On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 10:21 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 2020, at 2:55 PM, dwight via cctalk <
> > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> > There are a few reasons most don't like Forth:
> >
> > 1. no type checking ( suppose to save dumb programmers )
> > 2. Often, no fl
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:55:34PM +, dwight via cctalk wrote:
> It is clearly not just a backwards LISP.
LISP is another language that I shied away from in the past, but finally
started exploring a while back.
> It is not Python either.
There's another point in its favor. I've tried to de
> On Mar 28, 2020, at 2:55 PM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
>
> There are a few reasons most don't like Forth:
>
> 1. no type checking ( suppose to save dumb programmers )
> 2. Often, no floating point. ( Math has to be well thought out but when
> done right in integer math it has few bugs
On 3/28/2020 7:06 PM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
RPN is just there to simplify the interpreter and compiler. It takes some
getting used to. Many claim that infixed is more natural but it is clumsy. One
has to come up with a bunch of rules to make work.
A + B * C
multiply B and C an then add A.
that
level.
Dwight
From: cctalk on behalf of Kevin Monceaux via
cctalk
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:27 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: DIBOL and RPG for RSTS
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:55:34PM +, dwight via cctalk wrote:
> There are a few reason
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:55:34PM +, dwight via cctalk wrote:
> There are a few reasons most don't like Forth:
I've looked at a few example Forth programs in the past. I usually cringed
and quickly moved on. I should have done a little more research back then.
This thread inspired me to ta
arly not just a
backwards LISP. It is not Python either.
Dwight
From: cctalk on behalf of Bill Gunshannon via
cctalk
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 6:39 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: DIBOL and RPG for RSTS
On 3/27/20 8:48
On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 20:42 -0400, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
> On 3/27/20 8:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> >
> > If you want to try something entirely different, dig up the FORTH
> runtime system that's part of the V10.1 "unsupported" kit. It's a
> neat language. Still in use, in fact.
> >
On 3/27/20 8:48 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 27, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
On 3/27/20 8:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 27, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
Does anyone have a .tap image of a DIBOL install tape for RSTS?
And while I am at
> On Mar 27, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 3/27/20 8:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a .tap image of a DIBOL install tape for RSTS?
>>>
>>> And while I am at it, was th
On 3/27/20 8:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 27, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
Does anyone have a .tap image of a DIBOL install tape for RSTS?
And while I am at it, was there ever RPG for RSTS?
I am so bored I have decided to really load up a SIMH system
and just li
> On Mar 27, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a .tap image of a DIBOL install tape for RSTS?
>
> And while I am at it, was there ever RPG for RSTS?
>
> I am so bored I have decided to really load up a SIMH system
> and just live in the past for a wh
Does anyone have a .tap image of a DIBOL install tape for RSTS?
And while I am at it, was there ever RPG for RSTS?
I am so bored I have decided to really load up a SIMH system
and just live in the past for a while. I have Fortran-IV,
Fortran-77, COBOL-81 and C installed now as well as BASIC and
13 matches
Mail list logo
