Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Experimental Ideas
Message-ID: <1439.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 1 Aug 90 02:30:27 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 42

Category 3,  Topic 5
Message 37        Mon Jul 30, 1990
D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 22:59 EDT
 
Re: F.SERGEANT [Frank]

 >> And round-robin scheduling is a key.
 >   Robert, I assume you mean that the task accessing the block
 > doesn't  issue a PAUSE until it is safe to do so.

I guess I forgot to mention an indispensible tool that goes along with muti-
tasking in polyFORTH, the words GET and RELEASE.  For those who do not know
what they do, GET waits until a facility is available and then "gets" it, and
RELEASE lets others use the facility.  Without these words, the round-robin
multi-tasker becomes unworkable.  No putting PAUSEs into your code is not good
enough, because by definition, all I/O words force a PAUSE by default.  With
GET and RELEASE, you can lock a facility until you are done with it. Without
these tools, a round-robin multi-tasker is just about useless.

 > I didn't understand what you meant  about a mouse.  Did you mean
 > it was an efficiency compromise to use one  or not to use one?

Mice have been subjected to many studies, but it all comes down to personal
preference.  I think they are just another reason to make my fingures move off
their home positions on the keyboard.  For selecting "bottons" they are nice,
but I they are definitely inefficient in a word processor.  I run under
Microsoft's Windows almost all the time, but I rarely need to resort to
digging out the mouse to get something done.  Luckely, I'm on a PC.  If I was
using a Mac, I would have no choice.  I can see the inefficency very clearly
if I set my 386 laptop next to the Mac laptop and marvel about how much of my
desk is not taken up by that added peripheral.

 > Yes, the L&P line editor I disliked.  I had assumed it was
 > modeled on polyFORTH.

It may have been modeled on it, to be consistent with Starting Forth, but its
implementation left a lot to be desired.

DaR
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu