Re: Don't Fall in Love With Your Technology

[Mentifex]

On Feb 18, 2:28 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm>
wrote:
> "Mentifex" <menti...@myuw.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8e4d1e51-06cc-4003...@i10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Some recovering Forth addict has written a blog-post at
> > [...]
> > with the above title. I found it on Reddit, where
> > [...]
> > is the massive discussion he has sparked.
> > In fair use I quote from his blogpost:
>
> > > In the 1990s I followed the Usenet group comp.lang.forth.
> > > Forth has great personal appeal. It's minimalist to the point
> > > of being subversive, and Forth literature once crackled with
> > > rightness.
>
> I agree with him
>
> See my reply to Mr. Doug Hoffman (on c.l.f).
>
> > Somehow they got to him. Somehow they "turned" him.
>
> Shouldn't you be quoting "they" instead of "turned" ...  ?

Yes, but then I would sound paranoid.
>
> Why is it important that he turned, instead of who inspired it?
> Shouldn't "they" be "demonized" instead of "condeming" his act
> of "turning"?

http://prog21.dadgum.com/57.html

is where the erstwhile Forther explains
why he does not allow blog-Comments:

> The negativity of online technical discussions
> makes me bitter, and even though I'm sometimes
> drawn to them I need to stay away.

I wanted to go ahead and Comment anyway, using
comp.lang.forth that _he_ was commenting about.
At the same time I want to act out my literary
ambitions by writing an enjoyable c.l.f post

> It's as if his newly found truth is a total
> betrayal to you.  What business is it of yours
> to take a stake in the nature of his beliefs?

None, I guess :-)

> Shouldn't you be glad he "sees" the truth now
> instead of being "blind"?

Yes, you're right.

>
> > Forth is a Gift.
>
> Could you explain what you mean by that?
> I.e., "Gift" in what way? Biblical?

I meant it in the sense of "the Gift of Faith".
Once you lose your Faith in God, you may not
get it back, because it was merely a gift.
Likewise, Netizens who lose their Faith
in Forth may not get it back :-(

> The words in Forth are without order or meaning
> until *you* provide it.

"How aweet it is :-)"
>
> I've programmed in over a dozen languages in
> my lifetime and there isn't one that I'd remotely
> consider calling a gift ...  They all take work and time
> to use or learn.  C is superb, but it's still flawed.

I would call REXX on the Amiga a gift. A program in
REXX could orchestrate the actions of many apps
on the multi-tasking Amiga.

>
> > Those who outgrow the Gift of Forth
> > have lost the ablity to dream the Dream, to realize
> > their nature as created in the Image and Likeness.
>
> "Those who outgrow the Gift of Forth" - whatever that means -
> are either 1) no longer programming or 2) programming in some
> other language now which they view as the "new" truth and "way".

You have a truly Divine way of expressing yourself :-)

> So, from your perspective that implies anyone who was
> never "possessed" by the "Gift of Forth", say like a C
> programmer, never ever had "the ability to dream the Dream,
> to realize their nature [...]."  Saying all non-Forth
> programmers are "without form, and void"

They are like the empty Universe where
in the Beginning was the Forthword; or:

http://www.nealstephenson.com/command

"IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"

> creatively is very offensive.
> Don't we all have "free will"?

http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/FreeWill

yes -- as a function of our available knowledge.

>
> Rod Pemberton
> PS dropped comp.programming, comp.lang.misc.

Thank you for your enlightened opinions and ideas.

Arthur T. Murray

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<59e870a4-a045-4a92...@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Mentifex <ment...@myuw.net> wrote:

> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"

In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.

See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".

Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
entered patches at least through the front panel.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Paul E. Bennett]

Walter Bushell wrote:

> In article
> <59e870a4-a045-4a92...@pw4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Mentifex <ment...@myuw.net> wrote:
>
>> "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE COMMAND LINE"
>
> In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
> octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
>
> See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
>
> Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
> entered patches at least through the front panel.

You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering iron
to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;>

When I graduated to switches (my first 6800 project) my codes were in hand
crafted hex (about 4k of the stuff). Then we got to the ASR33 teletype and
paper tape (when we got clever and wrote the names of progs on the leader).
Also liked the way we could programme the magnetic core memory and carry it
across the factory to plug it into the system that required it.

--
********************************************************************
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..
********************************************************************

[Don McKenzie]

On 19-Feb-12 8:16 PM, Paul E. Bennett wrote:

> Walter Bushell wrote:

>> In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
>> octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
>>
>> See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
>>
>> Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
>> entered patches at least through the front panel.
>

> You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering iron
> to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;>

I did all of the above, but I also worked on this system:
http://www.dontronics.com/first_multi_user_real_time.html

and here is a little of the other systems I worked on:
http://www.dontronics.com/my_early_tote_years.html

Some of the gear I maintained, was built during the 1930s.

Cheers Don...

================


--
Don McKenzie

Dontronics: http://www.dontronics-shop.com/

DuinoMite the PIC32 $35 Basic Computer-MicroController
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/the-maximite-computer.html
Just add a VGA monitor or TV, and PS2 Keyboard.
Arduino Shield, Programmed in Basic, or C.

[Scott Lurndal]

Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> writes:
>On 19-Feb-12 8:16 PM, Paul E. Bennett wrote:
> > Walter Bushell wrote:
>
> >> In my day Sonny we entered programs through the front panel in absolute
> >> octal machine code, no sissy assemblers for us and we liked it.
> >>
> >> See also, and a later more effete time "Mel the real programmer".
> >>
> >> Toggle switches and wiring boards. You haven't programmed until you've
> >> entered patches at least through the front panel.
> >
> > You had switches??!!!! My first programming task required a soldering iron
> > to put the diodes onto the matrix boards. ;>
>
>I did all of the above, but I also worked on this system:
>http://www.dontronics.com/first_multi_user_real_time.html

My first computer was made from paperclips.

<http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/paperClipComputer/HowToBuildAWorkingDigitalComputer_Jun67.pdf>

scott

[Don McKenzie]

On 26-Feb-12 7:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> I did all of the above, but I also worked on this system:
>> http://www.dontronics.com/first_multi_user_real_time.html
>
> My first computer was made from paperclips.
>
> <http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/paperClipComputer/HowToBuildAWorkingDigitalComputer_Jun67.pdf>
>
> scott

Touche! :-)

Cheers Don...