what do forthers think of shen?

[quiet_lad]

http://www.shenlanguage.org/motivation.html

[John Passaniti]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 4:33:20 PM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> http://www.shenlanguage.org/motivation.html

I think Shen is a nice little language that just like every other language you've brought up here in comp.lang.forth, you won't take the time to learn. And it's pretty much a sure-fire bet that if you can't handle a simple procedural language like Forth, you're not likely to grok a functional language like Shen.

So, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?

[Rod Pemberton]

"quiet_lad" <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfb3beba-f641-4064...@b5g2000pbm.googlegroups.com...
> [inSubject: What do forthers think of shen?]
>
> [link to Shen's history]
http://www.shenlanguage.org/motivation.html


Well, "casual_spam," it must be time to change your nickname again. It
seems that almost no one has responded to you... I was hoping no one would
do so for a week or so. Then, I'd post. Oh, well...

Maybe, you should subscribe to comp.lang.misc and post there?
I've added it.


Well, Shen (or Qi) looks like Lisp to me... It has abundant - some would
say excessive - parentheses. Other than very minimal surface exposure, I'm
not familiar with Lisp. Also, I'm not familiar with the "many of the
advantages of ML" that Dr. Tarver wished he could bring to Lisp. So, should
I really posit an opinion of "what [I] think of Qi (or Shen)" ... ?

It seems Dr. Tarver is working with mostly non-mainstream languages, i.e.,
academic. Apparently, he worked for the same University where ML was
created, which was probably why he is familiar with it. The claims that
"'Qi' was a ground-breaking language" seem absurd given that no one, i.e.,
everyone outside academia, was aware of this language until you posted a
link to it...

I did think it is interesting that Dr. Tarver _eventually_ stumbled onto a
good idea for preserving and promoting his Qi language, i.e., make it more
portable. Both C and Forth were rewarded for being portable. His
implementation of the idea of a more portable Qi apparently was comprised
entirely of recoding Qi using a small subset of the language. He probably
needs to add a few bootstrap-only operations to the language too. Of
course, we don't have the myriad of computing platforms we once did. But,
today, we do have a variety of browser languages, embedded environments, and
cloud computing, where it could be used.

However, the fact that there are places where Shen could be used glosses
over the fact that Shen still *looks* like Lisp. Have you ever seen anyone
jump up and down to learn Lisp? Yeah, I didn't think so... The point
being: there are some languages programmers enjoy programming, and others
that they don't or won't. That's mostly a function of syntax, but also of
capability. Pascal and BASIC's syntax was acceptable, but their capability
was limited. Fortran's capability was fine, but it's syntax was beyond
horrible, to the point of being nightmarish. So, even if Shen is superior
to *all* other programming languages, not very many people are going to be
willing to program it. The syntax reminds them of Lisp ... which most
programmer's know as "Lost In Stupid Parentheses". Despite rebuttals here
by skilled Forth programmers, Forth's lack of syntax has created much the
same image problem for it. People need structure and order, i.e., syntax.
Lisp also has the image problem that one needs an understanding of "lambda
calculus" to effectively program in it. That perception definately doesn't
help.

Should Dr. Tarver have renamed Qi to Shen afterwards? No, probably not.
Personally, I think that was a blatant mistake. It's very likely that the
original and current base of Qi users won't ever hear or learn of Shen...
Or, if they do, they'll think it is too radical a change, e.g., like C to
C++. In general, people don't like change. They'll accept equivalence or
slight improvement, but major change - even if provably superior - scares
them away. If you're designing a language for popular and widespread use,
then average people need to be comfortable programming it. It would be wise
if below-average people would be willing to program it too.

As you know or should, various Forths over the years have been bootstrapped
or implemented using a small subset of their total functionality, i.e.,
Forth-in-Forth. Various Lisps have done so too. In fact, I stumbled
across three Lisps that claimed to have done so which were posted to Usenet
archives. Two bootstrapped from eight operations and one from fourteen.
So, Dr. Tarver was far from the first to recode Lisp-in-Lisp using a small
subset. With "50 or less" Shen operations, the size of his subset is
comparable to what's needed to implement a useable Forth, not just a Forth
which is bootstrapped. So, it's entirely feasible that Shen is useable too.

