Forthers,
I am pleased to announce an updated version of colorForth : cf2022.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/colorforth/
https://github.com/Howerd/colorForth
or from my website:
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/
Documentation is here :
http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Readme is here :
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/readme.txt
The main difference between cf2019 and cf2022 is that cf2022 has an
ASCII font, even though it still uses Shannon-Fano encoding for the cf
token names.
This is step in the direction of the rest of the programming world.
It occurred to me while I was updating cf2022 that I like colorForth
because it is as close to the metal as you can get - I see a connection
between colorForth and this video : https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
colorForth is the equivalent of the Surface Plate that everything else
can be referenced too. Just my 2c worth.
Enjoy!
Cheers,
Howerd
Dear Howerd,
I too, like getting as close to the metal as I can. So I've been exploring how to design stack computers in Verilog for FPGAs, and their requisite assemblers in whatever language gets the job done (gforth, Common Lisp, Guile, Python3).
I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" section in cf2022_colorForth.pdf near the beginning that makes it clear that colorForth requires a legacy i386 box/BIOS. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting the "Under the Hood" section.
Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForth floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it". But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatible video hardware.
I admire your tenacity.
Respectfully,Hi Myron,
Myron Plichota
I suggest that you provide a "System Requirements" sectionGood idea, off the top of my head :
in cf2022_colorForth.pdf
1. x86 architecture processor ( 386 or higher)
2. 32 Mbytes or more RAM
3. PC BIOS that allows booting from a USB drive
4. VESA compatible video card
5. USB port
Many moons ago, I was running a main/backup pair of colorForthIt is a steep learning curve...
floppys on a i386 box, and made a bit of progress "getting it".
But other i386 boxes failed due (I thought) to incompatibleThere were issues originally with incompatible floppy disk hardware.
video hardware.
cf2022 uses VESA calls to configure the video hardware - I've not
noticed any problems on any PCs / laptops that I have tried it on.
The biggest issue at the moment seems to be the difficulty of persuading
the PC to boot from a USB drive...
This will only get worse, so UEFI support is planned for cf202x.
I can run cf2022 on my Windows 10 laptop, which is not quite "legacy hardware" yet :-)
I admire your tenacityThanks! But the difference between tenacity and stubborness is not
always well defined ;-)
Cheers,
Howerd
I can run cf2022 on my Windows 10 laptop, which is not quite "legacy hardware" yet :-)
I hope to get my cf documentation up to the standard of your 4th docs eventually, and I take your criticism in a positive way.Howard, thanks for reacting. Note I was reacting to a claim which was NOT
Is the code itself not included in the package?because the rest is just a lazy code dump?You miss the point here. 99% of my documentation effort can be found in
the code dumps.
BTW I love the fact that 4tH is different. I am thinking of adding4tH was intended to be different - if I had found a Forth that was to my liking I'd saved myself a lot of time!
command line to cf202x, and it will probably get compiled on-the-fly,
just like 4th :-)
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Very minor point: It's Lego blocks (or maybe bricks), in UKE, not Lego stones.
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 6:22:47 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:negative vibe, to back up others, is perfectly alright.
Well that's a bit of an inferior way to out it, to jump to the thoughts of others for defence. Just wait, seen some Steve Jobs videos, maybe he has something to apply here, rather than me figuring out what to say. Yes, politely put, a bit of a
No, it's not. It is a very useful sieve to shift the distractions from actual, valid arguments.
Steve Jobs may be a lot, but certainly not an expert in this area. So that is another fallacy,
"call to authority". I will disregard your other "tone argument" fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
? A $10 book spread over tens of thousands of sales, makes it worth it, and if your writingis do good that it gets hundreds of thousands of new people on board, you have proven your point.
It's a free project, so that doesn't apply. I don't do things to prove my point. That's a waste of
energy. A friend of mine joined the Army just to prove his dad he was a real man. After four
years of hell he returned home and said to his dad "I told you I can do it!" - on which his father
responded "I was in the Navy. The Army is for losers!"
Exactly! Now you are getting it. Around here a lot has been sunk into the ocean,with a lot of crusty seasoned forth sailors left, who only need the basics of the spec
and how to use it.
Not exactly. A lot of people are put off by this elitist view that permeates in Forth circles. They
can't get any help and throw it off as soon as they can and go to more useful languages like
Python and Lua, which DO have plenty of understandable and consistent resources - and compilers
that don't blow up in your face when you make a slight error (although there has been improvement).
And then the Forth community wonders why their propaganda does not lead to more Forth programmers.
Well, I'll tell you. It's the Waynes in this world which tell them "You can drown as far as I am concerned.
If you're not a crusty, seasoned Forth sailor you don't even have the right to live".
The consequence of this mentality is that Forth itself has fallen from the raft and has now sunk
so deep in the "Most used programming languages" list, that it needs a bathyscaphe to find it.
But seriously, it's not worth getting negative unless it's negative people starting fights all the time.A comment is not a fight. The response could also have been "What do you mean, what is lacking?"
However, this person chose to ask for my documentation. So he got it.
I could wax lyrical about a lot of stuff, but that's probably just going be a waste of time.
I too. If people would refrain from logical fallacies and state their arguments, that could be
quite fruitful.
You tell them, discuss or explain, and move on.I told them. They chose an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. They could have chosen another approach.
Which is this case, is not about the documentation, but about the tone!It is about the documentation and returning to a logical fallacy is hardly useful. Do you people
never learn?
ANS could do an open source compiler, toolset, code routine base, and documentation.It's a standardization committee - not a development team.
Hans Bezemer
dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
understood by our peers.
RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps.
Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and
re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will
want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence
to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few people
for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so >iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.
Well, may be it is because I'm a Dutchie - known to be the most frank people in the world,"call to authority". I will disregard your other "tone argument" fallacy.Is it? You don't seem to be able to see what's wrong. I'm forgetting what's wrong already, it's been a bit too long and I can't retain the memory.
Not really. It's all over the net, in numerous books and if you want to discuss it, because youhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argumentIf you say so.
My point was, as much as they have destroyed Forth's chances, and I would have preferred toI tend to reject reality and substitute my own thing.
see it done differently, like the way you are doing it, it's the present reality.
Sadly, there are people that just don't get it, despite hand holding.No discussion here. I've been trying to educate my own girlfriend into programming for the last
It's not worth accommodating in such a complex language abstraction, and those whoIt's the same logic that my dad applied when he told me to "stop playing with these games",
will never be particularly good, and are not worth hiring. A lot of people just do and see
what they want.
However, your story comes from the other end, and you might not see that there is a practicalForth's are not complex. You can explain it to a three year old by the "3 simple rules paradigm".
limit to how simply to write about complex Forths.
Forth is a bit of an elitest language, simply because it is not a simple concepts.
Be more sophisticated, rather than relying on formulas wrongly.KNOWING the formulas BY HEART is "rote learning". Correctly applying them is not. Read a bit
You misconstrue a few things and it gets hard at 2:28am to decipher wherever you areDon't do that. It's really counter productive. I put it off 'till this afternoon as well. In the usual
misconstruing, or having a point.
Maybe you don't. Again, T O N E! You could approach and say things differently. Look, thereYeah, "Diplomacy is the art of wishing someone to hell in such a way that he looks forward to
is a lot of stuff around here like that, but at least you are much better, and listen.
There have already been introduced wordsets in Forth 200x which I would NEVER have consideredThese things need to be standardized. Documentation for such, means that people can developANS could do an open source compiler, toolset, code routine base, and documentation.It's a standardization committee - not a development team.
open source code to well. The code could also be done as part of the standard.
Thanks for your valuable insight! I appreciate it.It'd be interesting to know whether Brodie did any of that. Those who
can put themselves in the shoes of their audience may not need feedback;
I kinda sorta "left". But I keep an eye, because Forth is an unusual technology, and sometimes that's the catalyst for something interesting and new.
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:22:47 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:negative vibe, to back up others, is perfectly alright.
How does one spell yia, yia!?
On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 7:30:33 AM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:57:46 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:Well that's a bit of an inferior way to out it, to jump to the thoughts of others for defence. Just wait, seen some Steve Jobs videos, maybe he has something to apply here, rather than me figuring out what to say. Yes, politely put, a bit of a
It certainly has a negative vibe to it.Nagging aboout "the tone": lack of arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
good advice ok, if they want to keep wrongly throwing it month after month, year after year no. You tell them, discuss or explain, and move on. Which is this case, is not about the documentation, but about the tone!That was part of the backing up of the others.You got to remember, it's only free personal stuffI already addressed that one.
Useful Minimalism.as long as the documentation covers the functionality correctlyIf it is incorrect - agreed, that's worse.
Incredible. They know who they are. No use trying to start FWx,by being too direct. I've been around since the 1990's, if seen a lot of stuff here.Some people around here seem insanely jealous of people sticking theirs heads up, chest out, or neck out. It's nuts.Weasel speak. Which people - be specific.
The lesson is, you shouldn' t expect too much, and piss on people so much. There are often going be somebody with better standards or talents.Though, you should be able to do it in not many pages.I'd genuinely like to see that. But if I take the best documentation I ever viewed (Unix manuals and Borland manuals) and the ones I threw out of the window in frustration, I'm somewhat skeptical.
? A $10 book spread over tens of thousands of sales, makes it worth it, and if your writing is do good that it gets hundreds of thousands of new people on board, you have proven your point.So, you could rewrite your documentation for color fourth the, and charge $10 for the effort. I certainly would think it's interesting. But, you could do this for many languages you think are deficient, as a sort of programming guide system.FYI: I already published a Forth manual under FDL. They're free to use it. Others have done it - and I'm happy to provide a link: https://thebeez.home.xs4all.nl/ForthPrimer/
And you can't have me for a mere $10 ;-) That's not a fee, that's change.
Exactly! Now you are getting it. Around here a lot has been sunk into the ocean, with a lot of crusty seasoned forth sailors left, who only need the basics of the spec and how to use it.Howard is right, to keep going, you are right, that documentation standards should be more, but not many are good at that, and around here, not many seem to need more than the basics.How do you know?! Do you measure it by the number of survivors or the ones that silently sank to the bottom of the ocean
As part of an ANS standardisation project! They are some of the more proactive people around.So, you night like to collaborate with other Forth language writers, on a format for writing documentation to replace Starting Forth + manual approach.I've started "And so Forth.." in the last century, because people complained that my manual had errors, because the code didn't work.
It proved to be they were applying the lessons to their own Forth variant - and that was not what the manual was all about. So I wrote
this vanilla thing, asked if somebody wanted to participate, nobody came - and in the meanwhile I've lost just about every interest.
But seriously, it's not worth getting negative unless it's negative people starting fights all the time, or trying to stone people right up. I could wax lyrical about a lot of stuff, but that's probably just going be a waste of time. If they can take
freely adjust and use to base their Forth's on, without capture licensing. That might progress things a bit. But really, they should adopt one of chicks forths, as above, as a Micro-Forth sub standard within ANS. Controlled by ANS to be a dime versionHave a good day Hans. Thanks for the link to your forth primer, that's a useful thing to have, but maybe ANS could do an open source compiler, toolset, code routine base, and documentation, in easy to use and read style, commercial companies could
Wayne.I'd like to see Forthers agree that there are 2+ mutually-exclusive forks to keeping Forth alive today and in the future.
1) Maintain the gforth 32 and 64 bit desktop *nix environments.
1a) Cut a Win10 amd64 gforth executable.
2) Support novel snake-in-the-grass embedded computers that have 2 stacks and fast calls/returns.
Jimbo is not James Bond.
- Myron
On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 6:39:15 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
Well, may be it is because I'm a Dutchie - known to be the most frank people in the world,"call to authority". I will disregard your other "tone argument" fallacy.Is it? You don't seem to be able to see what's wrong. I'm forgetting what's wrong already, it's been a bit too long and I can't retain the memory.
considered by some to be rude and inconsiderate. Adding Graham in the equation doesn't
help. But it has one bonus - it's absolutely clear what the message is. It not like the
Anglophone "With the greatest respect, it's quite good and I almost agree" which tends to
mean "This is not even stupid: it's bloody awful and you have to kill me before I would EVER
agree to that".
Not really. It's all over the net, in numerous books and if you want to discuss it, because youhttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argumentIf you say so.
don't agree, feel free. I still find it a good sieve to filter out all the nonsense that doesn't
contribute to a fruitful discussion.
My point was, as much as they have destroyed Forth's chances, and I would have preferred toI tend to reject reality and substitute my own thing.
see it done differently, like the way you are doing it, it's the present reality.
Sadly, there are people that just don't get it, despite hand holding.No discussion here. I've been trying to educate my own girlfriend into programming for the last
20 years. My father never "got it" and I've contemplated a lot over the years WHY. That's
why I've put up pages like: https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/The%20Way%20of%20Forth/ https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/This%20is%20Forth/ https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/Understand%20your%20algorithm/
That having said: if Brodie had NEVER taken the time to contemplate and write a book
like "Thinking Forth" I'd probably never gotten the rules either. Since I've been
saved from damnation, I thought it would be part of my redemption to go even deeper.
It's not worth accommodating in such a complex language abstraction, and those whoIt's the same logic that my dad applied when he told me to "stop playing with these games",
will never be particularly good, and are not worth hiring. A lot of people just do and see
what they want.
since "there would never come anything fruitful from it", because "I was a marginal mathematics
student" and "these stupid machines would prove to be a whim in some years" and "I'd rather
study for a decent profession".
The world - and even an individual - does not thrive from such an attitude.
However, your story comes from the other end, and you might not see that there is a practicalForth's are not complex. You can explain it to a three year old by the "3 simple rules paradigm".
limit to how simply to write about complex Forths.
Forth is a bit of an elitest language, simply because it is not a simple concepts.
It's the very consequence of this reduction in complexity that quickly becomes mindboggling.
Be more sophisticated, rather than relying on formulas wrongly.KNOWING the formulas BY HEART is "rote learning". Correctly applying them is not...
You misconstrue a few things and it gets hard at 2:28am to decipher wherever you areDon't do that. It's really counter productive. I put it off 'till this afternoon as well. In the usual
misconstruing, or having a point.
debate it's not common to call these fallacies by name - but experienced debaters have their
own set of tricks to counter them. After all, it's a spectator sport. ;-)
But I'm not the kind of guy who scores points by faking clever come backs. I simply call them
out. I'm not misconstruing anything. Google "logical fallacies" and you'll get dozens of hits.
Maybe you don't. Again, T O N E! You could approach and say things differently. Look, thereYeah, "Diplomacy is the art of wishing someone to hell in such a way that he looks forward to
is a lot of stuff around here like that, but at least you are much better, and listen.
the journey"...
And yes, if the committee would do all that development stuff, it could be cool. It could be devastating,That's why it would be open, do people can optionally use and customise the tools to their liken. When I say open. I don't mean under licensed where what your customisation code goes back into the open code base, only what you volunteer to put there.
killing all development. ..
There are IMHO really good things in ANS. I think the concept of "wordsets" fits a modular language
like Forth very well. I also liked the CATCH/THROW concept (and implementation). But including
double words in the core, outside the DOUBLE wordset? Lacking PLACE and +PLACE? The horrible
C-isms like the FILE wordset? I don't think so..
Hans Bezemer
Hans Bezemer
Most people rely on crutches, because they don't know what a fruitful discussion is.Basically, it is in the "eye of the beholder". But if you can convince someone you are right -
No, they are, they are abstractions that don't mirror how we do things as closely, as basic.Rules - however unnatural - can be followed by a disciplined mind. The first one who told
It requires some mental gymnastics, and I thought ANS, was still big?
That's why it would be open, do people can optionally use and customise the tools to theirYou're not listening. "I don't care whether you're a good programmer. You're hired to do
liken. When I say open. I don't mean under licensed where what your customisation code
goes back into the open code base, only what you volunteer to put there.
Who was Graham you mentioned above, I don't think I mentioned somebody. Y that name?Paul Graham, the one who designed the "Grahams triangle of disagreement". http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:55:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:BTW, if you don't know what "the 3 rules of Forth" are, here they are from line 30-39:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:55:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
Most people rely on crutches, because they don't know what a fruitful discussion is.Basically, it is in the "eye of the beholder". But if you can convince someone you are right -
that's a win, because they learned something. If you get defeated and learned something,
that's your win.
There is not much more to it. If you remain convinced of your point - for whatever reason -
you got nothing from it. If you failed to convince me - that's your loss as well. That's not
fruitful in my definition.
No, they are, they are abstractions that don't mirror how we do things as closely, as basic.Rules - however unnatural - can be followed by a disciplined mind.
It requires some mental gymnastics, and I thought ANS, was still big?
Who was Graham you mentioned above, I don't think I mentioned somebody. Y that name?Paul Graham, the one who designed the "Grahams triangle of disagreement". http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
I can't seem to get it across. Your opinion means NOTHING without arguments to support it.
If those are lacking - what is there to learn? Yeah, you think it's negative. You think it's tone.
But there are close to 8 billion people on this world. What makes your particular opinion so
relevant?
I'll tell you. Arguments. If those are lacking, what is it you actually have to tell?
Thanks
Am 08/04/2022 um 10:10 schrieb Paul Rubin:
dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> writes:
Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
understood by our peers.
RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps.
Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence
to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few peopleHi Paul,
for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.
I feel I should know who RMS is, but I don't, his suggestions look good though.
If you don't listen, but rely on others to validate missing the point..I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.
Good judgement, rather than a page of other people's judgement misapplied. HittingSays who. By which principles? Without that, you're just adding opinion to opinion.
with the crutch to avoid the issue brought up.
I can not remember, are all this wandering, except tone and negativity, which were covered somewhat.Well, that one was dismissed - not only by Graham, by by logic principles itself.
Don't be so respectful of others published opinions, rather than contemplate the opinions of thoseWhy? There were no arguments there. As a matter of fact, he didn't even ask me to elaborate. I mean,
In front of you, independently, that is a sure way to eventually miss the point of what is happening
right in front of you. Unfortunately for you, you should probably listen to the person here more
than Graham.
On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:24:47 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
If you don't listen, but rely on others to validate missing the point..I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.
Good judgement, rather than a page of other people's judgement misapplied. HittingSays who. By which principles? Without that, you're just adding opinion to opinion.
with the crutch to avoid the issue brought up.
Unfounded on unfounded.
I can not remember, are all this wandering, except tone and negativity, which were covered somewhat.Well, that one was dismissed - not only by Graham, by by logic principles itself.
That bullet has been fired, missed, find yourself another one.
Don't be so respectful of others published opinions, rather than contemplate the opinions of thoseWhy? There were no arguments there. As a matter of fact, he didn't even ask me to elaborate. I mean,
In front of you, independently, that is a sure way to eventually miss the point of what is happening
right in front of you. Unfortunately for you, you should probably listen to the person here more
than Graham.
basically all I said, everything was a bit "thin". Instead, he tried a "thought terminating cliche"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 - if you don't apply these standards
yourself, your argument is NULL and VOID.
Bad call - I do. Even his "thought terminating cliche" goes up in smoke. Stupid move.
And that is all to it. I LITERALLY play by the rules - if you don't, there is not much common ground.
On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:24:47 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
If you don't listen, but rely on others to validate missing the point..I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.
Good judgement, rather than a page of other people's judgement misapplied. HittingSays who. By which principles? Without that, you're just adding opinion to opinion.
with the crutch to avoid the issue brought up.
Unfounded on unfounded.
I can not remember, are all this wandering, except tone and negativity, which were covered somewhat.Well, that one was dismissed - not only by Graham, by by logic principles itself.
That bullet has been fired, missed, find yourself another one.
Don't be so respectful of others published opinions, rather than contemplate the opinions of thoseWhy? There were no arguments there. As a matter of fact, he didn't even ask me to elaborate. I mean,
In front of you, independently, that is a sure way to eventually miss the point of what is happening
right in front of you. Unfortunately for you, you should probably listen to the person here more
than Graham.
basically all I said, everything was a bit "thin". Instead, he tried a "thought terminating cliche"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 - if you don't apply these standards
yourself, your argument is NULL and VOID.
Bad call - I do. Even his "thought terminating cliche" goes up in smoke. Stupid move.
And that is all to it. I LITERALLY play by the rules - if you don't, there is not much common ground.
Hans Bezemer
Not sure there is much common ground - just folks making rules and offering inducements
as to why one should follow them. Those who fail to respond in the desired manner are
labelled 'uncooperative' or 'negative'.
You don't seem to grasp the difference between "facts" and "values". The "others" didn't judge,I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.Others!
Never mind. When truth becomes lies, and lies about truth become truth.Was is truth? Is reality truth? Is reality only a subset of truth? Is somebody who is telling what
You have not really proven anything, just made misassertions.Prove it. Make your case.
The issue with rules and systems, is they are often mistaken and don't go deep enoughIt's the best we have. If you can prove where logic fails, we get the chance to make those
to be objectively true and pure.
Hence, when somebody depends on these opinions of others, and makes false assertionsYou fail to substantiate where I went wrong. So I think the toolchain is just fine.
about good logic, something's wring somewhere in that tool chain, wouldn't you agree?
It's not good to discourage people doing good work for free.You can't construct an "ought" from an "is". Consult the works of David Hume.
Look what I do, encourage you in your work.Where did you get the impression I needed that? Give me something I can work with.
I could probably find things in it to discourage you about.What gave you the impression you were able to do that?
That only means you are likely to have less people wanting to try to do these thingsThat's an untested hypothesis. I don't think most people do it "to help the community",
for the community in the future.
I never followed people. I follow facts, rules, ideas. Anything that works. So if you haveAnd that is all to it. I LITERALLY play by the rules - if you don't, there is not much common ground.You don't know the more advanced rules. You are just a follower of flawed people
At least you are more ethical and relevant than another person that comes here and gets into it,There is a certain set of behaviors that allow you to build reliable relations with people. Violate
and I actually do appreciate that.
Normally, I could go through the rule system you are relying on and pick it apart logicallyYour description doesn't matter. If it does, write a paper, get it published after peer review,
(presuming it's not a misapplication of the rules). I find flaws in such things, as that's my level,
to write such things and, in the past, do it much better. My description on logic and reasoning,
is rather convoluted, as it is in real life.
But, the more important rule was to give her fair time, to over come the small things at herAnecdotal evidence doesn't count. That's rule one. Didn't Moore say "the computer understands
start, and not shame her. More advanced rules. When you look t it that way. It makes more
sense. It's not a program instruction which has only one meaning and range of actions, it's
a wider range of things.
People doubt. Nature doesn't.
On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:54:49 PM UTC+2, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote: [..]Interesting move! However, it falls short as we will examine later. .
People doubt. Nature doesn't.By what faith does 'people doubt' not imply 'nature doubts?'
On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 2:14:15 PM UTC+1, Howerd wrote:Thanks Jon :-)
Am 08/04/2022 um 10:10 schrieb Paul Rubin:
dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> writes:Hi Paul,
Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
understood by our peers.
RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps.
Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and
re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will
want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence
to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few people
for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so
iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.
I feel I should know who RMS is, but I don't, his suggestions look good
though.
RMS == Richard (M) Stallman
So I think the premise that "nature doesn't doubt" is still a defensible position..
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:42:18 AM UTC+2, Marcel Hendrix wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:54:49 PM UTC+2, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that nature should be protected came not about until the beginning of
the 20th century and has grown and expanded ever since, most importantly in the academic world, e.g.
A clock has gears that move. But that doesn't imply that the clock moves. It stays static. A clock tells the time, but that doesn't imply that any single part
of the clock tells the time.
If you had REALLY wanted to make it interesting, you could have posed the proposition that "intentionality" doesn't exist. I mean, Daniel C. Dennett has done
So I think the premise that "nature doesn't doubt" is still a defensible position..I doubt that.
For sure Venus won't be bothered if Earth's oceans die like some of its waterways andIt probably won't. But I suppose you didn't make a difference between the quick history of thought around the thinking about nature - and nature how I defined it. But
lakes have already.
Gears don't move.Depends on your definition. Since all motion is relative, you could say that the gear
Old Greeks proved that all motion is only illusionWhich Greek? Parmenides, Aristotle and Plato had their different ideas about motion.
(except maybe for The hand that writes).That's Omar Khayyám - not a Greek AFAIK.
That's Omar Khayyám - not a Greek AFAIK.
Am 14/04/2022 um 16:06 schrieb Jon Nicoll:
On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 2:14:15 PM UTC+1, Howerd wrote:
Am 08/04/2022 um 10:10 schrieb Paul Rubin:
dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> writes:Hi Paul,
Few of us are trained or employed as technical writers but find
ourselves having to document. The main criteria being it can be
understood by our peers.
RMS told me how he writes documentation. I don't follow the method
exactly, but keep something like it in mind, and I find that it helps. >>>
Basically he writes a sentence of documentation, then sits back and
re-reads it, and asks himself what the next thing is that the user will >>> want to know after reading that sentence. That tells him what sentence >>> to write next. Repeat until all topics for the document are covered.
Then, print out the resulting document and circulate it to a few people >>> for comments. Implement the suggestions and circulate again. Two or so >>> iterations of that is usually enough to get a serviceable document.
