Re: [colorforth] Ideas

[Mark Slicker <maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

If my history is correct, none of the artifacts you had listed previously
had a signifigant influence on Chuck Moore's Forth.

> 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.

Knowledge is not a tool of thought, it is an artifact of thought.

> 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.

Is is not my intention to miss your point.

> 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?

I don't think he meant this. Remember this is in connection with your
recomendation that he learn all these varieties of industry/academic
artifacts before he begins Forth.

Speaking for myself, I am completely happy not knowing the details of
these artifacts you list, and forgetting whatever details I had
encountered. I don't see how any of this connected to being succesful with
Forth, it could impeed progress in Forth. You are free to make the case
these details are essential.

I think colorForth demphasizes the importance of language, mastery of
Forth is equivelant to mastery of computer programming.

>  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.

Don't get upset, it is perfectly fine to have differences. We don't to
need a consesus, and I really doubt there is much a consensus here except
for an appreciation of Chuck's ideas and work on Forth.

Mark

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