For those rare few who are interested in Lisp, I listed those three
bootstrap Lisp's and their language elements here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/10872cb68edcb526


Rod Pemberton

[quiet_lad]

On May 30, 1:30 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailntt.cmm>
wrote:
> "quiet_lad" <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message

ever check out www.paulgraham.com ?

[quiet_lad]

for a guy who has no known open source projects that work you sure are
a ciritc

[John Passaniti]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:57:50 PM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> > So, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?
>
> for a guy who has no known open source projects that
> work you sure are a ciritc

Correct. I have no open source projects, like majority of people here. But considering I pay the mortgage and feed the cat by being employed as a software engineer for the past 25 years, I'll gladly put up that experience to critique your your incessant "could X be written in Forth" and "what do Forthers think of Y" messages.

But actually, I don't even need that. The amount of time you've been here in comp.lang.forth asking the same damn questions, over and over, and not once showing any increase in understanding of Forth is breathtaking. I mean, what the hell is wrong with you that in the *years* you've been posting the same questions, you still haven't picked up enough Forth to ask an intelligent question? That's unbelievable. And it's the reason why nobody takes you seriously.

[quiet_lad]

I am not here for guys like you to take seriously, nor do I take you
seriously. I am also very very profitably employed in the free
software biz which pays my beach side rent nicely with tons of money
left over for las vegas trips, thank you very much. I would say this:
if you have nothing intelligent to answer a question then shut up.

[John Passaniti]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:04:55 AM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> I am not here for guys like you to take seriously,

Really, so you're saying we should ignore your messages?

> nor do I take you seriously.

I'm crushed.

> I am also very very profitably employed in the free
> software biz which pays my beach side rent nicely
> with tons of money left over for las vegas trips,
> thank you very much. I would say this: if you have
> nothing intelligent to answer a question then shut up.

You'll remember that when you first graced this newsgroup, I and plenty of others here carefully and thoughtfully responded to you. Feel free to pretend the kind of responses you're getting now are coming from nowhere and you're just the poor innocent gavino who can't get his questions answered. The rest of us know better. The rest of us know that no matter how much we try to help you, you're just going to ignore everything we write. You apparently think you can learn Forth (and programming in general) by osmosis.

Hey gavino, it's been a few hours-- maybe you should ask Forthers why they aren't implementing Prevayler or opine about if Chicken Scheme is more powerful than Forth. Those are the kinds of insightful, deep questions you're known for here. The kind of questions that make people really stop and think.

I'm delighted that you're apparently either a trust-fund baby or that you're working in a company where the kind of slacking off and intellectual laziness you've shown with regard to learning Forth results in a big salary. Maybe you should use your vast wealth to hire a Forth tutor.

[quiet_lad]

I am self made. I wish I had trust fund! would be awesome!!
I shall only become wealthier.
John I just don't get you.
I will never understand people.
Comparing forth to other powerful free software is the awesomest
thing.
Why can forth do better?
How?
these are the core questions
awesome stuff
I mean I am sure lower government spending works economically.
I am not sure forth works better than chicken since I dotn know enuf
yet.
Its fun to learn.
I think you would have more fun if you engagdged in philopshical and
intellecual discussion instead of weird psychoanalysis of peoples
motives, it makes you seem kooky

[marko]

This entire conversation has been had before in the lisp group:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/7f55f8c66a657c0e/be1d88d7d455951f?#be1d88d7d455951f

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Jun 4, 11:00 am, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:57:50 PM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> > > So, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?
>
> > for a guy who has no known open source projects that

> > work you sure are a critic

>
> Correct.  I have no open source projects,

Just open mouth (insert foot). Can't we all just get along???

> like majority of people here.

All hail the majority!

> But considering I pay the mortgage and feed the cat

Don't make puddy angwy, you wouldn't like her angwy!

> by being employed as a software engineer for the past 25 years,

Still using OS/2 1.0?

> I'll gladly put up that experience to critique your your incessant
> "could X be written in Forth" and "what do Forthers think of Y" messages.

Everyone's a critic: "It stinks!" (sorry, Hugh, "sucks")

> But actually, I don't even need that.  The amount of time you've
> been here in comp.lang.forth asking the same damn questions,

Spam spam spam spam spam ... frankly, my dear, I don't give a spam.

> over and over,

dup 2over rot

> and not

0= IF DOY THEN

> once showing any increase in understanding of Forth is
> breathtaking.  I mean,

That's right, gavino, get to studying! 8 hours a day, minimum!! You
will be graded later this week by Dr. Passatini [sic]:

http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/index.html

J.P., did you really expect anything from him? Is that what Usenet is
about? I thought it was just random people spouting off in their free
time. Apparently there's a hidden agenda I didn't know! But curiosity
killed the gav.

