On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:35:33 AM UTC-5, Zbig wrote:
> > > > So yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI
> > https://youtu.be/8elAi-7G0OE?si=0gHUJ5XoYW75xNZk
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb-KkVNEbw8

Oops, forgot the lyrics:
"Give me that old fashion Forth
A program that smoothly flows
Even when evil state is there
It carries on without a care"

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill",
> > as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things
> > Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and
> > oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!
> That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about
> "experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ

I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!

> The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels nor
> value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
> can do with what I got upstairs.

Hans also has an instructional video teaching the subject of implementing
a string stack, which he doesn't know how to do. His video provided a
graphical illustration of swapping two strings --- one string gets copied
into a pad somewhere, then the other string gets copied to where it was,
then the string in the pad gets copied to where that string was.
That was an hilarious video! Hans doesn't know what COW (copy-on-write)
is, or know that it is much faster to just swap the pointers to the strings
rather than swap the entire strings.
Hans doesn't have any knowledge "upstairs" --- just a lot of hot air --- what he
does with what he has upstairs is make hilariously stupid instructional videos.

> Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)
> it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
> for work he finds extremely important and valuable.

Hans is still not making any sense.
If I wanted "validation" I would have stayed on the Forth-200x mailing list
so my super-duper expert status would be validated by the Forth-200x
committee. Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is essentially the same
as having reference letters from Stephen Pelc, Anton Ertl, Bernd Paysan,
Peter Knaggs, etc., that can be used as validation of Forth expertise.
The whole point of being on the Forth-200x mailing list is so that,
in the unlikely case that a job in Forth is offered, the candidate can explain
that he is not just a mere Forth programmer, but he sets the standard for
the entire Forth community. All Forth programmers rely on the Forth-200x
experts to do their thinking for them! The Forth-200x committee considers
them to be the elite whose opinion on Forth is valuable. Woo hoo!

> It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -
> so that alone IMHO justifies him being here

There was this thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/hp1MbSkew08/m/os5OYTOeBAAJ
Hans said:

On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 7:37:35 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> But maybe now you understand why I don't care about you, Hugh. Or anything
> you say about me. Or make me stop what I'm doing. To me, you're just a nobody
> with a crazy opinion I don't care for.
>
> Hans Bezemer
>
> BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.

Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.

Hans is a typical maintenance programmer --- they are all alike --- they
require somebody to write the code, then they rip it off and claim
that they wrote it themselves. Testra employed a string of maintenance
programmers after I left who claimed to be instant experts in MFX,
but all of them failed to learn to program in MFX --- maybe Testra will
hire Hans Bezemer next, as he seems to be their type.

On 28/09/2023 1:32 pm, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> ...
>> Hans Bezemer
>>
>> BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
>
> Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
> so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
> but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.

Hans wasn't saying you were behaving like a goose - it was BSD.
A BSD license would count for nothing if an author could revoke it.
You're the first person I'm aware who has tried.

On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:00:57 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>
>> I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from
>
> If I knew nothing of Forth, didn't know any better and
> stumbled into this group, I would be out of here very
> quickly. Not because of the bickering of silly people, but
> because of the primary subject matter discussed here,
> compliance and nazi coding. However, important it is to
> the professionals and wantabes, it ain't of general
> programming interest and makes Forth look difficult and
> problematic.
> Fig provided a nice small sufficient program to work with
> and published Forth Dimensions that provided code bits,
> ideas and news that fostered interest, very little of which
> means anything to today's group here. So yes, retro is
> a draw back when Forth was fun.

But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.

> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> of ANS-Forth.

The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
to choose from. :D

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> of ANS-Forth.

A bad thing?
Fig made Forth popular and the rest is nature.
Everyone could make a better forth, Forths abound
and need came to corral. At that time the Internet
was coming into public use, publications gave way
to news groups and podcasts.
The venue makes a difference. A publication provides
order, code and ideas presented in whole and bitching
relegated to small paragraph in letters to the editor.
News groups have different dynamics and chaos is
more the norm. A good place to hash stuff out by the
knowledgeable but a rough ride for ones with little
background and of little patience. Podcasts should be more palpable.
--
me

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > of ANS-Forth.

> The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> to choose from. :D

In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
jrh
Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 18:34:29 UTC+1, John Hart wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > > of ANS-Forth.
>
> > The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> > to choose from. :D
> In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
> The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
> another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
> it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
> which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
> jrh
> Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.

ANY idea or definition that avoids the availabitiy if 50 or 100+ Forths is to be applauded..
In comparison to other languages so many Forths just lead to death of this wondeful language.