I feel I should know who RMS is, but I don't, his suggestions look good
though.
RMS == Richard (M) StallmanThanks Jon :-)
Hi Forthers,Thanks for a great reference implementation. At the very least it's a kind of time capsule of colorForth ideas.
I am pleased to announce an updated version of colorForth : cf2022.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/colorforth/ https://github.com/Howerd/colorForth
or from my website:
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/
Documentation is here : http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Readme is here :
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/readme.txt
The main difference between cf2019 and cf2022 is that cf2022 has an
ASCII font, even though it still uses Shannon-Fano encoding for the cf
token names.
This is step in the direction of the rest of the programming world.
It occurred to me while I was updating cf2022 that I like colorForth
because it is as close to the metal as you can get - I see a connection between colorForth and this video : https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
colorForth is the equivalent of the Surface Plate that everything else
can be referenced too. Just my 2c worth.
Enjoy!
Cheers,
Howerd
On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:44:03 PM UTC-7, Howerd wrote:Hi Brad,
Hi Forthers,Thanks for a great reference implementation. At the very least it's a kind of time capsule of colorForth ideas.
I am pleased to announce an updated version of colorForth : cf2022.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/colorforth/
https://github.com/Howerd/colorForth
or from my website:
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/
Documentation is here :
http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Readme is here :
https://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/readme.txt
The main difference between cf2019 and cf2022 is that cf2022 has an
ASCII font, even though it still uses Shannon-Fano encoding for the cf
token names.
This is step in the direction of the rest of the programming world.
It occurred to me while I was updating cf2022 that I like colorForth
because it is as close to the metal as you can get - I see a connection
between colorForth and this video : https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
colorForth is the equivalent of the Surface Plate that everything else
can be referenced too. Just my 2c worth.
Enjoy!
Cheers,
Howerd
I'm not sure how useful it is self-hosted. OS hosting would be nice. What about an Android version that uses the touch screen as chorded input?
A colorForth simulation should have multiple processors. Maybe simulated on multiple threads.
Thanks for a great reference implementation.Thanks for the appreciation :-)
At the very least it's a kind of time capsule of colorForth ideas.That is precisely my intention.
OS hosting would be nice.The current cf2022 distro runs under bochs in Windows, or natively from
What about an Android version that uses the touch screen asIsn't Android something to do with Google now?
chorded input?
A colorForth simulation should have multiple processors.I'm not sure what simulation this would be - a GA144 chip?
Maybe simulated on multiple threads.
On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:03:45 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
You don't seem to grasp the difference between "facts" and "values". The "others" didn't judge,I don't rely on "others", I rely on widely accepted rules and principles. Some centuries old.Others!
they just wrote down how things work.
Never mind. When truth becomes lies, and lies about truth become truth.Was is truth? Is reality truth? Is reality only a subset of truth? Is somebody who is telling what
he honestly considers to be the truth lying - even if what he said is proven to be untrue?
You have not really proven anything, just made misassertions.Prove it. Make your case.
The issue with rules and systems, is they are often mistaken and don't go deep enoughIt's the best we have. If you can prove where logic fails, we get the chance to make those
to be objectively true and pure.
rules even better. I must say - I don't see those failings so often. I see people err far more
often with their weird ways of constructing their thoughts.
But, the more important rule was to give her fair time, to over come the small things at her
start, and not shame her. More advanced rules. When you look t it that way. It makes moreAnecdotal evidence doesn't count. That's rule one. Didn't Moore say "the computer understands
sense. It's not a program instruction which has only one meaning and range of actions, it's
a wider range of things.
DUP more profoundly than you ever will. Because there is not a single doubt in its mind what it
is or what it intends to do".
..We create worlds in our minds and pretend that is the truth.
The result is the world we live in, because we crave to put our lies into reality, imagining then and
only then the world will be perfect...
Hans Bezemer)
Don't matter how much you mix things, it's not going make you true.Without any supporting arguments, this is an empty statement.
There we go, mixing and distorting.Look, if you want to reject the basic principles of philosophy and ontology,
Yes, I'm seeing that here, again. Lots of diversion.Another empty statement. You seem to be wholesaling this stuff.
When you reach a high level, get back to me. The rest is immatureAnother highly emotional outburst with very little content. Ok, I'll say this once more: whatever emotions you display, whatever opinion you have of me
uncaring garbage, trying to waste time avoiding looking wrong.
Quoting logical fallacies doesn't help.It does help a lot. It means your argument is unfounded and unsound.
If one of these opinions you call rule makers, came here anonymouslyI doubt that very much. Most of 'em have been dead for a long time. It would
and you started arguing with them, would the end be really that different?
The preposterousity from the beginning has been evident.I see a pejorative term, but no proof of its validity.
One who looks to convenient rule subsets the rather than oneself.A mere mortal is not interesting. The rules that define the universe are.
Your behaviour and it's affects, were the more advanced thing you didn't get.I think you mean "effects".
You don't win, as you obviously are trying to deny, and that not winning is something some on the absurd diminutive ego trail, don't get around here. Your absurd lengths of denial, is just a waste of logic and time. I'm out of here.I haven't learned anything from this discourse so far, since no sound arguments have been posed. And you could have been out of here 10 days ago. But you keep on getting back for more, so I suppose you like it.
Lol! That's startling. Ever hear the term 'Ogga Bogga'!This is what comes up when I google it. Not very helpful. https://dani-youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Ogga_Bogga
You are not seeing through your own BS:Define BS. I know it's a pejorative word with a wide range of interpretations. Which
Flawed German Rules based order.I'm not German. Nor was Bertrand Russell. I tend to lean much more to the Anglo-American school of analytic philosophy, BTW.
Always coming across some imitation rational NS supporter like personThat doesn't make sense. The NS movement was much more founded in
telling it like "it is".
You haven't realised the lesson, we all have a lot to learn, that includes, beyond lesser mistaken rules, which just results in being wrong about things.Again, apart from getting acquainted with your particular poorly constructed opinions, I've learned very little here.
Really?! A three page primer? 24 page content - because the rest is just a lazy code dump?
I don't know what your standards are concerning documentation - but they're REALLY not mine..
Hans BezemerI am awfully sorry, that your counting capabilities seem to be limited,
but 184 pages A4 is quite an effort,
and nicely formatted.
http://www.inventio.co.uk/cf2022/cf2022_colorForth.pdf
Please show us what you have produced
that comes close to Howerd's work,
so we can really compare and understand why you are so negative.
