: FORTH ( 2d 3d -- ) MAP ! ;

...does one scale that up?

Has anyone ever tried to make a 3D application using Blender's Game Engine? It might be fun, and even useful! The Blender Game Engine is trivial to set up for basic 3D environments. I imagine if you add in some Python code you could have a truly awesome, immersive application.

Maybe 'on earth', we can't scale it up but 'on 4th dimension', we can!

the penguin world is pretty much scaled up by:
* one or two CPU chips
* C/C+/gcc etc...
* configure; make; make install
* rpm/dpkg
the 4th world was scaled up much broader in many different designs of CPUs and micro-controllers. Read your computing history book kiddo, what is here now does not translate into what will remain the last. For things that lasted a long time has a reason for being last that long. For things that diminshed, one has to ask what is gone and what part lives on.

Here's an excerption of Freeman J. Dyson's last word in his book "Origins of life". "Tolerance of junk is one of life's most essential characteristics". Reflecting on Freeman's philosophical bias, the efficiency and compactness of Forth language almost sounds to me like one of those Greek tragedies. Yet on another thought, Forth language, if one learns to speak any of its dialects, can bring in junkie hardware of all kinds, old and new without needing a huge brain or memory footprints on part of the hardware but it requires the speaker to know intimately how the life of code bootstrap itself from static layout of CPU, memory chips and other circuit logic which facilitates, regulates intercommunications among peripheral devices. So in other words, tolerance of junk programmers and tolerance of junk hardwares must all be secured to some degree for the industry to evolve.

is essential to free-software. We don't have the captial to produce our own hardware, and we can't risk the life of the software on the commercial success of a hardware company. Witness the failure of iTV and with it its own OS (4OS), Browser, email.

I admire Chuck Moore's effort to produce a simple foundation for computing even though we can't readily purchase the results in form of a chip. He destroys the myth that everthing practical is necesarrily complex, ugly and inelegant.

But the above was just some silly philosophising. I'm sure mslicker did extremely well in the recent ICFP 2004 with his practical, simple, beautiful, and elegant colorForth system (well, he was looking for a coding challenge, no?).

Or perhaps the ICFP task is biased, and we should really be having a competition for more practical tasks, like fabricating chips to run colorForth programs which are used for fabricating chips to run colorForth.

Embedded systems are invisible to most, but they account for the overwelming majority of chips used, and these chips not the power hungry expensive Intel Pentiums found in desktop machines. I suppose, tk, your combined arrogance and ignorance can be forgiven once again.

Maybe you can instead boast to all of us how greatly you did for the ICFP contest? That'll have a far greater effect than all your rants hitherto combined.

I misunderstood, I thought were attempting to make a serious argument. Is your new message more silly philosophizing? Did you have concrete results to present? I must have missed them.

I question how impressed you would be if I won ICFP contest. Maybe it is just more of your silly philosophizing. I am generally impressed by the winners ICFP contests, no matter what language they happened to use. If they use C or C++, I am probably more impressed because of the pitfalls they had to avoid in implementing a correct solution in the alloted time. The ICFP contest is not primarily about language, it is primarily about algorithms, stratagies, and correctness. The time constraint and sometimes the problem specification do favor the features in found in typed-lamda functional languages (garbage collection, type checking, pattern matching, lists, extensive libraries). I think there is validity to the argument of ICFP, starting at a higher level abstraction leaves more time to evaluate various strategies in increasing sophistication. I have large amount experience working in functional languages and can concur on their high level of productivity.

One person can not have that much effect actually. David Wheeler estimates that there is 8,000 person-years of development time invested in Red Hat Linux 7.1. At best I could be a catalyst, and would winning a contest accomplish that? I don't recall that the success of Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds was the result of winning a contest, I also don't recal either boasting a whole lot either. If I did win, people might regard it as a fluke, the result of personal skill not the particular tool used.

The only way I know of achieving success in free software is writing applications that people find useful (and yes, I can bet you will critisize me for responding to you instead writing software), which is not an easy task no matter what language or technology you use. Ask yourself how many applications you started which have found a large user base.

