I remember the days (but then I'm a crusty old man) when we could get things done faster and with a lot less hardware, on a Kaypro, a Xerox, or an Osborne. Usually with 48k memory or less!
Then somebody started pushing this MS/DOS crap. I never understood the big deal. It took four or five times the memory, and six or eight times the hardware cost to do the same stuff. But the suits made a big and profitable market. It happened again in an even bigger way when they put a disfunctional GUI on top of MS/DOS.
I wonder what the next bloated "advance" is going to be.
I'm dubious, but open-minded. Somebody please convince me that this can be done, because I'd like to do it.
I understand that if you want any distance at all, you MUST use directional antennas, on both ends. Nobody makes them, so you'll have to roll your own. And you'll need a separate bridge-bridge setup per client. That's about 400 bucks/client. Then you must use a switch to divvy up the data, and the reviews I have read say to forget about encryption if you want reasonable bandwidth.
Is practical networking really possible with 802.11b? Or is this just another "gee whizz" article big on buzz, but short on facts?
... and in a related announcement, spokesmen unveiled an upgraded version of the United States government, to be named "Microsoft US/2010", scheduled for release first quarter '02.
I never used a HP calculator, so I can't comment on the "registers" but it is the lack of registers and variables that makes Forth so strong. A huge amount of "noise" is eliminated, and in consequence a large percentage of code is factored out. Simplified. Clarified.
I have done calculations in RPN, and can state that once I used it, I did not want to go back to infix.
You have been the anchor of one of the greatest teams ever assembled. If they had a superbowl of computer programming, you'd be wearing most of the jewelry!
Did you know you can implement OO in about a page of Forth code? And refer back to it later if you need to understand something about the implementation?
That is just one of the things that are "right" about Forth. It has the tools built-in to extend itself into whatever you need.
There was a very witty response to this by Chu__ Moo__ himself, in one of the early F.D.'s. Suffice to say that the three-letters-and-a-count header argument is only a diversion. You don't have to like Forth. It's ok with me.
I don't agree. Forth words are all pronounceable, complete, and short. And consider that a large part of the world uses a RPN-type syntax in their conversational languages. I've even seen it used to train dolphins.
Probably what I like best is that I can view an entire section of code in its totality on one page. It may take several minutes to understand, but it's all there, arranged logically, and usually stated very elegantly.
Your 20+ man projects may be the best argument against using Forth, but I have no experience here, and have seen little evidence either way.
I love Forth, always have. From the first hand-entered FIG listings to the excellent Win32Forth, I've known this is the "right" computer language. So why doesn't the rest of the world see what is so abundantly clear? Is it because they can't make the small mental leap to RPN?
And why isn't Forth used more as a platform? Is it speed, security, advertising, what? I've never understood why the Forth community will take an excellent implementation right up to the point of being useful, then leave it without developing any applications. I can see an efficient, user configurable web cruiser built on any one of a number of Forths. But nobody has done it. Ditto for httpd servers. Why?
And to the rest of the world, please stop parroting the old line about Forth being hard to read. It isn't. You can pick up most of what you need to know in an afternoon, then begin to enjoy some very elegantly stated code.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember the days (but then I'm a crusty old man) when we could get things done faster and with a lot less hardware, on a Kaypro, a Xerox, or an Osborne. Usually with 48k memory or less!
Then somebody started pushing this MS/DOS crap. I never understood the big deal. It took four or five times the memory, and six or eight times the hardware cost to do the same stuff. But the suits made a big and profitable market. It happened again in an even bigger way when they put a disfunctional GUI on top of MS/DOS.
I wonder what the next bloated "advance" is going to be.
Dare I mention that the Forth language IS an operating system in its own right? Damn good one too!
Right. The old Pringles can antenna. But how does it play in prime time?
I'm dubious, but open-minded. Somebody please convince me that this can be done, because I'd like to do it.
I understand that if you want any distance at all, you MUST use directional antennas, on both ends. Nobody makes them, so you'll have to roll your own. And you'll need a separate bridge-bridge setup per client. That's about 400 bucks/client. Then you must use a switch to divvy up the data, and the reviews I have read say to forget about encryption if you want reasonable bandwidth.
Is practical networking really possible with 802.11b? Or is this just another "gee whizz" article big on buzz, but short on facts?
In heaven there is no beer,
that's why we drink it here...
Chant of the weasels that want control.
Chant of the weasel that wants control.
Maybe we ahould ask the NSA if they have a copy?
Yes.
You apparently didn't notice the win32 API, or is that good enough for you?
http://www.newlisp.org/
Lost in the noise.
http://www.newlisp.org/
Lost in the noise.
... and in a related announcement, spokesmen unveiled an upgraded version of the United States government, to be named "Microsoft US/2010", scheduled for release first quarter '02.
Makes me use my SSN ???
Are you sure you didn't just agree to use it, because they asked you to? Be honest now!
You don't have anything to HIDE do you?
Chant of the weasels that want control.
A five on Slashdot! I can die now, my work is finished here.
How'd they get that in somebody's mouth to take the picture?
I never used a HP calculator, so I can't comment on the "registers" but it is the lack of registers and variables that makes Forth so strong. A huge amount of "noise" is eliminated, and in consequence a large percentage of code is factored out. Simplified. Clarified.
I have done calculations in RPN, and can state that once I used it, I did not want to go back to infix.
I happen to like Lisp too! Check out what's being done with newLISP. But I understand Forth, and that's what makes me a happy zealot.
"e", I'm one of your biggest fans!
You have been the anchor of one of the greatest teams ever assembled. If they had a superbowl of computer programming, you'd be wearing most of the jewelry!
Did you know you can implement OO in about a page of Forth code? And refer back to it later if you need to understand something about the implementation?
That is just one of the things that are "right" about Forth. It has the tools built-in to extend itself into whatever you need.
There was a very witty response to this by Chu__ Moo__ himself, in one of the early F.D.'s. Suffice to say that the three-letters-and-a-count header argument is only a diversion. You don't have to like Forth. It's ok with me.
I don't agree. Forth words are all pronounceable, complete, and short. And consider that a large part of the world uses a RPN-type syntax in their conversational languages. I've even seen it used to train dolphins.
Probably what I like best is that I can view an entire section of code in its totality on one page. It may take several minutes to understand, but it's all there, arranged logically, and usually stated very elegantly.
Your 20+ man projects may be the best argument against using Forth, but I have no experience here, and have seen little evidence either way.
I love Forth, always have. From the first hand-entered FIG listings to the excellent Win32Forth, I've known this is the "right" computer language. So why doesn't the rest of the world see what is so abundantly clear? Is it because they can't make the small mental leap to RPN?
And why isn't Forth used more as a platform? Is it speed, security, advertising, what? I've never understood why the Forth community will take an excellent implementation right up to the point of being useful, then leave it without developing any applications. I can see an efficient, user configurable web cruiser built on any one of a number of Forths. But nobody has done it. Ditto for httpd servers. Why?
And to the rest of the world, please stop parroting the old line about Forth being hard to read. It isn't. You can pick up most of what you need to know in an afternoon, then begin to enjoy some very elegantly stated code.
He's been in the brig for six years now.
Oh yeah. I forgot all about him!