On 21 Aug, 17:58, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 21, 5:29 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > On 21 Aug, 06:42, Standish P <stnd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Admittedly, I am asking a question that would be thought > > > provoking to those who claim to be "experts" but these experts are > > > actually very stingy and mean business people, most certainly worse > > > than Bill Gates, only it did not occur to them his ideas and at the > > > right time. > > > What surprises may is that anyone bothered to answer, as your question > > was neither "thought provoking" nor in need of attention from an > > expert. Their generosity in the face of so much stupidity stands out > > as remarkable. > > I wouldn't call the OP "stupid," which is just mean-spirited.
Perhaps I'm just getting less forgiving the older I get, or the more I read here. The internet is a fine resource for research, and tools like google, archivx and so on are easy to access and take but a little effort to use. > That is > not much of a welcome wagon for somebody who might learn Forth > eventually and join our rather diminished ranks. I care neither to be included in your "diminished ranks", nor do I take much regard of popularity as you define it. Standish P doesn't want to join anything; he (like you) has an agenda for yet another club with a membership of one. > Lets go with "over- > educated" instead! I thought that his question was vague. It seemed > like the kind of question that students pose to their professor in > class to impress him with their thoughtfulness, so that he'll forget > that they never did get any of their homework-assignment programs to > actually work. It didn't work. He hasn't done any homework, neither do you, and it shows. > I yet maintain that writing programs is what > programming is all about. You remind me of those that would build a house without an architect, or fly without bothering to study the weather. > > I see a lot of pseudo-intellectual blather on comp.lang.forth. The > following is a pretty good example, in which Alex mixes big pseudo- > intellectual words such as "scintilla" "Scintilla" gets about 2,080,000 results on google; "blather" gets about 876,000 results. O Hugh, you pseudo-intellectual you! > with gutter language such as > "turd" About 5,910,000 results. It has a long history, even getting a mention in the Wyclif's 13th century bible. > in an ungrammatical mish-mash --- and defends the overuse of > the return stack for holding temporary data as being readable(?!): I did? Where? You're making stuff up. Again. > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/4... > > On Jul 23, 4:43 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > Whereas yours contained several tens, and nearly every one of them is > > wrong. Hugh, do you actually have any evidence -- even a scintilla -- > > that supports this log winded opinions-as-fact post? Take any of the > > statements you make, and demonstrate that you can justify it. > > Reminding us that you said it before doesn't count. > > > Start with this turd of an assertion and see if you can polish it; > > "Most of the time, when Forth code gets really ugly, it is because of > > an overuse of >R...R> --- that is a big reason why people use GCC > > rather than Forth." > Something you never did address, probably because the statement you made is just another symptom of Aguilar's Disease; presenting as fact an opinion based on personal experience, limited observation and no research. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
