oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (01/04/91)
In article <3340:Jan322:21:4791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Gee. I wrote a Forth interpreter in 8088 assembler. Does that make Forth >a subset of 8088 assembler? Not at all, but by your amusing definition, I would say ``8088 assembler supports Forth'' along with arbitrary-precision arithmetic, composable functions, ad nauseam... oz --- I thank God for not making me a computer | internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca scientist. -- Dan Bernstein | uucp: utai/utzoo!yunexus!oz
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (01/05/91)
In article <19771@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes: > Not at all, but by your amusing definition, Do you even have a definition? > I would say ``8088 assembler > supports Forth'' It does not, by my definition of ``supports'' (``has''). See below. > along with arbitrary-precision arithmetic, composable > functions, ad nauseam... The definition of ``has'' that I posted only applies to features of language power. Example: C has mod-2^37 arithmetic. To make interesting statements with ``has'' you need to add more information: C on this machine has mod-2^16 arithmetic implemented with single instructions. This means that there exists a method, X, for each of the operations of mod-2^16 arithmetic. X can be implemented in C on this machine. And X turns into single instructions under C on this machine. (Of course, it's more useful for the reader if X is spelled out explicitly.) Question for the doubters: How do you propose to say ``C on this machine has mod-2^16 arithmetic implemented with single instructions'' without using a word equivalent to my ``has''? Forth is more than semantics. Forth is (at least) syntax plus semantics. Therefore the statement ``8088 assembler has Forth'' is nonsensical under my definition of ``has.'' It might have occurred to you before you posted that the word ``has'' is overloaded. ---Dan
bbc@rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (01/07/91)
>brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >>Gee. I wrote a Forth interpreter in 8088 assembler. Does that make Forth >>a subset of 8088 assembler? oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes: >Not at all, but by your amusing definition, I would say ``8088 assembler >supports Forth'' along with arbitrary-precision arithmetic, composable >functions, ad nauseam... Ozan, you made a small mistake. It is my opinion that Dan would have expressed this as "8088 assembler has Forth". When Dan uses the word "has", he seems to mean "can be used to implement" or "can implement". For example, when he said that C has composable functions, he must have meant that C can implement composable functions. Yes, I know this usage is unusual, and not standard computer science terminology. In the future, it would help if you and all of the other readers of comp.lang.misc could remember this simple abberation of Dan's vocabulary (as well as any other abberations you may have noticed), and perform the appropriate translation of Dan's postings. Thus, the compulsion to reply to his postings will be greatly reduced. Yes, I realize that it would be more sensible for Dan to change, and speak the same language as the rest of us. But I suspect that Dan is not capable of this. Or, you could just put his name in your kill file... -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (01/08/91)
Summary: Dan politely responds to Benjamin. Skip if you don't care. In article <BBC.91Jan6224438@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: > Ozan, you made a small mistake. It is my opinion that Dan would have > expressed this as "8088 assembler has Forth". As Dan explained last week, Dan would not have said any such thing, because the definition of ``has'' which he posted only applies to features of language power. > When Dan uses the word > "has", he seems to mean "can be used to implement" or "can implement". If Benjamin were able to read then he would notice that Dan's definition of ``has'' was spelled out quite precisely in a previous article. If Benjamin were able to think then he would realize that ``has,'' like most English words, is overloaded. If Benjamin had ever used overloaded operations he would know that ``C has composable functions'' does not have the same argument types as ``8088 assembler has Forth.'' > For example, when he said that C has composable functions, he must > have meant that C can implement composable functions. Yes, I know > this usage is unusual, and not standard computer science terminology. Dave Gudeman has claimed that C has first-class functions. Therefore Benjamin is accusing Dave of using nonstandard terminology. Dan advises Benjamin to keep digging his hole deeper. > In the future, it would help if you and all of the other readers of > comp.lang.misc could remember this simple abberation of Dan's > vocabulary (as well as any other abberations you may have noticed), Dan observes that it is Benjamin who has an aberration of vocabulary. > and perform the appropriate translation of Dan's postings. Thus, the > compulsion to reply to his postings will be greatly reduced. If Benjamin had the intelligence to practice what he preaches, he would not have followed up in this thread in the first place. > Yes, I > realize that it would be more sensible for Dan to change, and speak > the same language as the rest of us. But I suspect that Dan is not > capable of this. Yes, Benjamin doesn't even realize that he doesn't know the first thing about the language he speaks. Dan politely observes that *constructive* criticism would take the form of an alternate definition of ``has'' that everyone could agree to. Benjamin apparently isn't intelligent enough to be constructive and formulate a useful definition of ``has.'' Dan rudely observes that Benjamin is merely being insulting for the pleasure it brings to Benjamin's hypothalmus. > Or, you could just put his name in your kill file... Benjamin, believing that his godlike words are important enough for the rest of the net but not for himself, does not have the common sense to fuck off until he has something to contribute to the discussion. In ten years Benjamin's ulcer kills him. ---Dan
chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) (01/09/91)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Dan politely observes that *constructive* criticism would take the >form of an alternate definition of ``has'' that everyone could agree >to. Benjamin apparently isn't intelligent enough to be constructive >and formulate a useful definition of ``has.'' Dan rudely observes that >Benjamin is merely being insulting for the pleasure it brings to >Benjamin's hypothalmus. Ah, but what happened is that we redefined "constructive" and didn't tell you. By inciting you into repeated and lengthy net diatribes, we take up more and more of your time, which (judging from what you put on the net) is probably constructive in that it diverts you from other activities in the real world. There are AI projects underway to see if we can automate this process. Similarly, we redefined "pleasure"; everyone but you is involved in a contest to see just how long and vituperatively you will respond to each new jab. Sort of like betting on dog races. David Chase Sun Microsystems
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (01/09/91)
In article <5473@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes: > brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > > Dan politely observes that *constructive* criticism would take the > > form of an alternate definition of ``has'' that everyone could agree > > to. [ etc. ] > Ah, but what happened is that we redefined "constructive" and didn't > tell you. By inciting you into repeated and lengthy net diatribes, we > take up more and more of your time, As my text-processing utilities are gradually growing smarter, and as my selections of polite canned texts are growing larger, each message takes less and less time to respond to. Mailing off responses to every third question in comp.unix.questions, for example, takes me about ten seconds per message. I spend most of my time on programming and mathematics. > which (judging from what you put > on the net) Since I joined this net, I've posted eight packages to alt.sources, sent several to comp.sources.unix, coded a thousand lines for Kerberos v5, and contributed code to Berkeley, among other things. What have you done for the public good recently? > There are AI projects underway to see > if we can automate this process. Indeed. Your brain, for instance. ---Dan
chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) (01/10/91)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >What have you done for the public good recently? Contributed thousands of dollars to charity, published several papers and related software (some of this has helped another person complete his thesis, and has given rise to additional research/application at U of Washington, Berkeley, IBM, Sun, and even NYU). And, I took a small fraction of your time for you to write your reply. Your turn, Mother Teresa.