00:00:00 --- log: started forth/02.08.15
00:06:04 --- quit: ChanServ (ACK! SIGSEGV!)
00:17:25 --- join: ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) joined #forth
00:17:25 --- mode: sendak.openprojects.net set +o ChanServ
00:17:25 --- mode: ChanServ set +l 83
00:17:36 --- part: kc5tja left #forth
00:20:54 --- quit: Fractal (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
01:26:50 --- join: Serg_penguin (~Z@nat-ch1.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth
01:45:37 --- quit: Serg_penguin ()
03:51:00 --- join: Serg_penguin (~Z@nat-ch1.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth
04:42:27 --- quit: Serg_penguin ()
05:57:33 --- join: cleverdra (julianf@0-2pool111-3.nas2.florence1.sc.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth
07:59:14 --- join: Serg_penguin (~Z@nat-ch1.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth
07:59:35 --- quit: Serg_penguin (Client Quit)
08:04:06 --- join: kc5tja (~kc5tja@ip68-8-206-226.sd.sd.cox.net) joined #forth
08:44:13 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust59.tnt3.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
08:48:47 <Robert> Hey.
08:48:58 <Robert> I440r: Floating-point support for IsForth? :)
08:49:31 --- join: proteusguy (~irc@24-197-147-197.charterga.net) joined #forth
08:51:58 <I440r> not yet
08:52:09 <I440r> have to wait till i get the assembler written
08:52:39 <I440r> isforth wont have any other floating point support, im not fucking arround with creating a dedicated FPU stack other than whats inside the processor
09:01:33 --- join: proteus (~irc@24-197-147-197.charterga.net) joined #forth
09:02:04 --- nick: kc5tja -> kc-shower
09:09:27 --- quit: proteusguy (Connection timed out)
09:09:51 --- quit: proteus ()
09:09:55 --- join: proteusguy (~irc@24-197-147-197.charterga.net) joined #forth
09:11:35 <Robert> I440r: Awww :-(
09:11:43 <I440r> :)
09:11:56 <Robert> Well, I guess it won't be that hard to add simple floating-point support.
09:12:17 <Robert> Need to find out how those numbers are stored, heh.
09:12:29 <I440r> i dont realy see a need for ANY floating point unless your some mad scientist trying to calculate some useless shit using 234523452345 computers in paralell
09:12:39 <Robert> Bah ;)
09:12:52 <Robert> Mandelbrot is simplier with floating-point :P
09:13:08 <Robert> And...
09:13:22 <Robert> Like 16 bits precision is NOT enough for fractals.
09:13:26 <I440r> robert bullshit. most fractals are easier to calculate in base 3
09:13:28 <I440r> well
09:13:30 <I440r> alot of them
09:13:33 <I440r> maybe not most
09:13:41 <Robert> Base 3?
09:13:44 <I440r> yes
09:13:48 <Robert> What do you mean
09:13:49 <Robert> =?
09:13:52 <Robert> Grr...
09:13:54 <Robert> '?'
09:13:55 <I440r> 3 base !
09:13:58 <I440r> lol
09:14:05 <Robert> Eh?
09:14:16 * Robert thinks...oO( o_O )
09:14:30 <proteusguy> Eh is relief picture - he's Canadian.
09:14:43 <Robert> How does a binary computer calculate in base 3? :-)
09:14:56 <Robert> And..hrm..how is it easier to use base 3?
09:15:11 <proteusguy> pitcher I meant.. geez
09:15:13 <I440r> how does it calculate in binary
09:15:15 <I440r> in hex
09:15:16 <I440r> in octal
09:15:23 <Robert> Well, it onlt c
09:15:30 <Robert> Well, it only calculates in binary, heh.
09:15:47 <Robert> (Or 32-bit units... depends on how you like to see it ;)
09:16:12 <Robert> Hrm.
09:16:23 <Robert> So, what should I use for my Mandelbrot?
09:16:51 <I440r> i dunno
09:16:58 <I440r> i dont do math :P
09:16:59 <Robert> BAH.
09:17:02 <Robert> Heh.
09:17:04 <I440r> specially not floating point :)
09:17:10 <I440r> but i AM going to do a 3d gfx engine
09:17:12 <Robert> Well, hrm.
09:17:17 <Robert> Oh, yeah?
09:17:22 <I440r> i dont need to understand the algorithms to implement thm
09:17:43 <Robert> Are you doing it with only 32-bit integers?
09:18:00 <Robert> Oh, well...
09:18:14 <Robert> Looks like I'll have to (try to) add it myself.
09:18:24 * Robert has to figure out how these numbers are stored.
09:18:37 <I440r> 32 bit integers are FINE for a gfx engine
09:18:51 <onetom> I440r: i dont believe u can do anything serious/useful wo understanding math...
09:18:51 <I440r> unless your using 1234897562134978562349 by 2034865230498652389045 display wity 23890456293846592387465289346584923 colours
09:19:25 <onetom> I440r: imean in the area of 3d ofcoz
09:21:28 <onetom> tho, there r lotsa tested and optimized code 2 copy from... and there r equations prescribed, but still...
09:24:00 --- join: ictx (ictx@sdn-ar-003flflauP195.dialsprint.net) joined #forth
09:24:09 <I440r> onetom ill take descriptions of the algorithms, example code and RECODE it 
09:24:24 <I440r> ive alot of friends who are expert 3d ppl and their code SUCKS heh
09:24:43 <I440r> but any gfx engine is a future thing, i will definatly require that assembler
09:24:52 <I440r> im not thinking about anything right now except that
09:36:09 --- nick: kc-shower -> kc5tja
09:52:21 --- join: proteus (~irc@24-197-147-197.charterga.net) joined #forth
09:54:31 <Robert> :)
09:54:42 <Robert> How far have you got on the assembler?
09:54:47 <kc5tja> I'm going to work now.
09:54:54 <Robert> Okay, see you.
09:55:53 --- quit: kc5tja ("THX QSO ES 73 DE KC5TJA/6 CL ES QRT AR SK")
10:09:22 --- quit: proteusguy (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
10:11:06 <I440r> not far yet
10:11:10 <I440r> bit im making slow progress
10:11:19 <Robert> :)
10:11:27 <I440r> when i can be bothered to work on it - which is where im going now
10:11:33 * Robert is looking forward to see the assembler.
10:11:44 <I440r> im sorting out the opcode tables into a useable order rite now
10:11:46 <I440r> bbl
10:11:48 --- quit: I440r ()
10:13:46 --- quit: cleverdra ("Leaving")
10:22:48 --- part: ictx left #forth
10:46:03 --- join: kc5tja (~kc5tja@user-24-214-86-42.knology.net) joined #forth
11:09:01 --- quit: proteus (Connection timed out)
12:13:13 --- nick: kc5tja -> kc-food
12:50:53 --- join: proteusguy (~irc@24-197-147-197.charterga.net) joined #forth
12:58:54 --- nick: kc-food -> kc5tja
13:29:32 --- join: futhin (thin@h24-64-175-61.cg.shawcable.net) joined #forth
13:29:44 <Robert> Hej futhin.
13:29:51 <futhin> rice and peanut butter, rice and peanut butter..  sing and dance
13:29:52 <futhin> come on!
13:29:55 <futhin> sing and dance
13:29:58 <futhin> lol
13:30:31 <futhin> riiiiiiccee and peeeanut buttteeeeeer
13:30:34 <Robert> Hum?
13:30:41 <Robert> Are you...mentally ill?
13:30:46 <futhin> naturally
13:31:10 <futhin> do you know anybody on irc who isn't mentally ill?
13:31:50 <futhin> irc was developed by psychiatrists as cheaper alternative to asylums
13:32:01 <Robert> Yes.
13:32:06 <futhin> there are hidden drug injections and subliminal messages!
13:32:17 --- part: kc5tja left #forth
13:32:27 <futhin> heh
13:32:32 <futhin> :(
13:52:03 <futhin> well i'm damn bored or something
13:52:07 <futhin> i should kick some ass
14:04:52 --- join: skylan (~sjh@207.164.213.45) joined #forth
14:09:54 --- quit: proteusguy (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
14:16:57 --- join: tcn (tcn@tc3-login13.megatrondata.com) joined #forth
14:17:08 <Robert> Hi tcn :)
14:17:13 <Robert> Gave up on that assembler?
14:20:58 <tcn> not PERMANENTLY
14:21:27 <Robert> Oh, that's the impression I got from I440r.
14:22:21 <tcn> i won't write it in forth, that's for sure
14:22:27 <Robert> Hehe.
14:23:59 <futhin> tcn:  fallen out of love with forth?
14:24:43 <tcn> i mean, you can apply some of forth's principles to C, and use a notation that's been perfected over 500 years
14:25:00 <tcn> and it doesn't have to be a bloated pig like GCC
14:29:25 <tcn> i'm getting ready to work on my OS again
14:42:07 <onetom> wowowow! tcn!
14:42:20 <tcn> hey, how are ya?
14:42:21 <onetom> im so happy 2 hear that
14:42:33 <onetom> perfectly, thx
14:43:44 <onetom> i also feel strong urge 2 join the os devel "market/business"
14:44:23 <onetom> im actively learning enth/flux source
14:44:44 <onetom> and trying 2 get it work under some emulation environment
14:45:04 <onetom> (plex86/bochs/vmware)
14:45:08 <futhin> onetom:  well then discuss with me about forthchip desktop computers :P
14:45:21 <futhin> bbl
14:45:25 <onetom> so i can play w graphics under them
14:45:37 <onetom> futhin: :) k
14:46:00 <tcn> i might be interested in hardware if this E-ink display pans out
14:46:29 <onetom> while i also have access 2 the internet and i can also transfer image data via virtual disk files
14:46:33 <tcn> i *think* i've seen it in cheap-ass ad displays in stores
14:47:37 <onetom> on the other hand i also have 2 deal w special hw
14:47:45 <tcn> huh?
14:48:07 <tcn> how many computers have you got?
14:48:17 <onetom> i still have 2 finish extending the PIC 4th cross compiler
14:48:19 <onetom> lotsa
14:48:43 <onetom> @home our family has about 7 computers (PCs)
14:49:39 <onetom> @the univ - where i spend my civil service time - 1 PII-600 & 1 PIII-800
14:50:01 <onetom> and about 5 386/486/PI
14:50:23 <onetom> im plan 2 operate those as X terminals
14:51:01 <onetom> but not all of them, so there remain some of them 4 4th devel purpose :)
14:51:21 <tcn> oh, so what do you need bochs for?
14:52:11 <onetom> i wanna use 1 keyboard 1 mouse & 1 display
14:52:30 <onetom> 2 maintain all the systems im working on
14:53:01 <onetom> beside that emulation sw gives me a convenient way of
14:53:22 <tcn> hey, i saw some really small TCP/IP code
14:53:29 <onetom> transfering data 2 those experimental systems w simple floppy drivers :)
14:54:07 <onetom> ive also seen but not for the most common ne2000 & rtl8139/8029 cards
14:54:17 <onetom> but for intel/3com/dec 1s
14:54:45 <tcn> i might use a serial loader for my next OS
14:54:46 <onetom> i dont really have such stuff
14:54:59 <onetom> hmmm.... sounds good
14:55:15 <onetom> but is that faster than floppy?
14:55:30 <onetom> 115kbit/s?
14:55:38 <tcn> it's less work
14:56:07 <onetom> umean than booting from fdd?
14:56:27 <tcn> than physically moving the disk back & forth between machines
14:56:37 <onetom> hmm, thats true
14:57:13 --- join: proteusguy (~irc@24-197-147-197.charterga.net) joined #forth
14:57:23 <onetom> but can avoid the need for 2 monitors
14:57:44 <onetom> unless u dont need graphics
14:57:50 <tcn> that's how most embedded software is run..
14:58:03 <tcn> use the serial port to load it, then as a terminal..
14:58:04 <onetom> true again :)
14:58:41 <onetom> but its still more convenient 2 devel in a virtual machine, isnt it?
14:59:08 <tcn> i dunno.. i hate bochs
14:59:12 <tcn> and i don't use X
14:59:31 <onetom> coz u have access 2 the net and all the development prgs
14:59:44 <onetom> u browse the net w links?
15:00:42 <tcn> i just use some windows box
15:00:51 <tcn> they're everywhere
15:01:08 <onetom> :D u dont u X but windows. that sounds funny
15:01:36 <tcn> win9x is better than X
15:01:49 <onetom> i also dont use X too much but i still start it for the sake of mozilla
15:01:58 <onetom> and watching movie
15:02:19 <tcn> i'd use links/lynx if i logged on from my computer
15:02:36 <onetom> internet explorer is better than any other browser
15:02:48 <tcn> but you know what? i think the web is a fiasco
15:02:49 <onetom> however opera is pretty cool
15:03:06 <onetom> but i wont say w9x is better than X
15:03:06 <tcn> the www is FUBAR :)
15:03:22 <onetom> i agree (2 some extent)
15:04:02 <onetom> i mainly hate that every 1 wanna use it 4 remote application serving
15:04:09 <onetom> it  wasnt designed 4 that
15:04:47 <onetom> what do u think about wikis?