> what the hell is wrong with you

(Seriously? To quote that little girl on _Full House_: "How rude!")

He's not you. That's his problem.

> that in the *years* you've been posting the same questions,

ASCII stupid question, get a silly ANSI.

> you still haven't picked up enough Forth to ask an intelligent question?

Mrhmm, yes, intelligently enabled like us well-cultured folks, yes (he
said while smoking his pipe, sipping on a rare cognac, sitting in his
imported leather chair in a well-threaded bathrobe).

> That's unbelievable.  And it's the reason why nobody takes you seriously.

Indubitably. Even Yahoo Serious is like, "Wha?"

P.S. Feel free to ignore this, just in a goofy mood, not meant to be
rude, just surprised at how sensitive and angry some people get over
the silliest of trifles.

[John Passaniti]

On Friday, June 8, 2012 5:16:24 AM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> John I just don't get you.

Yes, I am an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by mystery, fueled by Mountain Dew and Merzbow.

> I will never understand people.

People are easy. Apparently, Forth is hard.

> Its fun to learn.

It sure is. And that's why I spend a significant amount of time learning other programming languages. In addition to simply being fun, it opens the mind up to different ways of thinking. But *learning* is more than just sitting around and speculating about things, tossing out random ideas and hoping something sticks. You don't appear to be *learning* because you keep asking the same questions over and over. That's not *learning*.

> I think you would have more fun if you engagdged in
> philopshical and intellecual discussion instead of
> weird psychoanalysis of peoples motives, it makes
> you seem kooky

Sorry, but "engagdged [sic] in philopshical [sic] and intellecual [sic] discussion" is not what you are doing. Comparing a programming language against applications is like comparing raw ingredients against a restaurant.

I don't really know (or care) about your motives. I'm taking you completely at face value, based solely on the words you've written since you came into this newsgroup. Anyone who does that (or who looks at how you "engagdged [sic] in philopshical [sic] and intellecual [sic] discussion" in other newsgroups) will come to the same conclusion. You seem content to spend YEARS tossing out random "what if X was implemented in Y" messages, but never actually taking the time to learn about X or Y deeply enough to answer your own questions.

Here's my fearless prediction. Just like you've done in other newsgroups, you'll eventually get bored with everyone here telling you to learn the goddamn language. Then, some new bright and shiny thing will come by and you'll become fascinated with it, find a newsgroup or discussion forum, and repeat the same process. The question isn't what will that thing be, but how many YEARS you're going to waste repeating the cycle.

But maybe I'm wrong-- maybe you actually *are* learning. If so, prove it. Give two or three statements about Forth that aren't just generic programming aphorisms ("simplicity is good") or pseudo-Zen bullshit ("Forth is The Way"). Show us that in the YEARS you've been here that you've actually discovered something.

[quiet_lad]

forth appears to be harder to use for unix scripting and files than
tcl so far as I can see, not to mention use for multi node scripting
with ssh keys
forth seems to use far less resources than shell
forth may have some wordset that does clone stuff one can do in shell
or do same things, but I have not found them
forth doesn't make me as angery as my insolence does you
forth is amazingly easy to subroutine/factor

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/10/12 10:40 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
...

> forth appears to be harder to use for unix scripting and files than
> tcl so far as I can see, not to mention use for multi node scripting
> with ssh keys
> forth seems to use far less resources than shell
> forth may have some wordset that does clone stuff one can do in shell
> or do same things, but I have not found them

Unix scripting, file management, multi-node scripting, etc., are all
applications that you could write with Forth if you want to.

> forth doesn't make me as angery as my insolence does you
> forth is amazingly easy to subroutine/factor

Yes, that is true. We're still hoping you'll write some code.

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."
==================================================

[John Passaniti]

On Monday, June 11, 2012 4:40:47 AM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> forth appears to be harder to use for unix scripting
> and files than tcl so far as I can see, not to
> mention use for multi node scripting with ssh keys

Correct. Out-of-the-box, Forth is tedious and painful to use for common scripting tasks. But that shouldn't be surprising, because Forth wasn't designed for that. There is a reason why much of the talk in comp.lang.forth is about embedded systems and not scripting.

