Forth Forum?

[A. K.]

I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
which does not have a newsreader. A browser accessible Forth Forum would
be easier and probably attract more participants (Usenet is dwindling
after all). Google groups is very unpractical.

Question:
Is there a decent Forth forum of "sufficient" popularity?
Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?

[Mark Wills]

> Question:
> Is there a decent Forth forum of "sufficient" popularity?

No. Not that I'm aware of. Probably the most popular is the CamelForth
forum:
http://www.camelforth.com/news.php

And frankly, it's a veritable graveyard.

> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?

It would have happened by now. I imagine the core Forth community is
of such an age that they are more comfortable with news readers than
pesky web sites!

[A. K.]

Well... you are underestimating us... :-)

I guess it's more a question of efforts and costs.
While a suitable software would be there (there are others of course):
http://sourceforge.net/projects/fudforum/
somebody has to set up and administer the forum (and database) and keep
the server online.

I can see only Forth Inc who theoretically "could" see some advertising
benefit in it that "could" repay the costs. Or a university. But I doubt
it. And hobbywise would be too short living...

[Mark Wills]

Well, I could do it. I own the domain forthfiles.net and the server
resources are sat there doing nothing. I could install a PHP forum
suite in a few minutes.

I haven't bothered because I doubt very much that many of the 'crowd'
here on CLF would use it. That ends up potentially diluting an already
tiny crowd.

[Paul E. Bennett]

I was under the impression that Outlook has supported newsgroup reading. I
will have a look when I get back to my work-desk.

As for web-accessible groups, there is a discussion forum on LinkedIn for
Forth. Not very active at present but has some good information and would
suit the professional Forther.

If you would feel comfortable and would prefer to change OS then Kontact,
which is part of the KDE desktop works very well for me. KDE runs on most
Linux distributions. That is always assuming you would be allowed to change.
If it is your employers mandating what software you use, then I guess you
have little choice. When it behaves, the Google Groups access to this
newsgroup might be OK but it doesn't always work properly.

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E....@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

[Mark Wills]

On Oct 7, 10:31 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:

Well, if you would be willing to administer it, I'll go ahead and
install the forum software.

[A. K.]

Thanks, but with 1 fulltime job, 2 'kids' in prof education, 2 women (1
divorce still ongoing) and 3 houses to administer, I am allowed to
excuse myself. ;-)

Anyhow there were also discussions about an attractive Forth demo
application to youngsters. To me it seems a bit futile when Forth is
invisible in their web-centric communication domains, by smartphones
tablets etc.

[Mark Wills]

Well, I just set up a forum:

http://forthfiles.net/forum

We'll see who uses it, though I'm not holding my breath!

[A. K.]

On 07.10.2012 12:37, Mark Wills wrote:
>
> Well, I just set up a forum:
>
> http://forthfiles.net/forum
>
> We'll see who uses it, though I'm not holding my breath!
>

It works! My first posting was:

---
Thanks for opening this forum!

Would it be possible to synch between phpBB and Usenet?
http://phpbb.weblite.ca/
---

If yes we could have both worlds. Usenet for Grampies and Grannies, and
a browser accessible forum for those young at heart and leg. ;-)

[Mark Wills]

On Oct 7, 12:05 pm, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
> On 07.10.2012 12:37, Mark Wills wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, I just set up a forum:
>
> >http://forthfiles.net/forum
>
> > We'll see who uses it, though I'm not holding my breath!
>
> It works! My first posting was:
>
> ---
> Thanks for opening this forum!
>

> Would it be possible to synch between phpBB and Usenet?http://phpbb.weblite.ca/

> ---
>
> If yes we could have both worlds. Usenet for Grampies and Grannies, and
> a browser accessible forum for those young at heart and leg.  ;-)

Wow. That's nice! Unfortunately I don't think I can use it. Exahost
use windows servers - no CRON - as far as I know. Don't know much
about all that stuff!

[A. K.]

I found this:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=602913

[Ilya Tarasov]

> Question:
>
> Is there a decent Forth forum of "sufficient" popularity?
>
> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?