15:04:52 <tcn> there used to be a few big FTP archives like sunsite, wuarchive, simtel, x2ftp.. most of those are gone (or at least fubar), and files are scattered all over the world on web sites that keep disappearing
15:05:24 <tcn> i like the basic idea of wiki
15:06:08 <onetom> hey, dont forget that not only diffusion works. concentration works too.
15:06:19 <onetom> look @ sourceforge/savannah
15:06:33 <onetom> freshmeat
15:06:34 <tcn> yeah, but sourceforge sucks
15:06:38 <onetom> iknow
15:06:47 <tcn> is savannah sourceforge?
15:06:52 <onetom> thats why savannah has arosen
15:07:05 <onetom> its LIKE sf but its free & moderated
15:07:26 <tcn> what's it's address?
15:07:39 <onetom> savannah.org?
15:07:43 <tcn> nope
15:07:53 <tcn> that's Savannah, GA
15:08:10 <onetom> sec
15:08:31 <tcn> savannah.gnu.org
15:08:32 <onetom> videobios 4 bochs is hosted there
15:08:43 <onetom> k then
15:09:24 <onetom> and dont forget the web directories too! (like google,yahoo)
15:09:56 <onetom> but again: what do u think about WIKIs
15:09:56 <tcn> it would be completely useless without them :)
15:09:56 <onetom> ?
15:10:07 <tcn> i like wiki
15:10:33 <onetom> nah, c? not all the web is fubar ;)
15:10:40 <onetom> sure, i know it sux
15:10:41 <tcn> i use this one a little.. http://www2.tunes.org/cgi-bin/TunesWiki?ForthOS
15:11:02 <onetom> and even a wiki could also ezly b implemented over
15:11:15 <tcn> all this open source development has changed my outlook though..
15:11:17 <onetom> other, smarter protocols. i agree with that
15:11:30 <onetom> outlook?
15:11:39 <onetom> could u explain it a bit more?
15:11:47 <tcn> yeah:
15:11:56 <onetom> (uknow, im not a native speaker of english)
15:12:02 * tcn nods
15:13:00 <onetom> (i know about ur wiki, anyway, but didnt have enough time 2 "process" it yet)
15:13:00 <tcn> you don't seem any more confused than a native though.. english is, well, it's like the web. it's fubar.
15:13:13 <tcn> ok, my outlook..
15:13:14 <onetom> :DDD
15:13:32 <tcn> PEOPLE SHOULDN'T RELEASE HALF-ASS SOFTWARE
15:13:57 <tcn> (that means retro, too :)
15:14:03 <onetom> hmmm...
15:14:04 <onetom> loll
15:14:10 --- join: jamc (~dne@as3-6-8.asp.s.bonet.se) joined #forth
15:14:19 <onetom> so, why not?
15:14:52 <tcn> well, there's all this open-source software in early stages of development, already released
15:15:03 <onetom> ESRs famous catherdal-bazaar writing seems convincing, tho..
15:15:38 <tcn> you have 10 or 20 people in on it, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.. it's confusion
15:15:55 <onetom> and it really seems 2 work reasonably well 4 linux, perl, emacs @ the like
15:16:15 <onetom> (tho emacs is probably not the best example)
15:16:57 <tcn> i disagree
15:16:57 <onetom> confusion? i dont think so... its just not easily overviewable by 1 person
15:17:03 <onetom> by any person
15:17:17 <onetom> but it works, just like evolution
15:17:19 <tcn> how can you write good software if no one person understands it?
15:17:32 <onetom> u can really follow the process of evolution
15:17:49 <tcn> linux and perl were good when linus torvalds and larry wall did most of the work!
15:17:53 <onetom> but it still works and can percept its effect in its results...
15:18:22 <tcn> i'm using a 3 year old version of linux and i will NEVER upgrade.. i might downgrade
15:18:36 <onetom> how? well there r levels of understanding exist, ithink
15:18:58 <tcn> hm
15:19:13 <jamc> hmm... calling perl "good"... :)
15:19:22 <onetom> what distro, if im not <hu>indiscrete</hu>
15:19:35 <onetom> not the best, but usable ;)
15:19:36 <tcn> software needs a better business model.. maybe something more traditional, like machinery as opposed to literature
15:19:46 <onetom> its like folk instruments
15:19:51 <tcn> jamc: well, better than it is now :)
15:19:52 <onetom> u need time 2 master them
15:20:11 <onetom> they could b more easily usable, but they rnt
15:20:41 <onetom> still lotsa ppl use them & love 2 play them & listen 2 them
15:20:54 <jamc> tcn: I disagree. there was nothing good about perl4
15:21:05 <tcn> onetom: you mean like the fiddle?
15:21:33 <onetom> tho, i wouldnt like 2 see too much so humanoid langs like perl ;)
15:21:47 <onetom> tcn: no, like flute
15:22:07 <onetom> tcn: eg, irish flute w 6 holes, no keys
15:22:08 <tcn> oh yeah, that's a really simple instrument to make
15:22:40 <tcn> i find the fiddle easier to play.. except i've played it longer :)
15:22:49 <onetom> tcn: it much more easier 2 master a metal flute than a folk 1
15:23:02 <onetom> easier than what?
15:23:11 <tcn> irish flute
15:23:40 <onetom> oh :D sounds interesting
15:24:14 <onetom> and surprising :)
15:24:35 <tcn> actually i'm practicing that to get ready for the bagpipes
15:24:44 <onetom> all its magic lies in its blowing technique
15:24:52 <onetom> wow :)))
15:25:04 <tcn> (irish flute: $10  bagpipes: $500+)
15:25:28 <onetom> tin-whistles probably r more suitable practice medium for such a transition
15:25:43 <onetom> imean, transition from fiddle 2 bagpipe
15:25:56 <tcn> the middle step is a practice chanter, ie, bagpipe without the bag & drones :)
15:26:07 <onetom> what type of bagpipes r u interested in?
15:26:16 <onetom> only irish/scottish 1s?