Forth is a general purpose language and so it's certainly possible to extend it to be used for scripting. But why bother when there are languages that were *designed* for scripting tasks and that do it very well?

> forth seems to use far less resources than shell

Yes, and a dinner at McDonald's costs less than dinner at a five-star restaurant. Does that mean both dinners are the same?

The question isn't if Forth uses less resources than shell (presumably bash). The question is if once you wrote the same program in Forth that you wrote in shell, if that program would use less resources. Maybe, maybe not. Once you add the features you expect in a scripting language, you would probably find the resource usage to be pretty close.

This is the mistake you keep making. Just because you write a program in Forth doesn't mean it will automatically be smaller/faster/better than in some other language. It isn't the language, but what you do with the language.

> forth may have some wordset that does clone stuff
> one can do in shell or do same things, but I have
> not found them

No, I'm not aware of any wordset that gives you the same power as bash or TCL or any other scripting language. You may be able to find pieces and parts that kinda-sorta-maybe work together, but I doubt it. And the reason is that it just isn't a priority for Forth programmers. There is more to the world of programming than high-level scripting.

> forth doesn't make me as angery as my insolence does you

That doesn't make sense, but again, you discount your role in what you perceive as anger. You get this reaction from not just me, but others. I'm just the one stupid enough to directly engage you. It's your behavior in this newsgroup-- constantly asking the same questions, never seeming to pay attention to the answers you're given, not taking the practical advice we've given you-- that is the reason why you're treated as you are.

> forth is amazingly easy to subroutine/factor

That's subjective and probably based on experience. I don't find it any easier or harder to factor in Forth than any other language. The only thing that Forth brings to the factoring party is a lower cost for subroutine invocation than most languages and the ability to factor at arbitrary locations (versus at statement or expression boundaries in other languages).

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <098bcd7a-39f2-4b3f...@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

quiet_lad <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>forth appears to be harder to use for unix scripting and files than
>tcl so far as I can see, not to mention use for multi node scripting

Look at the download script in tcl and the one in ciforth at

http://www.forth-ev.de/wiki/doku.php/en:projects:4e4th:start#source_upload_via_terminal

>with ssh keys
>forth seems to use far less resources than shell
>forth may have some wordset that does clone stuff one can do in shell
>or do same things, but I have not found them
>forth doesn't make me as angery as my insolence does you
>forth is amazingly easy to subroutine/factor

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 11, 6:16 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
> In article <098bcd7a-39f2-4b3f-87d4-a62f11f9f...@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

>
> quiet_lad  <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >forth appears to be harder to use for unix scripting and files than
> >tcl so far as I can see, not to mention use for multi node scripting
>
> Look at the download script in tcl and the one in ciforth at
>

> http://www.forth-ev.de/wiki/doku.php/en:projects:4e4th:start#source_u...

>
> >with ssh keys
> >forth seems to use far less resources than shell
> >forth may have some wordset that does clone stuff one can do in shell
> >or do same things, but I have not found them
> >forth doesn't make me as angery as my insolence does you
> >forth is amazingly easy to subroutine/factor
>
> Groetjes Albert
>
> --
> --
> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=nhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

economic growth is simple: constrain government spending, and don't
include it in gdp, since Keynes was simply a rich guy sent to undo the
truth economics was showing. Austrian School economics IS economics.
Keynesian stuff is simply politics, and all ivy league econ depts are
simply political sociology departments divorced from economics. Hong
kong grew with 15% flat tax on consumption and 15% flat tax on capial
gains. No other rules. USA did same. Copy that success.

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 11, 6:16 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
> In article <098bcd7a-39f2-4b3f-87d4-a62f11f9f...@e7g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
>

> quiet_lad  <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >forth appears to be harder to use for unix scripting and files than
> >tcl so far as I can see, not to mention use for multi node scripting
>
> Look at the download script in tcl and the one in ciforth at
>

> http://www.forth-ev.de/wiki/doku.php/en:projects:4e4th:start#source_u...

>
> >with ssh keys
> >forth seems to use far less resources than shell
> >forth may have some wordset that does clone stuff one can do in shell
> >or do same things, but I have not found them
> >forth doesn't make me as angery as my insolence does you
> >forth is amazingly easy to subroutine/factor
>
> Groetjes Albert
>
> --
> --
> Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
> Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
> albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=nhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

wow the forth one is smaller for sure