Hello. You may take a look on www.fforum.winglion.ru , it is an active Forth forum for russian forthers. English part is exist, and many russian forthers can understand english quite well. At this monent, no guests and no automatic registration. Also, there are only 2 of approx. 1900 topics are in English.

[Paul Rubin]

"A. K." <a...@nospam.org> writes:
> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?

Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
prefer Usenet to web forums.

[Paul Rubin]

"A. K." <a...@nospam.org> writes:
> Anyhow there were also discussions about an attractive Forth demo
> application to youngsters. To me it seems a bit futile when Forth is
> invisible in their web-centric communication domains, by smartphones
> tablets etc.

There is http://forthfreak.net/jsforth80x25.html

[Richard Owlett]

Yes it even works for those "of such an age that they are

more comfortable with news readers than

pesky web sites" and those using walker/canes ;

My personal preference would be for a medium which would do
for Usenet groups what gmane.org does for mailing lists. It
might avoid splitting a relatively small audience on basis
of preferred means of interaction.

[A. K.]

Sorry for making myself not clear enough.

The freaknet page is just a top-level interpreter display.

It has no social or communicative element whatsoever to exchange ideas
or asking a community - or, not unimportant, having fun.

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 10/6/12 11:48 PM, Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> A. K. wrote:
>
>> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
>> which does not have a newsreader. A browser accessible Forth Forum would
>> be easier and probably attract more participants (Usenet is dwindling
>> after all). Google groups is very unpractical.
>>
>> Question:
>> Is there a decent Forth forum of "sufficient" popularity?
>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>
> I was under the impression that Outlook has supported newsgroup reading. I
> will have a look when I get back to my work-desk.

I certainly used Outlook for c.l.f before I switched to Thunderbird. I
suspect your problem may be your ISP doesn't support Usenet (many
don't). There are inexpensive paid services that will provide it -- I
use Supernews www.supernews.com, but there are others.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[Rod Pemberton]

"A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:50713193$0$6627$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...

> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
> which does not have a newsreader.

I'm posting from Outlook. Albeit, it's a very old version. I'd be
surprised if they removed newsgroup support.

The Opera browser has a built-in newsreader.

The link below should susbcribe you to c.l.f. using AIOE.org. In Internet
Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, it'll start Outlook, if using Windows OS. In
Opera, it'll start Opera's newreader. I'd assume that if you also installed
Thunderbird that Mozilla Firefox will start Thunderbird, instead of Outlook.

news://www.aioe.org/comp.lang.forth


Rod Pemberton

[Rod Pemberton]

"Paul Rubin" <no.e...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xipamu...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...

If I have to create an account, submit a valid email address, submit any
personal information, or maintain and remember another password, then
"No." is the answer. I.e., that's what most forums require to join and
post.

If I can post "anonymously", i.e., without setting up an account, and if the
forum doesn't reveal my IP when posting "anonymously", like Wikipedia, then
I'd consider using it. A few forums run the IP through a hash function with
a salt to create a unique user ID number. It changes with IP changes, but
you can assign an "alias" or your own name as your identity when you post,
if you wish to maintain an "identity".


Rod Pemberton

[rickman]

Far be it for me to recommend Google Groups, but that is what I used to
use until their last software update made it nearly unusable in my
opinion. My last post in this group required me to remove the extra
blank lines that someone else's GG post added in the quotes. Insane...

But if you can't get here by any other means, GG is a way to keep in
touch. I don't think many here are going to move anywhere else.

Rick

[Bernd Paysan]

Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
know that Outlook has a news reader.

Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook". And get your other coworkers who
can't do Outlook to tell him, too. Because the boss assumes "everybody
can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[A. K.]

On 08.10.2012 01:15, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:50713193$0$6627$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
>> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
>> which does not have a newsreader.
>
> I'm posting from Outlook. Albeit, it's a very old version. I'd be
> surprised if they removed newsgroup support.

Outlook 2010 does not support the NNTP protocol any more for reading
Usenet news.