I assume we would like to understand how you define your documentation standard.
Thank you.
It's just a senior citizens home, where the inhabitants are beating each other over their
heads with canes
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:38:06 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
Don't matter how much you mix things, it's not going make you true.Without any supporting arguments, this is an empty statement.
But you seem to have a particular liking for posing empty statements.
I'll come back to this.
in academic circles. It's just another example of your ignorance. Which by itself is fine.
But given you had over ten days to come up with a proper defense, I must say
If one of these opinions you call rule makers, came here anonymouslyI doubt that very much. Most of 'em have been dead for a long time. It would
and you started arguing with them, would the end be really that different?
You have not quoted the rules that define the universe, have you? You have been quoting subsets to avoid looking at greater rules. Problem is, the common delusional technical type, is not going see that. Even if I didn't the 40 hours showingOne who looks to convenient rule subsets the rather than oneself.A mere mortal is not interesting. The rules that define the universe are.
Your behaviour and it's affects, were the more advanced thing you didn't get.I think you mean "effects".
I haven't learned anything from this discourse so far, since no sound arguments
have been posed.
Flawed German Rules based order.I'm not German. Nor was Bertrand Russell. I tend to lean much more to the Anglo-American school of analytic philosophy, BTW.
telling it like "it is".That doesn't make sense. The NS movement was much more founded in continental philosophy - the likes of Heidegger and Nietschze. You're mixing things up here.
..I've learned very little here.You haven't realised the lesson, we all have a lot to learn, that includes,
beyond lesser mistaken rules, which just results in being wrong about things.
Hans Bezemer
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:32:05 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I haven't learned anything from this discourse so far, since no sound arguments
have been posed.
It only shows you're British. Google it ;-)On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:32:05 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
...That's "because" you haven't used sound judgement of thought..
I haven't learned anything from this discourse so far, since no sound arguments
have been posed.
It's "learnt" by the way.
That's "because" you haven't used sound judgement of thought.... and there you are completely wrong. I have some education concerning "critical thinking" - which you obviously haven't. If you had, you would have recognized it. I bet you don't even know the difference between "induction" or "deduction" if it bit you in the @$$.
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:32:05 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:Another empty statement, since it doesn't contain any arguments.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:38:06 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:Empty heads think full statements are empty.
Don't matter how much you mix things, it's not going make you true.Without any supporting arguments, this is an empty statement.
Let's see, you wrongly started this, and wrongly kept it going. Misusing rationalLogic is always rational - that's a tautology. And it can be applied ANYWHERE. And I had no beef with you. So why are you discussing this in the first place? And what was invalid about my initial statement? Bring some arguments? So
logic. You are simply wrong because you started wring, and whatever you do doesn't change that. Don't bring a fork to a sword fight and complain that nobody is using a fork.
Now, as I've recovered from covid, after 6 weeks of mostly bad reactions to twp vaccines before hand, and on top of the brain damage, and fighting offMy father always said "There are two kind of problems in the world - my problem and not my problem". I'm sorry for you, but if you engage in a discussion and you're
a heap of stuff related to that.
I'm not interested in jumping to your command.Fair enough. But why should that be of interest to me?
You are a sub set of a sub set,I'm a set, a subset and a subset of a subset. By very definition. I'm probably also an
claiming to be a full set, which you are not, nor do you perceive what the full setI can claim to be a full set - and in some way that is probably true. The ultimate full
is. There is a saying for that.
You seem to be unable to reflect straight forwards statements to the past events,Prove it. Make your case. I've already done it before, so no need to repeat that one.
and your actions they are about.
Your statements about emotion, is just hidden emotional statements themselves.Well, that's another tautology. Let me break this down in simple premises:
You always seem to skirt seeing the things statements refer to.
No true intelligence, is the inability to apply context or interpretation of context.Define context. it can be the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood - but also those
That is how the real world works.Prove it. And while you're at it, define "the real world".
But, this is likely to produce yet another miniature rant about vague/empty statements when it is you who are vague and empty.Every concept I use can be googled and studied.
And yes, your semi-intelligent use of knowledge, is disappointing,Again, why should I care about your opinion about me.
so don't by pass the mirror and pull that one.As much as you have the right not to be interested in jumping to my command,
If your life is about documentation, doing a forth language , good on you, doingThat's for other people to decide. Unless you're having some good statistics on "what other people think about 4tH" - which BTW I would be quite interested in -
this stuff to other people is not significant.
Just self denial. When you look at it, I've really been wining constantly... and dining, believe me! ;-)
There's another example, struggle to think figuratively. Just self denial.Where is the fun in thinking figuratively? I mean, literally..
You have not quoted the rules that define the universe, have you?That would be a long list of rules.
You have been quoting subsets to avoid looking at greater rules.No, I use subsets of rules, because the others have no applicability.
Problem is, the common delusional technical type, is not going see that.Another pejorative term - you have a particular liking for that: as if I care - and I could state the same about any other, less rational people.
Even if I didn't the 40 hours showing everything you did wrong, you areRepeating the same stuff over and over again does not make it any more
still Lely just to continue in firm and excuse it away, rather then put in genuine effort to look at yourself, which is what this was all about.
The empty thing here, is your denial.
That's be side you haven't used sound judgement of thought, isn't it?That's gibberish. There are sound arguments and valid arguments. Do
The fact that somebody has got their hand on the pulse of the beast,I'm not religious. Which shouldn't be too surprising.
has just sent you into continual denial. Because that is mostly whatExplain to me - in words that I can understand - what I'm denying.
you are doing.
You didn't just say that? Can't you differentiate between subsetsIf you don't define the subsets, it's hard to differentiate between them.
and a level of authoritarian usage (another subset)? Your statement illustrates the absolutism of the impoverished subset, I was talking
about. You have to start thinking, it's about what something "can" mean
not about what you want it to mean, or by some subset of knowledge.
But, I don't like having to address this stuff, but you seem to like annoying with it.
It seems I have to do some googling and send emails to NL Banks
to ask, if such behaviour is part of those Bank's work ethics of their employees or consultants.
Attaching the PDF of this post and a link for later usage.
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:11:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:32:05 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:Another empty statement, since it doesn't contain any arguments.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:38:06 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:Empty heads think full statements are empty.
Don't matter how much you mix things, it's not going make you true.Without any supporting arguments, this is an empty statement.
At least do you have ripped a wisecrack from some celebrity or
historical figure. I give you that.