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:23:20 PM UTC-4, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 18:34:29 UTC+1, John Hart wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > > > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > > > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > > > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > > > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > > > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > > > of ANS-Forth.
> >
> > > The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> > > to choose from. :D
> > In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
> > The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
> > another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
> > it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
> > which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
> > jrh
> > Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.
> ANY idea or definition that avoids the availabitiy if 50 or 100+ Forths is to be applauded..
> In comparison to other languages so many Forths just lead to death of this wondeful language.

Then we need to create the ultimate forth that can rule them all!

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:34:29 PM UTC-5, John Hart wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
> > > But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> > > its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> > > Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> > > Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> > > Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> > > of ANS-Forth.
>
> > The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
> > to choose from. :D
> In the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
> The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
> another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because

Toyed with some ideas along that line:
i. Standard pigeon Forth
Only specifies the gist of the word. Since its not an executable
it can be a simple affair without "optimizations" just focusing
on intended behavior.
i. Standard behavior san names.
Specified behaviors with given numeric labels. User use any
names they want to fit a dialog that express their program.
And multiple names can be used with the same behavior to
fit the context where applied.
(Went so far as to build Forth with pointer in the name field
so names could be kept in one block and switched out with
with alternate name sets.)

Converting one Forth from and to standard forth is just a sed file.
It's not completely straight forward as sometimes order matters.
--
me

On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
>> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
>> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
>> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
>> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
>> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
>> of ANS-Forth.
>
> A bad thing?

Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
rather than code.

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> >> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> >> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> >> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> >> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> >> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> >> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> >> of ANS-Forth.
> >
> > A bad thing?
> Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
> and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
> Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
> eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
> rather than code.

Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.
--
me

On 29/09/2023 2:26 pm, S Jack wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>> On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
>>>> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
>>>> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
>>>> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
>>>> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
>>>> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
>>>> of ANS-Forth.
>>>
>>> A bad thing?
>> Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
>> and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
>> Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
>> eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
>> rather than code.
>
> Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.

In that case there ought to be countless Forth newcomers busily writing
applications :)

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:03:48 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 2:26 pm, S Jack wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> >> On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> >>>> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> >>>> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> >>>> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> >>>> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> >>>> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> >>>> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> >>>> of ANS-Forth.
> >>>
> >>> A bad thing?
> >> Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
> >> and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
> >> Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
> >> eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
> >> rather than code.
> >
> > Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.
> In that case there ought to be countless Forth newcomers busily writing
> applications :)

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:03:48 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 2:26 pm, S Jack wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> >> On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
> >>>> On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
> >>>> But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
> >>>> its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
> >>>> Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
> >>>> Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
> >>>> Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
> >>>> of ANS-Forth.
> >>>
> >>> A bad thing?
> >> Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
> >> and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
> >> Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
> >> eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
> >> rather than code.
> >
> > Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.
> In that case there ought to be countless Forth newcomers busily writing
> applications :)

Spoon-fed provides quantity but I much prefer the flavor of
free-range.

--
me

(sorry about that last miss-fire, what designer puts the post button where one is to start typing.)

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:14:06 PM UTC-7, S Jack wrote:
> Converting one Forth from and to standard forth is just a sed file.
> It's not completely straight forward as sometimes order matters.

You are assuming that all Forth designs are the same as ANS-Forth
except with different names for words or having more words (such as
having BOUNDS be a primitive rather than use OVER + SWAP).
This isn't true though.

ANS-Forth is very much based on Charles Moore's Forth for the
PDP-11 written in the 1970s. The PDP-11 had a shortage of registers
and most of the ANS-Forth design decisions assume a shortage of
registers, although this was no longer an issue in 1994 (it wasn't
an issue in 1983 either, as we already had the MC68000).

For example, a big part of why ANS-Forth code is hard to read
is that single and double-precision numbers are jumbled together
on the same data-stack. A better design is to have a separate stack
for double-precision numbers.
S>D would remove a signed number from the single stack, then
push an equivalent signed double to the double stack.
U>D would be like S>D except for unsigned singles.
M* would multiply two numbers on the single stack
(and remove them), then push the product to the double stack.
UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
by a number on the single stack, then push the remainder and quotient
to the single stack.
SAFE-UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
by a number on the single stack, then push the double-precision
remainder and quotient to the double stack.
etc.

Your SED file isn't going to convert code from a Forth that is
designed intelligently to run under ANS-Forth.

Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers.
ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
"An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if
the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
happen if you have a small denominator?
What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
happen if you have a large denominator?
The ANS-Forth document routinely uses the term "ambiguous condition"
that means: "up Shit Creek in a wire boat with a cardboard paddle."

ANS-Forth is really worthless from a technical standpoint.
ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Elizabeth Rather.

On 30/09/2023 10:32 am, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:14:06 PM UTC-7, S Jack wrote:
>> Converting one Forth from and to standard forth is just a sed file.
>> It's not completely straight forward as sometimes order matters.
>
> You are assuming that all Forth designs are the same as ANS-Forth
> except with different names for words or having more words (such as
> having BOUNDS be a primitive rather than use OVER + SWAP).
> This isn't true though.
>
> ANS-Forth is very much based on Charles Moore's Forth for the
> PDP-11 written in the 1970s. The PDP-11 had a shortage of registers
> and most of the ANS-Forth design decisions assume a shortage of
> registers, although this was no longer an issue in 1994 (it wasn't
> an issue in 1983 either, as we already had the MC68000).
>
> For example, a big part of why ANS-Forth code is hard to read
> is that single and double-precision numbers are jumbled together
> on the same data-stack. A better design is to have a separate stack
> for double-precision numbers.
> S>D would remove a signed number from the single stack, then
> push an equivalent signed double to the double stack.
> U>D would be like S>D except for unsigned singles.
> M* would multiply two numbers on the single stack
> (and remove them), then push the product to the double stack.
> UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
> by a number on the single stack, then push the remainder and quotient
> to the single stack.
> SAFE-UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
> by a number on the single stack, then push the double-precision
> remainder and quotient to the double stack.
> etc.
>
> Your SED file isn't going to convert code from a Forth that is
> designed intelligently to run under ANS-Forth.
>
> Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
> despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers.
> ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
> "An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if
> the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
> What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
> happen if you have a small denominator?
> What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
> happen if you have a large denominator?
> The ANS-Forth document routinely uses the term "ambiguous condition"
> that means: "up Shit Creek in a wire boat with a cardboard paddle."
>
> ANS-Forth is really worthless from a technical standpoint.
> ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Elizabeth Rather.

Intel ought be ashamed of itself for supporting such flawed operators.

In article <c2cbeb05-8191-4cd5-a015-825bf8624a15n@googlegroups.com>,
Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
>despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers.
>ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
>"An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if
>the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
>What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
>happen if you have a small denominator?
>What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
>happen if you have a large denominator?
>The ANS-Forth document routinely uses the term "ambiguous condition"
>that means: "up Shit Creek in a wire boat with a cardboard paddle."
>
>ANS-Forth is really worthless from a technical standpoint.
>ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Elizabeth Rather.

Ambiguous means that the system is not obliged to detect the
condition. However a high quality system exists
exist that detects and flags ambiguous conditions.
For example gforth does that for a substantantial part of
ambiguous conditions.

Groetje Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -

Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> writes:
>SAFE-UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
>by a number on the single stack, then push the double-precision
>remainder and quotient to the double stack.
>etc.
....
>Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
>despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers.

Gforth has:

: ud/mod ( ud1 u2 -- urem udquot ) \ gforth
\G divide unsigned double @i{ud1} by @i{u2}, resulting in a unsigned double
\G quotient @i{udquot} and a single remainder @i{urem}.
over 0= if nip u/mod 0 exit then
dup >r u/mod r> swap >r um/mod r> ;

The first line is just an optimization for the common case where ud1
actually fits into a single cell, and you can delete it.

With a single-cell divisor, the remainder is guaranteed to fit into a
single cell.

>ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
>"An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if=20
>the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
>What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
>happen if you have a small denominator?

UD/MOD first divides the upper cell of ud1 by u2, then the remainder
of that division and the lower cell by u2. Both divisions do not
overflow. Of course, division by 0 is still an ambiguous condition;
you can check for that before performing the division.

>What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
>happen if you have a large denominator?

The remainder is always less than the denominator. Therefore, with a
single denominator, the remainder cannot overflow.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

On 30/09/2023 7:46 pm, albert wrote:
> In article <c2cbeb05-8191-4cd5-a015-825bf8624a15n@googlegroups.com>,
> Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
>> despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers.
>> ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
>> "An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if
>> the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
>> What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
>> happen if you have a small denominator?
>> What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
>> happen if you have a large denominator?
>> The ANS-Forth document routinely uses the term "ambiguous condition"
>> that means: "up Shit Creek in a wire boat with a cardboard paddle."
>>
>> ANS-Forth is really worthless from a technical standpoint.
>> ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Elizabeth Rather.
>
> Ambiguous means that the system is not obliged to detect the
> condition. However a high quality system exists
> exist that detects and flags ambiguous conditions.
> For example gforth does that for a substantantial part of
> ambiguous conditions.