Although I say this, writing should not be negleted, Stallman deserves credit for providing a philosophical foundation for free software. Writing is also needed to communicate the results of your work. tk, you seem to take offense at mere mention of Forth or the work of Chuck Moore. I am not sure what it is that offends you so greatly.

I think that there is a place for systems like colorForth, I think there is also a place for systems like Linux. I don't see these as competing. The whole collection of GNU and non-GNU software serves as a grand museum of computing history which can never be duplicated or replaced. Almost every technology and language invented over the last 30-years or so can be found on Linux distribution.

tk, find a better way to opine your prejudice. Everyone is entitled to subscribe to a discriminatory AND devotional philosophy.

Many men have loved the stacks
you fastened to the reign
And every one who wanted you
they found what they will always want again
Your beauty lost to you yourself
just as it was lost to them
Oh take this longing from my finger tips
and all the useless things these hands have done
Let me see your beauty broken down
like you would do
for one you loved.

Your body like a searchlight
my poverty revealed
I would like to try your charity until you crash,
Now you must try my greed
And everything depends on how near you stack up to me
Just take this longing from my finger tips
and all the lonely things my hands have done
Let me see your beauty broken down
like you would do
for one you love.

Hungry as an archway
through which the troops have passed
I stand in ruins behind you
With your winter clothes
your broken threads
i love to see you naked over there 
especially from the overflow under your stack
Oh take this longing from my finger tips
and all the useless things my hands have done
Untie for me your hired blue display
like you would do
for one you love.

You're faithful to the better man
I'm afraid that he left
So let me judge your love affair
in this very room
where i have sentenced mine to death
I'll never wear these old laurel leaves
that he's shaken from his head
just take this longing from my finger tips
and all the useless things my hands have done
Let me see your beauty broken down
like you would do
For one you love
Like you would do
for one you love.

mslicker:

Did you have concrete results to present?

Unfortunately for you, yes.

Ask yourself how many applications you started which have found a large user base.

And this actually has a larger user base, and is much more fun to boot, than any of the stuff you've programmed.

Any more questions?

It was you who wanted a coding challenge, and it's also you who's now giving excuses for not facing up to the challenge. Your credibility is zilch, but then again that may be what you want.

I must have missed where I said I was going to win the ICFP contest. Do you wish base your credibility on finding the statement? No? You don't want to accept my challenge?

I've competed in a ICFP contest (BTW, that link is non-functioning), do you have more results than that? Did you get a prize (I think lkcl is right, you seem to like pissing contests, this is sure turning into one)? If I fail to impress you or provide fun things for you to use, that does not weigh to heavily on me, I have no expectation or desire to do so.

And if you can't find anything written in colorForth that's useful to non-colorForth people, then I'm curious from where you gathered that colorForth is "practical" (since Chuck Moore supposedly "destroys the myth that everthing practical is necesarrily complex, ugly and inelegant"). Or are assertions without proof a bad thing only when issued from the mouth of George W. Bush?

Chuck Moore is a chip designer, that has been his profession for the last 20-years or so. His tools are built from scratch, proof of their existence found here, along with some nice demonstrations of their use. Many people and corporporations have found Forth practical, including the some of the largest corporations in computing (Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems). People have found Forth chips practical enough to manufacture (Patriot Scientific), and to pay Chuck Moore for his chip design services and to front money for fabrication. It doesn't matter in the least if you (one rather insignifigant sample point) consider Forth or Forth chips practical or not.

Assertations that have no proof or signifigant support are just as bad when they come your mouth or George W. Bush's.

tk, i beg to differ your take on my re-write of Leonard Cohen's song. One way to interpret this re-write is that "cross border is good if and only if one knows where and why those borders existed" and then, by the intimate experience and understanding about crossing, there shall no longer be barriers separating Beings. This philsophy can be applied to gender or any other tradition embodies in languages and cultures. RAPE is not only wrong but most stupid and blind.

I like that you criticize others for supposedly using twisted logic but you have no problem with using twisted logic (or perhaps no logic at all) yourself. You reek of hypocrisy, yeupou should take note. They made the chips and that is a fact. A citation of this fact is not a defence that company or their current business practices or any the current list of companies that followed that trend (SCO, et al).

