Re: New Linux 4word

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Albert van der Horst wrote:

> I argue that it is our job.
>
> So I conclude you are trying to be negative and argumentative.

This is not the case. If you say it is our job, there should be no 
complaint, only sugestions or code which improves the situation.

>> You want acceptence before you have done any reimplementation, before you
>> have done any revision, again this has nothing do with factoring. It has
>> everything to do with forcing your own subjective view onto the colorForth
>> community.
>
> Thank you for the compliment. Forcing a view -- views are always
> subjective -- onto a community is tantamount to trying to introduce an
> new idea.

Views may for the most part may be subjective, code should not be. We can 
look at code and say this is better factored, this is simpler, this is 
smaller, this is faster, ect. Some considerations in this case are -- 
since the machine code is identical -- is the code better factored, or 
is the code simpler than the existing code. If we base this on what has 
been shown for retroforth the answer is no in both cases. The only basis 
I see is subjective, it better to look at pentium like names than pentium 
machine code.

> Do I want acceptance? The only bloody thing I want is someone tell
> me which binary colorforth to work on, and I'll show you something.

The bootable colorForth images are mostly the same. Either Terry's or 
Chuck's image is fine.

> Have you seen my:
>    - version of colorforth assembler source where the
>      Huffman codes are generated by macro's instead of calculated
>      by hand
>    - version of the retroforth source where the 1234 2, thingies
>      are being replaced by assembler instructions?
>      program that does that replacement?
>    - have you bothered to look how someone gets an
>      Pentium assembler in 13 screens?

I am more impressed, and interested in how people are solving actual 
problems in colorForth rather than addressing non-problems of their own 
invention.

Mark