Why? Does the programmer need to be told the horse in his charge has bolted?

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > > In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill",
> > > as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things
> > > Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and
> > > oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!
> > That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about
> > "experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
> I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
> In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
> but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
> I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
> He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
> > The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels nor
> > value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
> > can do with what I got upstairs.
> Hans also has an instructional video teaching the subject of implementing
> a string stack, which he doesn't know how to do. His video provided a
> graphical illustration of swapping two strings --- one string gets copied
> into a pad somewhere, then the other string gets copied to where it was,
> then the string in the pad gets copied to where that string was.
> That was an hilarious video! Hans doesn't know what COW (copy-on-write)
> is, or know that it is much faster to just swap the pointers to the strings
> rather than swap the entire strings.
> Hans doesn't have any knowledge "upstairs" --- just a lot of hot air --- what he
> does with what he has upstairs is make hilariously stupid instructional videos.
> > Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)
> > it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
> > for work he finds extremely important and valuable.
> Hans is still not making any sense.
> If I wanted "validation" I would have stayed on the Forth-200x mailing list
> so my super-duper expert status would be validated by the Forth-200x
> committee. Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is essentially the same
> as having reference letters from Stephen Pelc, Anton Ertl, Bernd Paysan,
> Peter Knaggs, etc., that can be used as validation of Forth expertise.
> The whole point of being on the Forth-200x mailing list is so that,
> in the unlikely case that a job in Forth is offered, the candidate can explain
> that he is not just a mere Forth programmer, but he sets the standard for
> the entire Forth community. All Forth programmers rely on the Forth-200x
> experts to do their thinking for them! The Forth-200x committee considers
> them to be the elite whose opinion on Forth is valuable. Woo hoo!
> > It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -
> > so that alone IMHO justifies him being here
> There was this thread:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/hp1MbSkew08/m/os5OYTOeBAAJ
> Hans said:
>
> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 7:37:35 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> > But maybe now you understand why I don't care about you, Hugh. Or anything
> > you say about me. Or make me stop what I'm doing. To me, you're just a nobody
> > with a crazy opinion I don't care for.
> >
> > Hans Bezemer
> >
> > BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
>
> Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
> so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
> but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.
>
> Hans is a typical maintenance programmer --- they are all alike --- they
> require somebody to write the code, then they rip it off and claim
> that they wrote it themselves. Testra employed a string of maintenance
> programmers after I left who claimed to be instant experts in MFX,
> but all of them failed to learn to program in MFX --- maybe Testra will
> hire Hans Bezemer next, as he seems to be their type.

Hugh, I'm always thankful when you dedicate an entire episode of your
famous rants to me. I know this is very therapeutic for you and I sincerily
hope it contributes to your mental health in anyway.

I know this thread has been hard for you. There are still some cognative
dissonance issues to settle. I know you're convinced to be a very
inventive, clever programmer - but the cold hard truth you slowly start
to accept is that no matter how liberal your license is - if nobody wants
to rip your code, I'd better be a pleasant hobby - and not a profession.
Because that would be delusional.

If I may give you a little advise - use a bit of humor in your roasts! You'll
be much better apppreciated. And use generally accepted definitions and
concepts. That doesn't leave an impression of a raving lunatic - I know
you want to avoid that, so that'll need a little more exercise. But all in all -
funnier than Lilly Singh, so you're on the right track.

I think it's time for your medication now.