Let's see, you wrongly started this, and wrongly kept it going. Misusing rationalLogic is always rational - that's a tautology. And it can be applied ANYWHERE.
logic. You are simply wrong because you started wring, and whatever you do doesn't change that. Don't bring a fork to a sword fight and complain that nobody is using a fork.
And I had no beef with you. So why are you discussing this in the first place?
And what was invalid about my initial statement? Bring some arguments? So
far all you have done - and continue to do - is restate a "tone" fallacy. And you
can't undo a fallacy - unless is has been wrongly applied. No arguments have been given in that regard.
Now, as I've recovered from covid, after 6 weeks of mostly bad reactions to twp vaccines before hand, and on top of the brain damage, and fighting off a heap of stuff related to that.My father always said "There are two kind of problems in the world - my problem
and not my problem". I'm sorry for you, but if you engage in a discussion and you're
not up to the fight - if you choose the action, you choose the consequences that
come with it. You own the action, now you own the consequences. You don't get any points for playing the victim.
I'm not interested in jumping to your command.Fair enough. But why should that be of interest to me?
You are a sub set of a sub set,I'm a set, a subset and a subset of a subset. By very definition. I'm probably also an
element in a set (or subset). I'm probably also the intersection or union of sets and
subsets. So in how far is this relevant?
claiming to be a full set, which you are not, nor do you perceive what the full setI can claim to be a full set - and in some way that is probably true. The ultimate full
is. There is a saying for that.
set is probably the set of all sets, including those that contain themselves. Russell
won't be happy with that - maybe you are..
You seem to be unable to reflect straight forwards statements to the past events,Prove it. Make your case. I've already done it before, so no need to repeat that one.
and your actions they are about.
Your statements about emotion, is just hidden emotional statements themselves.Well, that's another tautology. Let me break this down in simple premises:
You always seem to skirt seeing the things statements refer to.
- Every human being experiences some form of emotions all the time;
- Every human being that initiates an action is hence experiencing some form of emotion;
- Since emotions permeate all human actions, it's impossible to have any action
without any emotion;
- I am a human, hence all my actions are permeated by some kind of emotion.
Note I left out the precarious concept of "intentionality" here. But there are enough
interesting premises to go into.
No true intelligence, is the inability to apply context or interpretation of context.Define context. it can be the circumstances that form the setting for an event,
statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood - but also those
parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word
or passage and clarify its meaning.
Next, you may define whatever you want - but if this definition is not accepted by
the other party, it is moot. In any case, you seem to be constructing something
pejorative - which I don't care about. Your opinion about me doesn't bear any significance to me.
That is how the real world works.Prove it. And while you're at it, define "the real world".
But, this is likely to produce yet another miniature rant about vague/empty statements when it is you who are vague and empty.Every concept I use can be googled and studied.
And yes, your semi-intelligent use of knowledge, is disappointing,Again, why should I care about your opinion about me.
so don't by pass the mirror and pull that one.As much as you have the right not to be interested in jumping to my command, I have the right to reject your mirror.
If your life is about documentation, doing a forth language , good on you, doingThat's for other people to decide. Unless you're having some good statistics on
this stuff to other people is not significant.
"what other people think about 4tH" - which BTW I would be quite interested in -
this is pure conjecture. And it's a "weasel speak" fallacy, BTW.
All actions people take are by very definition arbitrary. I guess we have to occupy
ourselves with something that is relevant to us in the grand waiting room of death..
And given the energy death of the universe - what is significant?
Just self denial. When you look at it, I've really been wining constantly... and dining, believe me! ;-)
There's another example, struggle to think figuratively. Just self denial.Where is the fun in thinking figuratively? I mean, literally..
The use of a (metaphorical) figure only has use when it is a good analog
to a literal principle.
You have not quoted the rules that define the universe, have you?That would be a long list of rules.
You have been quoting subsets to avoid looking at greater rules.No, I use subsets of rules, because the others have no applicability.
Problem is, the common delusional technical type, is not going see that.Another pejorative term - you have a particular liking for that: as if I care -
and I could state the same about any other, less rational people.
Even if I didn't the 40 hours showing everything you did wrong, you are still Lely just to continue in firm and excuse it away, rather then put in genuine effort to look at yourself, which is what this was all about.Repeating the same stuff over and over again does not make it any more
The empty thing here, is your denial.
true. If I'm delusional, what are people that deny elementary logic?
That's be side you haven't used sound judgement of thought, isn't it?That's gibberish. There are sound arguments and valid arguments. Do
you know the difference?
The fact that somebody has got their hand on the pulse of the beast,I'm not religious. Which shouldn't be too surprising.
has just sent you into continual denial. Because that is mostly whatExplain to me - in words that I can understand - what I'm denying.
you are doing.
You didn't just say that? Can't you differentiate between subsetsIf you don't define the subsets, it's hard to differentiate between them.
and a level of authoritarian usage (another subset)? Your statement illustrates the absolutism of the impoverished subset, I was talking
about. You have to start thinking, it's about what something "can" mean
not about what you want it to mean, or by some subset of knowledge.
But, I don't like having to address this stuff, but you seem to like annoying
with it.
I don't know what is more impoverished than an empty set, you
explain me. Every piece of knowledge is of course a subset, another tautology. Stop talking gibberish - it's a waste of my time.
Hans Bezemer
A lot of intimidating behavior is already punishable by law. Think of threats and stalking.
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:50:51 AM UTC+2, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems I have to do some googling and send emails to NL BanksGoogle this: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2022/02/25/delen-van-persoonsgegevens-met-als-doel-intimidatie-wordt-strafbaar
to ask, if such behaviour is part of those Bank's work ethics of their employees or consultants.
Attaching the PDF of this post and a link for later usage.
I have no trouble at all pressing charges.
HB
Well, you better ask your lawyer then as well
about your threatening and intimidating behaviour without any reason.
There should be quite a few examples in this thread.
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:16:08 AM UTC+2, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
You missed one already:
A lot of intimidating behavior is already punishable by law. Think of threats and stalking.So, if you threaten me (which you've done already) or actively seek out to obtain information
with the intent to intimidate, cause or cause serious nuisance to or seriously hinder that other
person in the exercise of his office or profession you might already be punishable by law.
I'll give my lawyer a ring this afternoon. See if I can come up with something more substantial.
You have been warned.