15:26:17 <tcn> highland
15:26:25 <tcn> the big pipes :)
15:26:37 <onetom> eh, ibet they r so terrible expensive
15:26:53 <tcn> nothing like fiddles :)
15:26:54 <onetom> like the ullean :)
15:27:10 <tcn> now there's a complicated instrument :)
15:27:11 <onetom> s/~/terribly/
15:27:56 <tcn> i just learned about the Swedish bagpipe
15:28:46 <onetom> have u heard hungarian/bulgarian/moldvanian 1s?
15:28:57 <tcn> nope :)  i guess everyone has 'em
15:29:30 <onetom> :)) not really, not every1, but probably they r cheaper and a bit simpler
15:29:48 <onetom> but still pretty loud & tricky and
15:30:02 <onetom> inprecise ;)
15:30:35 <tcn> heh
15:30:59 <onetom> read imprecise as false -- if u use this expression
15:31:30 <tcn> you mean, out of tune?
15:31:48 <onetom> yup
15:31:55 <tcn> if two of them play together it'll sound horrible :)
15:31:56 <onetom> how do u say that?
15:32:25 <onetom> yeah thats a hit on the ears
15:32:31 <tcn> heh
15:33:17 <tcn> um, i guess we'd say they have lousy intonation
15:33:45 <onetom> i think u can afford such 1 4 ~$150
15:34:01 <tcn> hmm
15:34:15 <onetom> yeah, 2 b politicly correct :)
15:34:20 <tcn> are they double-reed?
15:34:27 <onetom> some r, sure
15:34:40 <tcn> i guess the Swedish ones are single-reed
15:34:44 <onetom> and their bag is mad of goat
15:34:50 <onetom> made
15:34:52 <tcn> heh
15:35:13 <onetom> so imagine those bag as lil goat sized :)
15:35:37 <onetom> and 1 leg is 4 the input and 1 4 the output ;)
15:36:06 <onetom> the other 2 r sewed close
15:36:22 <tcn> oh, you mean "kid sized"
15:36:35 <onetom> lil=little
15:36:37 <onetom> yup
15:36:47 <tcn> kid = baby goat :)
15:36:54 <onetom> :))
15:36:59 <tcn> also means "human child"
15:37:31 <onetom> k, ive learnt it! :)
15:37:54 <onetom> if u r really interested in pipes
15:38:11 <onetom> i could look 4 prices if u like
15:38:38 <onetom> i live close 2 the serbian & romanian border
15:38:50 <tcn> maybe if i'm in the area sometime..
15:38:54 <onetom> so the folk instrument makers hangin around
15:39:06 <tcn> oh, so you're right in transylvania?
15:39:19 <onetom> usually have fellows and relatives on the other side of the border
15:39:36 <onetom> no, im in hungary
15:40:01 <onetom> and u dont have 2 travel here just 4 a pipe
15:40:07 <tcn> oh.. i got the impression that hungary & romania blended together there
15:40:31 <tcn> anyways, lots of people from here travel there
15:40:48 <onetom> what the planes and transport companies r 4?
15:40:50 <tcn> musicians, dancers, church people, etc..
15:41:06 <onetom> nooooo!! noway :)))
15:41:14 <onetom> we r not blended, hopefully
15:41:16 <tcn> hehe
15:41:28 <onetom> tho, there r a lot of hungarians
15:41:40 <tcn> they'll try to turn you into unitarians :)
15:41:50 <onetom> from ancient hungarian "tribes" in transylvania
15:42:29 <onetom> they would b happy if they could belong 2 hungary
15:42:40 * tcn nods
15:42:58 <onetom> but they would cause a great economical problem
15:43:14 <onetom> they r pretty poor
15:43:57 <tcn> yeah. from the pictures people have brought back, it looks like 200 years ago here
15:44:00 <onetom> no roads, no water in tubes, no electricity & the like
15:44:08 <tcn> exactly :)
15:44:09 <onetom> exactly :)
15:44:11 <onetom> lolll
15:44:23 <tcn> maybe i should move there :)
15:44:34 <onetom> u would like it anyway
15:44:44 <tcn> yeah.. i'll have to go sometime
15:44:56 <onetom> most of my friends travel there as a summer holiday 4 weeks
15:45:24 <onetom> my mother also comes from a small village
15:45:28 <tcn> i'd have to quit my job for 4 weeks off :)
15:45:44 <onetom> and her mother still pulls the water from a well
15:46:19 <tcn> she's still alive.. wow :)
15:46:20 <onetom> and the toilet is located @ the and of the site by the back-garden
15:46:31 <onetom> ~40meters from the house
15:46:43 <onetom> ooh, im just 25yrs old
15:46:59 <onetom> and me parents were 20 when i was born
15:47:11 <onetom> just like me fathers mother
15:47:35 <onetom> so my greatmother still lives too
15:47:57 <tcn> oh, heh, sounds like me. i'm 24.. great grandma died a few years ago..
15:47:58 <onetom> she was born in 1909 or 1910? hmm.. sg like that
15:48:01 <tcn> she was from Italy
15:48:07 <onetom> wow
15:48:13 <tcn> born in 1900
15:48:17 <onetom> but u live in the us
15:48:21 <onetom> wowowow!!
15:48:41 <onetom> and did she tell a lot about wars?
15:48:56 <tcn> not really.. mostly the depression
15:49:23 <onetom> she should have experienced the other side of experimental-politics
15:49:34 <onetom> that is fascism
15:49:38 <tcn> they did pretty good then.. had a big garden, and great grandpa worked in a train factory
15:50:13 <tcn> oh, they missed fascism.. moved here maybe 1910
15:50:20 <onetom> my greatpa has died when i was 3 so i can remember him
15:50:29 <onetom> ive just seen him on photos
15:50:37 <tcn> same here
15:50:47 <tcn> died the year i was born, i think
15:50:55 <onetom> i was totally nude and giving him a pear :)
15:51:22 <onetom> he has lost his legs in the 1st ww iirc
15:52:11 <tcn> ow.. and he lived another 60 years with no legs..
15:52:41 <tcn> well.. i'd rather lose my legs than some other things :)
15:53:08 <onetom> mmm
15:53:22 <onetom> i like me hands better i think
15:53:40 <tcn> yeah
15:53:51 <onetom> how could i play the whistle wo fingers! :)
15:54:03 <onetom> and how could i type!! :)
15:54:25 <onetom> w my cock, huh! ;D
15:54:33 <tcn> hahah
15:54:34 <onetom> sorry...
15:55:08 <onetom> i speak like that in hungarian
15:55:18 <tcn> yeah, and i do in english
15:55:31 <onetom> thats right, then ;)
15:55:49 <tcn> heh. you know that 'ball' in gaelic means 3 things: spot, ball (dance), and cock!
15:56:09 <onetom> dance?
15:56:13 <onetom> what dance?
15:56:26 <tcn> think "ballroom"
15:56:42 <onetom> anyway, it also means testicles in hungarian
15:56:50 <tcn> dance does?
15:57:02 <tcn> or balls?
15:57:31 <onetom> ah, that ball! the happening. c
15:57:35 <onetom> no, balls
15:57:52 <tcn> i guess that's an old word
15:57:58 <onetom> its an analogy, uknow :)
15:57:58 <tcn> ball = round thing :)
15:58:06 <onetom> thats it!
15:58:15 <onetom> eye balls, eg
15:58:59 <tcn> yeah
15:59:09 <onetom> its surprising when u find similar analogies in different languages
15:59:17 <tcn> yeah, even idioms
15:59:25 <onetom> or idioms, yes
15:59:35 <onetom> probably i thought of them :)
15:59:40 <tcn> like "air ball" in gaelic means "on the spot" in english.. a literal translation
15:59:56 <onetom> i dont have example @ the moment
16:00:03 <onetom> just an anti example :)
16:00:06 <onetom> like dog slow
16:00:19 <onetom> its snail slow in hungarian
16:00:36 <onetom> what is on the spot?
16:00:46 <tcn> "on the spot" = immediately
16:00:56 <tcn> an idiom
16:00:57 <onetom> ah, that on the spot.
16:01:26 <onetom> its a bit hard 2 recognize wo a context 4 me
16:01:45 <onetom> btw, do i really write far 2 cryptic?
16:01:55 <onetom> most ppl here complains about it
16:01:57 <tcn> nope
16:02:28 <onetom> (@least during the 1st some occasions :pp)
16:02:45 <tcn> i440r uses 2=too, 4=for, etc..
16:03:04 <onetom> they dont want 2 believe they could decode it easily after just a lil bit of practice
16:03:55 --- quit: skylan (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
16:03:59 <tcn> what do they say, "i can't understand you, you hungarian"?
16:04:00 <onetom> <flame>but if they r so lazy, probably i dont wanna talk 2 him</flame> :O
16:04:01 --- join: skylan (sjh@Sprint3098.tbaytel.net) joined #forth
16:04:07 <onetom> lololl
16:04:14 <tcn> haha
16:04:42 <onetom> no, they simply say: hey,ya script kiddie, i hate ur abbrevs
16:05:01 <tcn> heh
16:05:06 <onetom> ppl wont listen 2 u if u give them puzzels instead of answers
16:05:11 <onetom> and things like that
16:06:01 <onetom> but lets skip this topic & get back 2 4th
16:06:16 <onetom> what do u think?
16:07:11 <tcn> umm.. maybe it's good for hardware, although 1 stack oughtta be enough
16:07:26 <onetom> huh? 1stack?
16:07:40 <onetom> no return or no data?
16:07:49 <tcn> no data
16:08:01 <tcn> what the hell..  works for C
16:08:20 <onetom> (yummm: http://www.hotpipes.com/main.html)
16:08:44 <onetom> hehe :) sure, it worx, but how?
16:09:00 <tcn> cool!
16:09:01 <onetom> there r a lot of unnecessary data movment
16:09:02 --- quit: proteusguy (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
16:09:19 <tcn> but no swap, rot, dup, etc. :)
16:09:28 <onetom> probably works cool, but slow and complex
16:09:37 <onetom> sure
16:09:52 <tcn> how about just 1 stack pointer, 1 instruction pointer, and 2 working regs?
16:10:00 <onetom> r ya testing me, or u did fall of lovin 4th? ;)
16:10:34 <onetom> well... its ez. lets try 2 construct such a machine
16:10:46 <onetom> and implement some test programs on top of it
16:10:46 <tcn> i'm saying forth is no faster than C, but it needs 2 stacks
16:10:49 <onetom> what about?
16:11:01 <tcn> ok, i'll write an emulator
16:11:25 <tcn> what i'd like to do is minimize the instruction set
16:11:35 <onetom> no, no need 4 an emulator
16:12:01 <onetom> just show me plans
16:12:07 <onetom> and some example machine code
16:12:13 <onetom> "machine code"...
16:12:18 <tcn> yeah
16:12:25 <onetom> well, uknow what i mean
16:12:31 <tcn> you mean instruction format
16:12:50 <onetom> no, short example applications
16:12:52 <onetom> :)
16:12:59 <tcn> in asm
16:13:10 <onetom> or whatever u name it...
16:13:34 <tcn> yeah, and instructions would be like "LDA address, LDB, STA, STB"..
16:13:34 <onetom> in the native lang of such a processor
16:14:05 * onetom visits the toilet. brb
16:14:18 <tcn> maybe there should be a counter register too
16:15:26 <onetom> so u dont have exact plans yet, just visions
16:15:32 <onetom> do u have some time?
16:15:41 <onetom> aint u tired?
16:15:56 <tcn> well, i gotta eat soon
16:16:02 <onetom> r ya in the mood of experimenting?
16:16:06 <onetom> :( thats sad
16:16:11 <onetom> imean
16:16:23 <tcn> tell ya what, i'll draw it up over dinner
16:16:29 <onetom> what r u gonna do after eating?
16:16:32 <tcn> while i'm waiting for it to cook
16:16:45 --- join: Fractal (imowlhgi@h24-77-171-228.ok.shawcable.net) joined #forth
16:16:51 <tcn> who knows
16:16:59 <onetom> well, i though we can play
16:17:10 <onetom> the task of cpus
16:17:19 <onetom> do some emulation by hand
16:17:36 <onetom> 2 compare the cost of a short example code
16:17:54 <onetom> on 2 kinds of processors
16:17:56 <tcn> yeah. i'll go draw it up and show you. meanwhile, you design a 2-stack machine to compete with mine :)
16:18:18 <onetom> what does draw up? sketch?
16:18:36 <tcn> actually i designed a 2-stack processor made with about 20 TTL chips
16:18:53 <onetom> :) i wont design, the usual 4th vm will do 4 the test
16:18:56 <tcn> sketch, yeah
16:19:23 <onetom> hmm... TTL chips? like?
16:19:29 <tcn> i'll just tell you what i com up with. don't have a scanner.
16:19:38 <tcn> 74LSxx
16:19:39 <onetom> 1 CPLD ....
16:19:41 <onetom> ;)
16:20:04 <onetom> not even a digital camera?
16:20:28 <tcn> AND gate, XOR gate, 3-to-8 decoder, 8-bit latch, shift register, adder..
16:20:36 <tcn> nope :(
16:20:41 <onetom> c. c.
16:20:49 <tcn> i'd hardly ever use it
16:21:00 <onetom> well, good appetite then
16:21:04 <onetom> but i thought
16:21:11 <tcn> heh.. i have all the parts for this cpu
16:21:30 <onetom> we should compare the classic 4th w the classic x86
16:21:44 <onetom> coz we both know both :)
16:21:51 <tcn> yeah
16:22:13 <onetom> so i could show u the cost difference
16:22:21 <onetom> i also have a small example
16:22:25 <tcn> x86 isn't a bad forth machine
16:23:09 <tcn> hmm.. if you have SRAM running at CPU speed, you don't need lots of registers..
16:23:17 <jamc> ah well.. gimme ARM any day..
16:23:32 <tcn> less registers = faster context switch..
16:23:45 <tcn> less procedure overhead..
16:24:06 <onetom> textout(copy("asdqwe",2,3),x,abs(y[i]))
16:24:26 <tcn> a fetch from the return stack (ie, locals/parameters in C) would be fast
16:24:38 <onetom> sure
16:25:03 <tcn> what's copy() return? "sdq"?
16:25:19 <onetom> but still the stackframe nature of C/Pascal inherently requires a lot more data movment than 4th
16:25:28 <onetom> sure
16:25:49 <onetom> or lets make it return tcn? ;)
16:25:58 <onetom> or lets make it return "tcn"? ;)
16:26:52 <tcn> it might require a little copying if you have deeply nested procedures and don't use globals.. but there's no stack shuffling
16:27:14 <onetom> could any1 help 2 produce some x86 asm representation of the above example?
16:27:44 <tcn> but my 1-stack machine should have an extra address register to use for recursive algorithms
16:27:49 * jamc stays the hell away from x86 asm :)
16:27:53 <tcn> i'll do it
16:27:56 <onetom> if u write the code well, it doesnt need so much stack shuffling
16:28:16 <onetom> actually u can minimize data movment by stack shuffling
16:28:23 <tcn> mov eax, [i]
16:28:44 <tcn> mov eax, [eax*4 + y]
16:28:49 <tcn> push eax
16:28:52 <tcn> push [x]
16:29:05 <onetom> tho it requires that other - not so close 2 math - representation of the things 2 do
16:29:12 <onetom> oops, sorry
16:29:35 <tcn> push 3
16:29:35 <tcn> push 2
16:29:43 <tcn> push address of "asdqwe"
16:29:47 <tcn> call copy
16:29:49 <tcn> call textout
16:30:06 <tcn> add esp, 12
16:30:32 <tcn> (and another ADD ESP,12 after CALL COPY)
16:30:47 <tcn> that's what C would give you
16:31:03 <onetom> where is call abs?
16:31:10 <tcn> oops :)
16:31:39 <tcn> insert after the first PUSH EAX :)
16:31:41 <jamc> tcn: wouldn't most compilers pass at least one args in a register?
16:32:06 <jamc> most C compilers, that is
16:32:36 <onetom> hey, some1! lets help compile it!
16:32:44 <tcn> jamc: in optimizing mode.. don't know if it's worth the complexity it creates..
16:33:03 <tcn> jamc: Small C certainly doesn't :)
16:33:23 <onetom> how does gcc generate assembly output?
16:33:31 <jamc> gcc -S foo.c
16:34:27 <jamc> asm will then be in asm.s
16:34:35 <jamc> err... foo.s
16:35:43 <tcn> we also need to look at copy()
16:38:40 * onetom constructs the example & sends tcn 2 have a .... whatever meal :)
16:39:59 <tcn> ok, see you later
16:40:34 <tcn> here, look at retro.tunes.org .. major update ;-)
16:42:12 <onetom> grrrr...
16:42:35 <onetom> we definetly need a cooperative editor 4 such cases
16:42:42 <tcn> heh. that italian bagpipe is interesting.. it's got two chanters, 6 notes each :)
16:42:59 <onetom> int x;
16:42:59 <onetom> int y[3] = {1,2,3};
16:42:59 <onetom> int textout(char *s, int x, int y) { return 1; };
16:42:59 <onetom> char *copy(char *s, int from, int to) { return s; }
16:42:59 <onetom> int abs(int v) { return v; }
16:43:00 <onetom> int main(void)
16:43:02 <onetom> { int i; textout(copy("1tcn222", 2, 3), x, abs(y[i])); return 0; }
16:43:14 <onetom>       let it b the reference example, right?
16:43:26 <onetom> it compiles wo errors 4 me
16:43:57 <onetom> (compilation was successful 4 the very 1st time... its suspicious :)
16:44:18 <tcn> that's because it doesn't do a damn thing
16:44:31 <onetom> (counting that i dont write C just read it. @least i thought so b4 :D
16:44:35 <onetom> lolll
16:44:45 <onetom> probably u r right ;)
16:44:49 <tcn> anyway, what's the output?
16:44:59 <onetom> but it still generates a lot of code in C ;p
16:45:01 <tcn> of main()
16:45:11 <onetom> the output is a bit long
16:45:22 <tcn> and it's in gas syntax.. ugh :)
16:45:54 <onetom> and its not enough 2 have look @ main
16:46:07 <onetom> we have 2 consider the other functions
16:46:18 <tcn> yup
16:46:24 <tcn> especially copy()
16:46:40 <onetom> wo inspecting them, i couldnt show those "unnecessary" data transfers
16:47:04 <onetom> ht2:~# wc -l tcn.s
16:47:04 <onetom>     102 tcn.s
16:47:28 <onetom> probably i can squish it... shall i?
16:48:02 <tcn> nah
16:48:05 <onetom> imean, squeeze
16:48:19 <tcn> well, just show main()
16:48:22 <onetom> but its easier 2 compile it 4yourself
16:48:28 <onetom> why?
16:48:45 <onetom> its useless in itself
16:49:30 <onetom> prepare! flood comes!