Actually, entering this thread I didn't have the intention to make any argument. Making successful arguments has not payed me high dividends. I reacted to a comment and expressed an opinion. I had no intention to deeply offend anyone. The last line is what you seemed to really stir you in particular. I don't always feel the need the back everything that I feel is true with proofs or justification. I understand somethings that are obvious to me are not to others and vice versa. There is nothing wrong with asking for justification, remember that. Likening someone to a criminal for not proving every expression they write is another thing entirely.

What I mean by a "significant sample point" in that context is a person or organization involved in designing of embedded systems, until now, the target of Forth chips. That is not meant as an insult against you. It was not difficult to find engineers who are users of the Patriot chip[*,*], . Not only are they using them, they have good things to say about them. It is a shame that this company has abandoned the prospect of making useful products, and have now descended into IP gold mine.

I don't always feel the need the back everything that I feel is true with proofs or justification. I understand somethings that are obvious to me are not to others and vice versa. There is nothing wrong with asking for justification, remember that. Likening someone to a criminal for not proving every expression they write is another thing entirely.

In that case, I say Jeff Fox is a crank. No, I don't feel the need to back that up. If mslicker wants to ask for justification, he can ask nicely.

Not only are they using them, they have good things to say about them. It is a shame that this company has abandoned the prospect of making useful products, and have now descended into IP gold mine.

Even within the domain of embedded systems, why's PTSC, who reportedly produces "the only commercially available Forth processor", finding itself in such a huge debt, while vendors using bloated and ugly systems like Windows CE (!) are still in business? PTSC's web site touts its "disruptive innovations"; it had more than 5 years to go about its disruption (and is probably still disruptive, except in a different sense).

In 1992, Andy Tanenbaum declared "Linux is obsolete". By 1995, Linux had already gathered enough mindshare to stop many people from moving to Win95. Now that's disruptive.

Anyway, you did look for a challenge.

Ad hominem attacks of people who aren't here to defend themselfs, is only a further inditement of your methods. I do liken your methods to methods of the political thugs who currently occupy the white house.

Now you want market analysis, that I didn't offer. I only offer this, being different or techinically excellent has never gauranteed success in the market place. Medocrity often does dominate, and Microsoft can readily demonstrate that fact.

Oh, mslicker, how objective of thee. When thou dost cast aspersions on others, people must ask thee nicely for clarification. When others criticize what thou believest in, thou art free to liken them to "the political thugs who currently occupy the white house". And of course, these "political thugs" are available right here on Advogato to defend themselves! Can anyone not sense the profundity, the wisdom, the harmony, the productivity, the rationality, the goodness, and the benevolence that doth permeate mslicker's every utterance? O Great mslicker, I do bow before thee.

You've had plenty of opportunities to defend your methods, not to mention your hypocrisy, instead you wish to defend yourself and actions in the only way a thug knows how. Do you wish add more evidence to the record?

My record has always been fine and will continue to be fine, thank you very much. Maybe you think otherwise, but you're just an insignificant sample point.

I'm curious about you though. Has your continued belief in the superiority of colorForth helped you in any physical way?

It doesn't matter what I think, you're right. Your methods are plain for all to see. Lack of any defence is only a further inditement

1. Reply #19:

   I don't always feel the need the back everything that I feel is true with proofs or justification.

   Reply #25:

   Lack of any defence is only a further inditement [sic]

2. Reply #19:

   There is nothing wrong with asking for justification, remember that. Likening someone to a criminal for not proving every expression they write is another thing entirely.

   Reply #21:

   I do liken your methods to methods of the political thugs who currently occupy the white house.

3. Reply #17:

   Do you have an argument or are you just name calling now?

   Reply #17:

   You reek of hypocrisy ...

4. Reply ##5:

   Witness the failure of iTV and with it its own OS (4OS), Browser, email.

   Reply ##21:

   ... being different or techinically excellent has never gauranteed success in the market place.

I won't even bother to comment on the above.

it's foolish to conform to some egalitarian philosophy, except when the philosophy's being sold by Forth zealots.

[ quote by Chuck Moore on C: "It's never clear how efficiently source will be translated into machine language. Constructs are often chosen because the programmer knows they're efficient. Subroutine calls are expensive." ]

Yes, comrades, it's a grievous sin for a compiler to perform an optimization, even if it knows that the optimization is possible, and that it can do only good.

[...] the excellence of the optimizing compiler... it's wrong! It's just wrong!

I know colorForth has optimizations. This just means Moore doesn't follow his own principles. Or, maybe the principles he lays down are only for others to follow.

"to each according to his need" means, it's only right that a colour-blind person has to work harder, to get the things he's entitled to in the first place.

Care to explain, how exactly does having no syntax errors speed up development? Or is this just another maxim perpetrated by Moore that colorForth zealots keep chanting again and again?

Then again, to an apologist, probably anything counts as `evidence'.

I say Jeff Fox is a crank. No, I don't feel the need to back that up.

I need a good term for referring to this class of wackos.

I feel the last is quite revealing of your methods, but I'll other draw their own conclusions.

Ah, I see, the only form of discussion acceptable with mslicker is unqualified, unreserved praise and exaltation of mslicker, Chuck Moore, Jeff Fox et al. Any remark that criticizes any of these sacred beings is automatically wrong, and the act of a "thug" (why not "Nazi"? it's a more handy term :-B ). Of course, since this very remark can be construed as criticizing mslicker, it's immediately wrong as well, and doesn't need to be considered further.

I don't recal Microsoft going to such lenghts to cast FUD on Linux. I know what Microsoft is afraid of, I'm not quite sure what you are afraid of.

Cool, that was exactly as I said.

Let's see about this, um, detailed article on misinformation:

Deliberate misinformation or disinformation is a psychological control tactic requiring the sender to devise stories containing a mixture of fact and fantasy that are distributed as 'information' to a selected audience by the most appropriate communication channels. It is probable the evolutionary process develops when an innocent, individual, young neophyte utilizes this tactic to ensure others do not have control of often playful or mischievous situations.

It is probable, but it isn't established fact; anyway let's go on...

... The actions and attitude develop into a habitual practice of an older adult wielding autocratic control over family, partners, staff, or other organizations, unless of course, another stronger, wiser, and cunning individual defeats, on a repeated basis, the autocratic individual.

Yes, the "probable" thing has suddenly become fact. Fallacy of equivocation. Strike 1.

This is Darwinian process of natural selection or as Darwin suggests, Spencer's terminology of "survival of the fittest" (cited in Darwin, 1958 p.75) coming into play.

Fallacy of affirming the consequent. "Darwin's theories are true. Darwin's theories will explain P, i.e. P being true will further confirm Darwin's theories (in some vague way). Therefore P is true." Strike 2.

... The synchronization of mental and physical functions relates to the evolution of ideas, or the survival of the fittest ideas, identified as the Theory of Memetics, discussed by Dawkins (1989), and Blackmore (1999).

Memetics is an untestable, unprovable, unfalsifiable pseudo-science. No concrete experiments have been set up -- or can ever be set up -- to test Dawkins' `theory'. Fallacy of appeal to authority. Strike 3, out.

Hm, why did this excuse of a paper even get published?

enough pissing match already. i shall bush it with GRASS and related scientific views of 'this land is my land, this land is your land'.
ACRONYMS:
GRASS - Geographic Resources Analysis Support System
OGR - Optimal Golomb Ruler
GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library

Career Objective:
"Modern science and engineering have put every person within the sphere of influence of every other person. Modern culture is global. Modern nations are huge mechanisms, with a tendency to regulate the behavior of everyone even more rigidly; to foist upon him, from outside, his needs, tastes, and opinions. Hence today we can see, better than ever before, the contradiction between two necessities: that of including the human being in the system - in the whole which is consolidating itself; and that of preserving him as a free, creative individual. This poses a fundamental problem: how can this contradiction be solved? How can movement toward integration be combined with movement toward freedom? Our future - if we are to have any - depends upon how successfully this problem is solved."
- from "The Inertia of Fear and the Scientific Worldview" by Valentin Turchin