On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 12:50:11 PM UTC-7, Jan Mercl wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017, 20:38 <hughag...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> Google is not going to be happy if somebody uses Go to compete against >> Google. >> > > This is where I stopped considering any of your future posts worth my > attention. > > Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Google in any way except programming > in Go. > -- > > -j >
On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 3:43:27 PM UTC-7, Dave Cheney wrote: > Jan your message is unwelcoming and unwarranted. Please refrain from ad > hominem arguments in the future. I didn't consider his message to be an ad-hominem attack. He was opposed to my statement that Google will strive to prevent people from using Go to compete against Google . He wasn't taking a personal shot against me, such as by calling me vulgar names, mocking me, etc.. The posts get pretty heated over on comp.lang.forth --- so far, I've not seen this on golang-nuts. Here is an example from comp.lang.forth: On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 7:20:15 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 7:01:38 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > In terms of Forth standards from 1994 onwards, current > > implementations do not permit state-smart words to be > > correctly implemented. It is possible. See my paper > > "Special Words in Forth", which shows how to do it > > properly. > > http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef17/genproceedings/papers/pelc.pdf > > > > Stephen > > I read through that article. A lot of it is borrowed from me. For example: > "IMMEDIATE? Xt -- flag ; return true if the word is immediate " > I have repeatedly said that this was necessary! > > I don't think there is anything of value in Stephen Pelc's article. > He wants to put all of the complexity inside of the COMPILE, word. > The COMPILE, word can only be modified by the compiler-writer however, not by the Forth programmer. > He is trying to maintain a monopoly on extensibility of Forth, which will result in vendor lock-in for programs. > He is trying to prevent the Forth programmer from extending a standard Forth system in a standard way. > > I haven't forgotten that Stephen Pelc is a liar. I don't think anybody else should forget either: > > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 2:27:41 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:28:18 -0700 (PDT), hughaguila...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > >My complaint against Stephen Pelc is that he uses dishonest business practi= > > >ces. He supports ANS-Forth and Forth-200x for the purpose of making all For= > > >th programmers look stupid. He doesn't actually use ANS-Forth himself. He r= > > >outinely provides vendor-specific code in VFX, even when it is easy to writ= > > >e the code in ANS-Forth, for the purpose of trapping his customers in vendo= > > >r lock-in. A good example is SYNONYM --- I can write this in ANS-Forth usin= > > >g my disambiguifiers --- he insists that this is impossible to write in ANS= > > >-Forth --- he refuses to admit that the disambiguifiers exist because he wa= > > >nts ANS-Forth's FIND to behave differently in every ANS-Forth compiler. > > > > Hugh's wonderful disambiguifiers do NOT do what the great Hugh thinks > > they do. What the great Hugh has done is to redefine a large number of > > words so that they behave in a very restricted way to support the > > great Hugh's version of Forth. Hugh's SYNONYM is not portable ANS > > Forth unless you use Hugh's Forth. Bah, humbug. Another emperor > > with no clothes. > > > > Stephen > > Stephen Pelc is lying. My disambiguifers do make all of the words such as IF etc. behave consistently between ANS-Forth implementations. > They are called "disambiguifiers" because the ambiguity (different behavior on different ANS-Forth implementations) is fixed. > They do not behave in a "very restrictive way" and there is no "Hugh's version of Forth" (the disambiguifiers work on VFX, SwiftForth, GFORTH, etc.). > > Stephen Pelc is lying because he wants FIND to be ambiguous (different behavior on different ANS-Forth implementations) so that it will be impossible > to write an outer-interpreter in ANS-Forth that is portable between different ANS-Forth implementations. Stephen Pelc wants vendor lock-in. > I have said repeatedly that LITERAL needs to be vectored for a cross-compiler to support literal numbers in TARG mode. > ANS-Forth failed to make LITERAL (and DLITERAL FLITERAL etc.) vectored. Because of this failing, the cross-compiler writer needs his own outer-interpreter. > ANS-Forth failed to support a FIND that is unambiguous however, so for a long time I didn't think a cross-compiler could be written in ANS-Forth. > Anton Ertl invented the disambiguifiers however, and I realized that this was the key to working around the ambiguous FIND in ANS-Forth. > Stephen Pelc is lying about the disambiguifiers because he wants to prevent ANS-Forth programmers from writing cross-compilers in competition with MPE. > He want cross-compilers to be vendor specific. > > Anton Ertl lost his job as Forth-200x chair-person. Stephen Pelc is now the Forth-200x chair-person. > Most likely, Anton Ertl lost his job because he invented the disambiguifiers and he made this public on comp.lang.forth where I learned about it. > Bernd Paysan uses disambiguifiers in his MiniOOF program. He is another one who has zero chance of being promoted to the chair-person position. > Stephen Pelc is the worst possible candidate however, because his goal is to cripple the standard so that VFX will look good by comparison. > Stephen Pelc is motivated entirely by his goal of making MPE profitable --- he considers all other Forth programmers to be his enemy in the Forth arena. > > It is very ironic that Stephen Pelc accuses me of being an: "emperor with no clothes." > As chair-person for the Forth-200x committee, Stephen Pelc has declared himself to be the emperor of Forth --- and he is a liar, so he has "no clothes." > I just write ANS-Forth code that works and is portable --- this is what the ANS-Forth cult hates and fears the most --- I'm not being an "emperor" though. > > Forth-200x is deeply corrupt. Peter Knaggs is Stephen Pelc's employee, yet he is on the Forth-200x committee. > This is a blatant violation of the rule that no company has more than one vote on the committee. > I recommend that everybody ignore Forth-200x --- this is "astroturf" (a corporate project faked up to look like a grassroots project). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