16:49:33 <onetom> main:
16:49:33 <onetom>         pushl %ebp
16:49:33 <onetom>         movl %esp,%ebp
16:49:33 <onetom>         subl $24,%esp
16:49:33 <onetom>         addl $-4,%esp
16:49:34 <onetom>         addl $-12,%esp
16:49:36 <onetom>         movl -4(%ebp),%eax
16:49:38 <onetom>         movl %eax,%edx
16:49:40 <onetom>         leal 0(,%edx,4),%eax
16:49:42 <onetom>         movl $y,%edx
16:49:44 <onetom>         movl (%eax,%edx),%eax
16:49:46 <onetom>         pushl %eax
16:49:48 <onetom>         call abs
16:49:50 <onetom>         addl $16,%esp
16:49:52 <onetom>         movl %eax,%eax
16:49:54 <onetom>         pushl %eax
16:49:56 <onetom>         movl x,%eax
16:49:58 <onetom>         pushl %eax
16:50:00 <onetom>         addl $-4,%esp
16:50:02 <onetom>         pushl $3
16:50:04 <onetom>         pushl $2
16:50:06 <onetom>         pushl $.LC0
16:50:08 <onetom>         call copy
16:50:10 <onetom>         addl $16,%esp
16:50:12 <onetom>         movl %eax,%eax
16:50:14 <onetom>         pushl %eax
16:50:16 <onetom>         call textout
16:50:18 <onetom>         addl $16,%esp
16:50:20 <onetom>         xorl %eax,%eax
16:50:22 <onetom>         jmp .L5
16:50:24 <onetom>         .p2align 4,,7
16:50:26 <onetom> .L5:
16:50:28 <onetom>         leave
16:50:30 <onetom>         ret
16:50:32 <onetom> ---------
16:50:34 <onetom> thats alll
16:50:41 <tcn> what crap!
16:51:04 <tcn> i like the 3 instructions in a row all adding/subtracting to esp :)
16:51:09 <onetom> 4 the sake of easier comparation, lets consider the instructions equally costly
16:51:29 <tcn> most of them are 1 cycle on the pentium
16:51:53 <onetom> not just the cycle counts, but the length also do
16:52:23 <onetom> but lets approximate 4 simplicity
16:53:06 <onetom> now, some1 should write it in 4th
16:53:24 <tcn> i count about 24 real instructions :)
16:53:25 <onetom> lets hack a small 4th vm 4 this experiment
16:53:38 <onetom> what do u mean by real?
16:53:46 <tcn> necessary
16:53:57 <tcn> gcc isn't that great
16:53:57 <onetom> could u show what r those?
16:54:03 --- quit: jamc ("[x]chat")
16:54:04 <tcn> the first 4-5
16:54:15 <tcn> anyway, in forth..
16:54:17 <onetom> shall i turn some optimization on?
16:54:30 <onetom> yes, anyway. :)
16:54:33 <tcn> nope, it'll be just as bad but more complicated
16:54:53 <onetom> so lets agree on the following
16:54:58 <tcn> how shall i say it.. gcc is unelegant
16:55:19 <onetom> sp, rp, some work reg, tos... what else?
16:56:13 <onetom> iwill remove those %s & $s 4 better readability
16:56:21 <onetom> interlude:
16:57:46 <onetom> tcn: what do u think, wouldnt it b worthwhile 2 make a short "article"
16:57:56 <onetom> about this test?
16:58:33 <onetom> and probably some ppl would b happy 2 read an interview w ya too...
16:58:42 <tcn> In Forth:  x  y i 4 * + abs  at   s"1tcn222" 2 3 copy textout
16:58:59 <onetom> </interlude>
16:59:25 <tcn> we could write it up, yeah.
16:59:40 <onetom> done, deal
16:59:55 <onetom> what is that at?
17:00:05 <tcn> (x y) at
17:00:14 <tcn> as in colorforth
17:00:24 <onetom> ???
17:00:31 <tcn> AT  ( x y -- )
17:00:59 <onetom> ....
17:01:09 <onetom> textout(copy("1tcn222", 2, 3), x, abs(y[i]))
17:01:14 <tcn> well if it was just like the C version, it would be kinda awkward
17:01:16 <onetom> where is the AT in it?
17:02:35 <onetom> hey! i could have said: a(b("xxxx",2,3),c,d(e[f]))...
17:02:42 <tcn> hehe
17:03:01 <onetom> so, plz, lets do a correct comparision
17:03:15 <tcn> we should do it both ways, to be fair
17:03:20 <onetom> get off the real meaning
17:04:03 <tcn> ie, a literal translation, and a tranlation of idioms etc..
17:04:09 <onetom> so the 4th version IS:
17:04:50 <onetom> x   y i 4 * +  abs   s"1tcn222" 2 3 copy   textout
17:05:38 <onetom> if x y i r constanst b they rnt
17:05:40 <onetom> so:
17:05:54 <onetom> x @   y @ i @ 4 * +  abs   s"1tcn222" 2 3 copy   textout
17:06:14 <onetom> 2 b really similar @ comparable
17:06:27 <onetom> s/@/&
17:06:51 <onetom>   call x
17:06:57 <onetom>   call @
17:07:04 <onetom>   call y
17:07:06 <onetom>   call @
17:07:13 <onetom>   call i
17:07:14 <onetom>   call @
17:07:25 <onetom> call lit
17:07:28 <onetom> oops :)
17:07:39 <onetom>   call lit
17:07:45 <onetom>   dd 4
17:07:56 <onetom>   call *
17:08:03 <onetom>   call +
17:08:05 <onetom>   call abs
17:08:19 <onetom>   call lit
17:08:52 <onetom>   dd ofs("1tcn222")
17:08:56 <onetom>   call lit
17:09:00 <onetom>   dd 2
17:09:02 <onetom>   call lit
17:09:04 <onetom>   dd 3
17:09:16 <onetom>   call copy
17:09:20 <onetom>   call textout
17:10:03 <onetom> 19 lines (wo the 2 misaligned 1s)
17:10:10 <onetom> roughly :)
17:10:15 <tcn> right
17:10:38 <tcn> 'lit' is the kicker
17:10:53 <onetom> kicker? what so u mean by that?
17:11:02 <tcn> it's inefficient on the x86
17:11:18 <tcn> if it's an instruction in a forth CPU, not so bad
17:11:45 <onetom> hey, its a half-imaginary 4th computer
17:11:52 <onetom> i could have written
17:12:01 <onetom>   lit 4
17:12:06 <onetom> instead
17:13:21 <onetom> but lets consider the cost of lits 2 b 2
17:14:02 <tcn> hmm. i looked at the C one again.. it could be 10 lines
17:14:26 <onetom> write it!