You'd have to install Outlook Express parallel to it, which is complete
nonsense. And it could potentially mess things up with your Exchange
mail server.

[A. K.]

c.l.f is a cozy hideout after all, isn't it? :-)

secluded from the 'rest of world' but so ... 'practical' ...

[A. K.]

On 07.10.2012 21:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> writes:
>>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>>
>> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
>> prefer Usenet to web forums.
>
> Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
> to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
> know that Outlook has a news reader.
>
> Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook". And get your other coworkers who
> can't do Outlook to tell him, too. Because the boss assumes "everybody
> can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".
>

You did not get the point.

It is not about Outlook, it is about the Forth clf "community" being
practically invisible. If you don't care, don't care.

[Rod Pemberton]

"A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote in message

news:5072f0bd$0$6549$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...

Correction: I use Outlook Express. Sorry.


RP

[Rod Pemberton]

"A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote in message

news:5072f52d$0$6567$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...

Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?

I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
much to raise Forth's profile. What Forth needs first is to "break" the
"bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has. Some of those were earned from
major failures. Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile successes.
It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about which everyone
hates him for asking about. Some of that possible success must come from
*not failing* where other more common solutions failed. Basically, Forth
must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks. I suspect that
will change the language dramatically. I'm still of the opinion Forth
doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to attempt a large scale
"comeback." Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or
software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages. To
do that, Forth is going to need some order applied to the language, i.e., a
"structured" Forth instead of write-once "spaghetti" code.

It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth is
me, a C programmer. Well, of course, there is Hugh ...


Rod Pemberton

[ment...@myuw.net]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:35:50 AM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> Hello. You may take a look
> on www.fforum.winglion.ru ,
> it is an active Forth forum

> for russian forthers. [...]

In the past I found it impossible
to get an account there, because of
some problem with the captcha system.
It required the user to enter something
in Russian, and I do speak Russian,
but I was not able to figure out the
answer to the question posed there.

Anyway, would you or somebody else there
be willing to make a post to the effect
that my artificial intelligence program

http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/mindforth.txt

now has a Russian-language version at

http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Dushka.html

in JavaScript for Microsoft Internet Explorer?
I would certainly like to code the same Russian
AI in Win32Forth or Intel iForth, but I do not
know how to create the Russian Cyrillic characters
in Win32Forth or in iForth.

Cheers,

Arthur
--
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Dushka.html
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/RuAiUser.html

[A. K.]

On 08.10.2012 23:32, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?

More the latter. Youngsters like to communicate in virtual web
communities (see Facebook et al). But the the at least active clf Forth
community is hidden in Usenet, which is not easily browser accessible.

[Mark Wills]

On Oct 8, 10:28 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm>
wrote:

> Rod Pemberton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rod: "Some of those were earned from major failures."

Really? Can you cite some examples of major Forth project failures?
I'm not aware of any.

[Mark Wills]

>Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages.

What? Like NASA? :-)

[Mark Wills]

>Basically, Forth must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks.

Please define:

* Robust
* Fault tolerant

Suffer from hacks? Well okay. I think you're thinking about Forth ala
Gavino, i.e. in the web world. But there's a much larger world out
there. Forth is niche, and I wouldn't turn to Forth to develop a fault
tolerant, hack-proof, robust web based system. There are other
languages (and systems/sub-systems, such as SQL, fault tolerant
message queues etc) perhaps better suited to the task.

Forth shines at essentially two things:

* Low level/embedded
* Domain Specific (high-level) languages

If you really really want to equip Forth to *start* to be able to
compete in the web world, then a good place to start would be the
standardisation of a suite of networking/sockets words to allow it to
get on the web! That would give the young web folk a starting place.
Because, you know, if it can't talk on the web, then, like, it's not a
real programming language, man. Obviously. Duh.

Good luck with that. We can't even agree on the behaviour of FIND,
after 30+ years of its existence!