Hans Bezemer
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:18:23 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
That's "because" you haven't used sound judgement of thought.... and there you are completely wrong. I have some education concerning "critical thinking" - which you obviously haven't. If you had, you would have
recognized it. I bet you don't even know the difference between "induction" or
"deduction" if it bit you in the @$$.
And that is EXACTLY why I call out all your fallacies. Now, a clever person would think - "what is that all about?" - and dive into it. You obviously don't.
You keep on falling into every fallacy, thinking that at one moment or the other you will miraculously get a decent argument across. Or by repeating the same flawed premise it will gain in strength over time.
Sad..
Hans Bezemer
HANS BEZEMER..
F O R T H K I L L E R S A T WO R K
Peter F**** has gone quiet fortunately
Hugh Aguilar has gone rather quiet fortunately
BUT there are new people who seem to step forward in this function
and have nothing to say about Forth.
Just private silly fights.
They seem not to have email addresses that function yet,
otherwise they could fight as much as they like off-line and not bother us here.
Having their private silly fight here.
The word Forth is not even in it.
I feel rather sorry about the good work Howerd does for Forth and his post.
It seems I have to do some googling and send emails to NL Banks
to ask, if such behaviour is part of those Bank's work ethics of their employees or consultants.
Attaching the PDF of this post and a link for later usage.
Would probably be a good post on LinkedIN and other social platforms as well as discussion point
about acceptable behaviour of employees and consultants.
Or is work ethics just for others?
With Hugh and Testra I got a very nice feedback, as posted here as well; let's try to repeat this with Dutch Banks.
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:11:11 AM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 8:32:05 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:Another empty statement, since it doesn't contain any arguments.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:38:06 PM UTC+2, Wayne morellini wrote:Empty heads think full statements are empty.
Don't matter how much you mix things, it's not going make you true.Without any supporting arguments, this is an empty statement.
At least do you have ripped a wisecrack from some celebrity or
historical figure. I give you that.
Let's see, you wrongly started this, and wrongly kept it going. Misusing rationalLogic is always rational - that's a tautology. And it can be applied ANYWHERE.
logic. You are simply wrong because you started wring, and whatever you do doesn't change that. Don't bring a fork to a sword fight and complain that nobody is using a fork.
My father always said "There are two kind of problems in the world - my problem
and not my problem".
any points for playing the victim.
I'm not interested in jumping to your command.Fair enough. But why should that be of interest to me?
..You are a sub set of a sub set,
claiming to be a full set, which you are not, nor do you perceive what the full setI can claim to be a full set - and in some way that is probably true. The ultimate full
is. There is a saying for that.
set is probably the set of all sets, including those that contain themselves.
..You seem to be unable to reflect straight forwards statements to the past events,
and your actions they are about.
..Your statements about emotion, is just hidden emotional state aberrations.
..You always seem to skirt seeing the things statements refer to.
- Since emotions permeate all human actions, it's impossible to have any action
without any emotion;
Long bits clipped. It is everything.No true intelligence, is the inability to apply context or interpretation of context.Define context...
That is how the real world works.Prove it. And while you're at it, define "the real world".
But, this is likely to produce yet another miniature rant about vague/empty
statements when it is you who are vague and empty.
..And yes, your semi-intelligent use of knowledge, is disappointing,
..so don't by pass the mirror and pull that one.
I have the right to reject your mirror.
If your life is about documentation, doing a forth language , good on you, doingThat's for other people to decide. Unless you're having some good statistics on
this stuff to other people is not significant.
"what other people think about 4tH" - which BTW I would be quite interested in -
And given the energy death of the universe - what is significant?
Just self denial. When you look at it, I've really been wining constantly... and dining, believe me! ;-)
There's another example, struggle to think figuratively. Just self denial.Where is the fun in thinking figuratively? I mean, literally..
..You have not quoted the rules that define the universe, have you?
..You have been quoting subsets to avoid looking at greater rules.
..Problem is, the common delusional technical type, is not going see that.
Even if I didn't the 40 hours showing everything you did wrong, you are still Lely just to continue in firm and excuse it away, rather then put in genuine effort to look at yourself, which is what this was all about.Repeating the same stuff over and over again does not make it any more
The empty thing here, is your denial.
true. If I'm delusional, what are people that deny elementary logic?
('because" sorry)That's be side
you haven't used sound judgement of thought, isn't it?That's gibberish...
The fact that somebody has got their hand on the pulse of the beast,I'm not religious. Which shouldn't be too surprising.
..has just sent you into continual denial. Because that is mostly what
you are doing.
You didn't just say that? Can't you differentiate between subsetsIf you don't define the subsets, it's hard to differentiate between them.
and a level of authoritarian usage (another subset)? Your statement illustrates the absolutism of the impoverished subset, I was talking about. You have to start thinking, it's about what something "can" mean not about what you want it to mean, or by some subset of knowledge.
But, I don't like having to address this stuff, but you seem to like annoying
with it.
Stop talking gibberish - it's a waste of my time.
Hans Bezemer
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 5:29:38 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Stop talking gibberish - it's a waste of my time.
Lol, my point was that I wasn't the one using gibberish thinking, and was the one having his time wasted, and by more impoverished thinking and microrants too.
On 12/05/2022 12:31, Wayne morellini wrote:
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 5:29:38 PM UTC+10, the.bee...@gmail.com wrote: ...
Stop talking gibberish - it's a waste of my time.
Lol, my point was that I wasn't the one using gibberish thinking, and was the one having his time wasted, and by more impoverished thinking and microrants too.Perhaps you've managed to push his buttons but somehow I doubt it.
Typically Hans has been hard to provoke, required little approval
and hasn't sought to impress the world. IOW "mostly harmless".
The world could do with more harmless people. Or he's just a good
actor playing for a particular audience :)
Stop talking gibberish - it's a waste of my time.Lol, my point was that I wasn't the one using gibberish thinking, and was the one having his time wasted, and by more impoverished thinking and microrants too.
Can't you differentiate between subsets
and a level of authoritarian usage (another subset)? Your statement illustrates the absolutism of the impoverished subset, I was talking
about. You have to start thinking, it's about what something "can" mean
not about what you want it to mean, or by some subset of knowledge.
A Colorforth Standard? What processors is it available on? https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/iANT-zwzNCY/m/fVGDiNzOBwAJ
Howard, just to let people know about this thread:
A Colorforth Standard? What processors is it available on? https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/iANT-zwzNCY/m/fVGDiNzOBwAJ
Thank you.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 47:31:59 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,494 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