Hans Bezemer

On 1/10/2023 8:39 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>>> In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill",
>>>> as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things
>>>> Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and
>>>> oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!
>>> That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about
>>> "experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
>> I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
>> In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
>> but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
>> I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
>> He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
>>> The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels nor
>>> value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
>>> can do with what I got upstairs.
>> Hans also has an instructional video teaching the subject of implementing
>> a string stack, which he doesn't know how to do. His video provided a
>> graphical illustration of swapping two strings --- one string gets copied
>> into a pad somewhere, then the other string gets copied to where it was,
>> then the string in the pad gets copied to where that string was.
>> That was an hilarious video! Hans doesn't know what COW (copy-on-write)
>> is, or know that it is much faster to just swap the pointers to the strings
>> rather than swap the entire strings.
>> Hans doesn't have any knowledge "upstairs" --- just a lot of hot air --- what he
>> does with what he has upstairs is make hilariously stupid instructional videos.
>>> Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)
>>> it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
>>> for work he finds extremely important and valuable.
>> Hans is still not making any sense.
>> If I wanted "validation" I would have stayed on the Forth-200x mailing list
>> so my super-duper expert status would be validated by the Forth-200x
>> committee. Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is essentially the same
>> as having reference letters from Stephen Pelc, Anton Ertl, Bernd Paysan,
>> Peter Knaggs, etc., that can be used as validation of Forth expertise.
>> The whole point of being on the Forth-200x mailing list is so that,
>> in the unlikely case that a job in Forth is offered, the candidate can explain
>> that he is not just a mere Forth programmer, but he sets the standard for
>> the entire Forth community. All Forth programmers rely on the Forth-200x
>> experts to do their thinking for them! The Forth-200x committee considers
>> them to be the elite whose opinion on Forth is valuable. Woo hoo!
>>> It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -
>>> so that alone IMHO justifies him being here
>> There was this thread:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/hp1MbSkew08/m/os5OYTOeBAAJ
>> Hans said:
>>
>> On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 7:37:35 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>> But maybe now you understand why I don't care about you, Hugh. Or anything
>>> you say about me. Or make me stop what I'm doing. To me, you're just a nobody
>>> with a crazy opinion I don't care for.
>>>
>>> Hans Bezemer
>>>
>>> BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
>>
>> Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
>> so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
>> but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.
>>
>> Hans is a typical maintenance programmer --- they are all alike --- they
>> require somebody to write the code, then they rip it off and claim
>> that they wrote it themselves. Testra employed a string of maintenance
>> programmers after I left who claimed to be instant experts in MFX,
>> but all of them failed to learn to program in MFX --- maybe Testra will
>> hire Hans Bezemer next, as he seems to be their type.
>
> Hugh, I'm always thankful when you dedicate an entire episode of your
> famous rants to me. I know this is very therapeutic for you and I sincerily
> hope it contributes to your mental health in anyway.
>
> I know this thread has been hard for you. There are still some cognative
> dissonance issues to settle. I know you're convinced to be a very
> inventive, clever programmer - but the cold hard truth you slowly start
> to accept is that no matter how liberal your license is - if nobody wants
> to rip your code, I'd better be a pleasant hobby - and not a profession.
> Because that would be delusional.

Well, licenses in a hobby situation are rather delusional too. Hobbies
are supposed to be about fun - not ownership.

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:18:24 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Hugh Aguilar <hughag...@gmail.com> writes:
> >SAFE-UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
> >by a number on the single stack, then push the double-precision
> >remainder and quotient to the double stack.
> >etc.
> ...
> >Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
> >despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers.

> Gforth has:
>
> : ud/mod ( ud1 u2 -- urem udquot ) \ gforth

I don't care what you have in gForth. I'll just write my own
mixed-precision division in assembly-language for whatever
Forth I may be using.

My point was that ANS-Forth is a steaming pile of crap.
It was the technical failure of ANS-Forth that killed Forth in 1994.

> With a single-cell divisor, the remainder is guaranteed to fit into a
> single cell.

Yes, I realized this after I posted that message.

My other point that I was making is that ANS-Forth is badly designed
because single and double precision numbers are mixed together
on the same stack --- this results in very convoluted stack juggling.
The obvious solution is to have a separate stack for double precision
numbers. This was obvious in 1994. This requires another register
to be dedicated as the double-stack pointer. Charles Moore didn't
do this because the PDP-11 had a shortage of registers. ANS-Forth
appears to be designed specifically for the PDP-11's limitations,
although the PDP-11 was over a decade obsolete in 1994.

On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:39:46 PM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
> > I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
> > In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
> > but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
> > I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
> > He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!

> ... use generally accepted definitions and
> concepts. That doesn't leave an impression of a raving lunatic

Hans Bezemer doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is. That is dumb!
He is ashamed of his failure to understand the accepted definition and
concept of Harvard Architecture --- this is why he resorts to ad hominem
attacks against me.

On 1/10/2023 2:29 pm, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>
> My other point that I was making is that ANS-Forth is badly designed
> because single and double precision numbers are mixed together
> on the same stack --- this results in very convoluted stack juggling.
> The obvious solution is to have a separate stack for double precision
> numbers. This was obvious in 1994.

Not obvious to anyone AFAIK. Hopefully you patented it before sharing.