[rickman]

On 10/8/2012 5:32 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "A. K."<a...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:5072f52d$0$6567$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
>> On 07.10.2012 21:41, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A. K."<a...@nospam.org> writes:
>>>>> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>>>>
>>>> Those of us who are still here on Usenet, are probably here because we
>>>> prefer Usenet to web forums.
>>>
>>> Especially when someone who is forced to Outlook comes here and asks us
>>> to switch to a web forum, because he's too clueless about Outlook to
>>> know that Outlook has a news reader.
>>>
>>> Tell your boss "I can't do Outlook". And get your other coworkers who
>>> can't do Outlook to tell him, too. Because the boss assumes "everybody
>>> can do Outlook, and there's no other tool for the task".
>>>
>>
>> You did not get the point.
>>
>> It is not about Outlook, it is about the Forth clf "community"
>> being practically invisible. If you don't care, don't care.
>
> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
>
> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
> much to raise Forth's profile. What Forth needs first is to "break" the
> "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has. Some of those were earned from
> major failures.

What major failures? I find that there are people who have tried forth
and like(d) it, people who have heard of Forth and think it is a joke
and people who have never heard of it. I listed them in order of size,
smallest first. I have never heard of any failures.

> Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile successes.
> It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about which everyone
> hates him for asking about. Some of that possible success must come from
> *not failing* where other more common solutions failed. Basically, Forth
> must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from hacks. I suspect that
> will change the language dramatically. I'm still of the opinion Forth
> doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to attempt a large scale
> "comeback." Basically, you're going to need a major programming company or
> software foundation to decide to use Forth instead of other languages. To
> do that, Forth is going to need some order applied to the language, i.e., a
> "structured" Forth instead of write-once "spaghetti" code.
>
> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth is
> me, a C programmer. Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
>
>
> Rod Pemberton

What is your vision for forth?

Rick

[Bernd Paysan]

Mark Wills wrote:
> Suffer from hacks? Well okay. I think you're thinking about Forth ala
> Gavino, i.e. in the web world. But there's a much larger world out
> there. Forth is niche, and I wouldn't turn to Forth to develop a fault
> tolerant, hack-proof, robust web based system. There are other
> languages (and systems/sub-systems, such as SQL, fault tolerant
> message queues etc) perhaps better suited to the task.

Huh? Actually, the current web ecosystem has proven to be not very
hack-proof and fault tolerant. IMHO the idea that a language is "hack-
proof" or such is nonsense, one of the most popular attack targets today
is Java - which was deliberately created to be "secure". It isn't.
These of course are all "bugs", it's not features; in Forth, the
insecure parts are features.

The way to make an execution environment secure is to sandbox it from
the outside - not to sandbox it from within, as Java does. If you read
Googles papers about sandboxing e.g. Flash, they are very deliberate
that the sandbox itself must be a rather simple and straight-forward
thing to be robust enough.

Dijkstra had once said "Programs are either so simple that they contain
obviously no bugs, or so complex that they contain no obvious bugs".
That means to be secure, you must separate the supervision of a program
from the program itself, and make the supervision a rather simple task.

The many mistakes that have been done with SQL injections show that
"complex" isn't "good". Web scripts are usually written in programming
languages which are feature-rich in text processing, and the user abuse
those features because they are so easy to use. So people write a web
form like "select * from students where name=$name;", and $name is a
string variable. Well, we have such features even in standard Forth
now, you could use SUBSTITUTE for that. But it's wrong. You shouldn't
do it that way, and SQL even has a mechanism to pass parameters to
queries, where you can compile the query once, and execute it with
different parameters as often as you like - without risking any SQL
injection ever. These parameters won't be parsed and analyzed by the
SQL statement compiler, so it doesn't matter if name is "Robert'; drop
table students" (Little Bobby Table). You don't even need to sanity
check that name - it's always treated as non-interpretable string, and
then it's fine to have funny characters in it.

