Re: [colorforth] Ideas

[Oninoshiko <oninoshiko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:

> On Sunday 29 February 2004 04:57 pm, Adam Marquis wrote:
> > I don't place any value on education, I know what I want and there's
> > people out there that want it too.
> > We don't need educated people, we need capable people.
> 
> This is dangerous thinking.  Education is extremely important.  Without 
> education, we wouldn't have anywhere near the understanding of the world 
> we live in today.  Attempting to solve a problem in an uneducated manner 
> will only create more problems.  History has shown this time and time 
> and time again, in political, sociological, economic, and technical 
> fields alike.  But, it requires education to understand this, so I guess 
> I'm just pissing into the wind.

i value education, but i dont place a high price on a peace of paper that 
says someone passed a few classes. i have talked to a great meny people 
who were highly educated who didnt have one, and a great meny people who 
had one but were not well educated

 > 
> > Learning takes time and energy. I dont want to waste those I dont want
> 
> Cry me a river.
> 
> > to preach, maybe only by example.
> > If its per project basis, why learn so much stuff I won't use anyway?
> 
> Two reasons.  First, repetition re-inforces concepts.  By learning things 
> on a case-by-case basis, you can form generalizations.  Those 
> generalizations are the kernals of true understanding.  Second, it shows 
> by example what *not* to do in many cases to achieve a given goal.
> 
> "Those who don't know how to write an OS are doomed to re-invent Unix, 
> only poorly."  This is a very true statement.  Of all the operating 
> systems in the world today, name me **one** "modern" operating system 
> that is significantly/fundamentally unique from Unix.  I can name only 
> two.  The rest are . . . Unix.

but most of the people who have written operating systems "know" how to 
write them (which it like UNIX (j/k))  

 " The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, 
	it is the illusion of knowledge. " 
		--Stephen Hawking

sometimes people get so wraped up in doing what they ahave learned they 
refuse to think outside of those limitations. this is the danger of you 
argument (although slightly off the point you where trying to make)

> 
> > Although I admire Jeff Fox (c.l.f) and
> > yourself (Samuel) for your quality verbose output, I don't aspire to
> > attain the same level,
> > as I don't master English enough and I'm not willing to master it
> > enough, along with
> > all those junk technologies (abstractions) just to act as the "perfect
> > parrot".
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 1) What does English have to do with anything at all?  You're making a 
> false connection between the English language and some subject matter 
> (doesn't matter which).  This is illogical.  But, then, it requires 
> education to recognize the logical fallacy, something you "don't aspire" 
> to, which brings me to, . . .
> 
> 2) If you don't aspire to learn, then you don't aspire at all!  Life is 
> all about learning.  Your whole ColorForth projects have been nothing 
> *but* learning experiences for you.  Why artificially restrict yourself 
> to JUST ColorForth?  As Mark Slicker said in another post, ColorForth 
> did **NOT** just happen overnight.  Its evolution started from the 
> *very* *beginnings* of Forth back in the 60s.  He had to learn some 
> aspects of other programming languages to be able to find and refine 
> certain ideas and concepts in Forth (e.g., ColorForth's and 
> MachineForth's preferred looping constructs were borne out of work by 
> Chuck to find out what was wrong with other language control structures 
> in Forth, such as DO/LOOP [Fortran], FOR/NEXT [Basic], 
> BEGIN/WHILE/REPEAT [C, Pascal, and other Algol-derived languages]).  He 
> had to learn how operating systems were structured internally to 
> decipher obtuse device driver code to reverse-engineer some things to 
> get ColorForth working (this is documented in a few of Chuck's videos on 
> Ultra Technology).  Chuck admits himself that Lisp had a *huge* 
> influence on Forth!  The list goes on.

Dr. Moore also admits to not being able to read C (indeed, why would he? 
he seem to believe that it contains extream amounts of complexity that are 
not required) it seems that he is leaning other things, and it seems that 
he deams C "unimportant".  we all make dicesions about what paths we 
follow, and what paths we leave untaken.

"Give me a problem with 1,000,000 lines of C. But don't expect me to read 
the C, I couldn't. And don't think I'll have to write 10,000 lines of 
Forth. Just give me the specs of the problem, and documentation of the 
interface." (http://www.colorforth.com/1percent.html)

> 
> I think people need to sit back and seriously re-evaluate the meaning of 
> their lives.  If you want a true revolution, not only in computer 
> science, but in business, politics, whatever, we need something 
> seriously lacking: *THOUGHT*.  Nobody THINKS anymore, and that's because 
> they don't have the tools for thought -- knowledge.  Knowledge *IS* 
> power, and that's why it's so dangerous, and that's the whole crux of my 
> argument.

most do not really want a revolution, but want to feel revolutionary.

> 
> I didn't want to respond to Mark's rebuttal of my points, because it 
> completely *missed* the point I was trying to make.  Total non sequitor.  
> And I didn't feel like engaging in a knock-out, drag-down argument about 
> it, which Mark and I appear to have a violent propensity to do over 
> issues.  But to hear someone who is not interested in learning, who is 
> not interested in aspiring to be better, . . . what is the meaning of 
> your life then?  It really causes me to question whether or not I should 
> belong to this group.  Is this the general consensus of those who are 
> present here?  If so, then I, like Jeff Fox, shall take my leave.  I 
> choose to evolve, not devolve.  Thank you.

just because meny of us choose to not respond to threads such as this, do 
not assume we side with your opposition. when i refute a few of your points, 
do not assume that i disagree with your conclusion. learning is important, but
remember that there are many paths to learning, and that no school of thought
has a monopoly on "rightness" when your reaction to a differing (even polar 
opposite) view is to leave you harm your own undersating even if only 
because there logic "shows by example what *not* to do" (to quote you)

also, it seems, you are taking the ideas of one or two people and applying 
them to everyone here, not only is that uneducated, but it is outright 
wrong.

> 
> --
> Samuel A. Falvo II
> 


Oninoshiko
"A Pax, a pax, a pax upon thee"


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com