[Ilya Tarasov]

>
> In the past I found it impossible
>
> to get an account there, because of
>
> some problem with the captcha system.
>
> It required the user to enter something
>
> in Russian, and I do speak Russian,
>
> but I was not able to figure out the
>
> answer to the question posed there.
>

If you send me a mail with desired login and temporary password, I can register you, and you will be able to change your password later. I can do the same for anyone else. Registering 'trouble' is a part of antispam/antibot politics... and it works!...

Ilya Tarasov

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Oct 9, 12:55 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Forth shines at essentially two things:
>
> * Low level/embedded
> * Domain Specific (high-level) languages

Mark: This is a pretty good vision of Forth.

Rod: I didn't know that you had a vision for Forth. Can you give us a
soundbite description?

As I've said many times, I think that it is a bad idea for Forth to
try to be everything to everybody (especially a web framework for
Gavino). This will result in Forth being a "jack of all trades and a
master of none." For Forth to succeed, it should focus on only what it
is good at (the two things mentioned by Mark above) --- I mean, don't
compete with Lisp in the desktop-computer world (and for their part,
the Lispers will promise not to compete with Forth in the micro-
controller world) --- compete primarily against C.

[Rod Pemberton]

"Rod Pemberton" <do_no...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote in message
news:k4vgif$96h$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
...

>
> Not to stoke the flames, but did you mean "practically invisible" as in
> non-existant users or as in Forth is still-hiding-in-the-dark-corners?
>
> I'm not sure that having a more prominent presence on the Internet will do
> much to raise Forth's profile. What Forth needs first is to "break" the
> "bad image" or "stereotypes" that it has. Some of those were earned from
> major failures. Then, it needs to have a few really high-profile
> successes. It needs to do all the whacked out stuff Gavino asks about
> which everyone hates him for asking about. Some of that possible success
> must come from *not failing* where other more common solutions failed.
> Basically, Forth must be robust, fault tolerant, and not suffer from
> hacks. I suspect that will change the language dramatically. I'm still
> of the opinion Forth doesn't have the critical mass of programmers to
> attempt a large scale "comeback." Basically, you're going to need a major
> programming company or software foundation to decide to use Forth
> instead of other languages. To do that, Forth is going to need some order
> applied to the language, i.e., a "structured" Forth instead of write-once
> "spaghetti" code.
>
> It's truly sad that the only person around here with any vision for Forth
> is me, a C programmer. Well, of course, there is Hugh ...
>
>

Hugh and rickman,

Forth users think Forth is just fine. The large paragraph in the middle is
the "vision" for Forth. That's what "it" needs to happen to become popular.
It needs changed perceptions and various improvements.


Rod Pemberton

[A. K.]

We use(d) Forth as embedded "Trojan horse" for remote debugging and
telnet service sessions. That is as far as it goes in that domain with
Forth IMO. A web server in Forth would have given us no additional
benefit, but more vulnerability.

But IF there was a web communication requirement, I wouldn't extend the
embedded Forth interpreter for it, but use the C ecosystem. Why? Because
I can count our Forth-savvy service guys on 2 fingers, both fingers on
the brink of retirement.

Just a real world example why pulling Forth groups out of their dinosaur
hideout might have made sense ...... but to dinosaurs of course. ;-)

[gavino_himself]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:39:28 AM UTC-7, A. K. wrote:
> I am accessing this group with Thunderbird, but have to move to Outlook
>

> which does not have a newsreader. A browser accessible Forth Forum would
>
> be easier and probably attract more participants (Usenet is dwindling
>
> after all). Google groups is very unpractical.
>
>
>
> Question:
>
> Is there a decent Forth forum of "sufficient" popularity?
>

> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?

it would also break the dependence on google to talk to forth users and implementers

I would sign up in 1 second!!

extra awesome if forum powered by forth!!

perhaps Mr. Paysan can make his gforth appserver do it!!

that would freakin rock
!

[gavino_himself]

On Sunday, October 7, 2012 2:46:00 AM UTC-7, M.R.W Wills wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:31 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:

>
> > On 07.10.2012 10:06, Mark Wills wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> Question:
>
> > >> Is there a decent Forth forum of "sufficient" popularity?
>

> > > No. Not that I'm aware of. Probably the most popular is the CamelForth
>
> > > forum:
>
> > >http://www.camelforth.com/news.php
>
> >
>
> > > And frankly, it's a veritable graveyard.

>
> >
>
> > >> Would the people here "move" from c.l.f to this forum?
>

> > > It would have happened by now. I imagine the core Forth community is

>
> > > of such an age that they are more comfortable with news readers than
>

> > > pesky web sites!
>
> >
>
> > Well... you are underestimating us...  :-)
>
> >
>
> > I guess it's more a question of efforts and costs.
>
> > While a suitable software would be there (there are others of course):http://sourceforge.net/projects/fudforum/
>
> > somebody has to set up and administer the forum (and database) and keep
>
> > the server online.
>
> >
>
> > I can see only Forth Inc who theoretically "could" see some advertising
>
> > benefit in it that "could" repay the costs. Or a university. But I doubt
>
> > it. And hobbywise would be too short living...
>
>
>
> Well, I could do it. I own the domain forthfiles.net and the server
>
> resources are sat there doing nothing. I could install a PHP forum
>
> suite in a few minutes.
>
>
>
> I haven't bothered because I doubt very much that many of the 'crowd'
>
> here on CLF would use it. That ends up potentially diluting an already
>
> tiny crowd.

do it do it!

[gavino_himself]

thx for the props

seems like factor is trying

it has a web framework!!

WOAAAA!!

I want forth which seems to get things done well and with less code to show a few apps mortals can use.

Perhaps this would involve some smart forth with some dumb config files?

like few basic web options for basic web server? or something like NFS but nicer?

I know these things are not easy I have tried to use forth instead of bash and failed miserably so far.

I can only dream of doing a craigslsit clone if forth, I wish someone like bernd paysan would do even a small site powered by forth people could point to and say there!! there is a nice lil nice performing site in forth and it only took xyz pages of code.

[gavino_himself]

amen

I hate google and groups cant be easily repalced unless everyone moves to like that forum.

I vote lets move!

[Bernd Paysan]

gavino_himself wrote:
> it would also break the dependence on google to talk to forth users
> and implementers

There's no such dependency. Many ISPs still provide Usenet, though
often they don't even know that they do (I had a funny conversation with
Verizon about that a few years ago)... Google does contribute to Usenet
by archiving everything and providing a not-so-well written web
interface, which recently started to inject lots of stupid newlines into
posts, but that's it.

> I would sign up in 1 second!!

Though you don't contribute anything meaningful...

> extra awesome if forum powered by forth!!
>
> perhaps Mr. Paysan can make his gforth appserver do it!!

To be honest, while some people here claim that Usenet is a dinosaur
hideout, its way of doing things are more modern than web forums. It's
a peer to peer protocol, it replicates data all around the world, it is
pretty robust against spam (through cleanfeed), etc.

It's more likely that I'll do a net2o<->usenet interface than a web
forum, but net2o is not ready for that now.

[rickman]

On 10/11/2012 4:36 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton"<do_no...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote in message
> news:k4vgif$96h$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> ....

I'm not sure what I said that you included me in this reply.

Rick

[rickman]

I move that we vote!

But you are posting using GG, aren't you? Why don't you use a news
reader? I finally made the switch. eternal-september.org It's better
than staying with GG. I use Thunderbird for a newsreader and it has
limitations. For example there's no way to killfile gavino... just
kidding. I'd never killfile you. I might gak you though, so watch your
back when you're peeing. ;^)


Rick

[Rod Pemberton]

"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k57hhh$ijf$1...@dont-email.me...

> I'm not sure what I said that you included me in this reply.
>

Both of you asked about my vision for Forth, in response to my
10/8/2012 5:32PM post. So, I clarified in one post.

At the end of your 10/9/2012 1:52PM post, you asked:

"What is your vision for forth?"

Hugh, in his 10/10/2012 11:43PM post said:

"Rod: I didn't know that you had a vision for Forth. Can you give us a
soundbite description?"

Rod Pemberton