17:15:03 <onetom> during it, i will finish the 4th version up
17:15:11 <tcn> ok.. textout(copy("asdqwe",2,3),x,abs(y[i]))
17:15:25 <onetom> in a texteditor
17:20:11 <tcn>   push [y + 4*i]
17:20:11 <tcn>   call abs		;result in eax
17:20:11 <tcn>   mov [esp], eax
17:20:11 <tcn>   push [x]
17:20:11 <tcn>   push 3
17:20:11 <tcn>   push 2
17:20:13 <tcn>   push ofs("asdqwe")
17:20:15 <tcn>   call copy
17:20:17 <tcn>   add esp, byte 12
17:20:19 <tcn>   push eax
17:20:21 <tcn>   call textout
17:20:25 <tcn>   add esp, byte 12
17:20:27 <tcn> 12 lines
17:21:36 <tcn> vs. 15 for forth (or 18, if lits cost 2)
17:22:52 <onetom> khm... its forth, what u wrote...
17:23:25 <tcn> no, that's with 1 stack
17:23:34 <onetom> wtf is that add esp, byte 12?
17:23:56 <tcn> discard 3 items from the stack
17:24:09 <onetom> k, if its w 1 stack, that go on, and write the other functs 2
17:24:11 <tcn> because subroutines can't consume arguments
17:24:42 <onetom> ah, this is the c style of arg passing
17:25:10 <onetom> i used pascal a lot, so its in my blood, not c
17:26:10 <tcn> it's the same though
17:26:16 <onetom> and dont cheat! push [y + 4*i] is not possible!
17:26:30 <onetom> same? dont think so
17:26:46 <tcn> yes it is.. it assembles to something like PUSH [0x8023843]
17:26:52 <onetom> pascal does the stack cleanup inside the funct iirc
17:27:09 <tcn> oh
17:27:15 <onetom> no, it wont
17:27:23 <tcn> let's start w/ abs().. you do 4th, i'll do C
17:27:31 <onetom> y & i r not constants
17:27:46 <onetom> code   @ * +
17:27:46 <onetom> cost:  0 0 0
17:27:46 <onetom> variable x y i
17:27:46 <onetom> cost:    1 1 1
17:27:46 <onetom> : textout ( x y s -- ) drop drop drop ;
17:27:46 <onetom> cost:                  1    1    1    1 = 4
17:27:48 <onetom> : copy ( s from to -- ) drop drop ;
17:27:49 <tcn> oh yeah, i isn't constant
17:27:50 <onetom> cost:                   1    1    1 = 3
17:27:52 <onetom> : abs ( n -- ) ;
17:27:54 <onetom> cost:          1
17:27:56 <onetom>       x @   y @ i @ 4 * +  abs   s"1tcn222" 2 3 copy   textout
17:27:58 <onetom> cost: 1 1
17:28:02 <onetom> this is the current state of my calculation, anyway.
17:28:08 <onetom> but im not finished
17:29:34 <tcn> so that push [y + i*4] becomes 3 lines,
17:29:35 <tcn>   mov eax, [i]
17:29:35 <tcn>   mov eax, [eax*4 + y]
17:29:35 <tcn>   push eax
17:29:46 <tcn> 14 lines total
17:31:12 <onetom> hey, we made a mistake
17:31:29 <onetom>   call lit
17:31:33 <onetom>   dd n
17:31:40 <onetom> r 2 lines
17:31:47 <onetom> 2 cells
17:32:29 <onetom> but costs just 1 buck (=execution cost unit)
17:32:34 <onetom> :)
17:32:57 <tcn> oh the x86 it's got a call overhead which is more like 3-5 i believe :)
17:33:26 <tcn> plus several instructions in LIT
17:34:22 <tcn> but, 4 * could be 4* which could be an inline  SHL EAX, 2
17:34:24 <onetom> fuck the x86!
17:34:44 <onetom> im representing the 4th version w x86 mnemonics
17:35:11 <onetom> but imagine those as the instructions of a 4th processor
17:35:29 <onetom> and treat them so
17:35:48 <onetom> u didnt really get the point ithink
17:35:52 <tcn> yup
17:36:11 <onetom> we r makeing an architecture comparision
17:36:12 <tcn> it would cost 1 on a forth cpu
17:36:39 <tcn> on the F21, 4* would be 2* 2*
17:36:54 <onetom> not a 4th vm implementation over an architecture vs how efficiently C uses that arch.
17:37:31 <onetom> but in our imaginary 4th cpu it is 4 *
17:37:34 <tcn> the real issue is 1 stack vs. 2
17:37:49 <onetom> thats right
17:38:20 <tcn> and how it affects hardware complexity and software *in practice*
17:38:37 <onetom> the code would b fuckin similar 2 the x86 version on any 1stack cpu
17:38:45 <onetom> thaaaats it!
17:39:27 <tcn> a 1-stack cpu, with the stack in SRAM, could be even simpler than the F21
17:40:00 <onetom> u understand it pretty well, tho sometimes it seems u dont -- probably i was wrong when i said u dont understand ;)
17:40:08 <onetom> will c
17:40:22 <tcn> right :)
17:40:27 <onetom> just lets go further & finish this job 1st
17:40:45 <onetom> then could come ur immaginary arch
17:41:23 <tcn> x86 is all i use, so I tend to think in terms of x86
17:41:51 <tcn> i'm working on the forth code.. and abs()..
17:42:06 <tcn> abs(x) { return (x>0) ? x : -x; }
17:42:06 <tcn>   mov eax, [esp+4]
17:42:06 <tcn>   or eax, eax
17:42:06 <tcn>   jns .1
17:42:06 <tcn>   neg eax
17:42:07 <tcn> .1:
17:42:09 <tcn>   ret
17:43:58 <tcn> In Forth:
17:44:01 <tcn> : abs ( x -- x' )  dup 0< if negate then ;
17:44:02 <tcn>   dup
17:44:02 <tcn>   or eax, eax
17:44:02 <tcn>   jns .1
17:44:02 <tcn>   neg eax
17:44:02 <tcn> .1:
17:44:04 <tcn>   ret
17:44:45 <tcn> actually that's for a really optimizing forth compiler..
17:45:31 <onetom> thats also nice, but what is it good 4 now?
17:45:54 <onetom> we havent finished the previous test! >(
17:46:04 <onetom> dont run so fast!
17:46:13 <tcn> hey! i changed the 4th code to count LIT as 1 line, and now both versions are 14 lines :)
17:46:56 <onetom> what doesnt really surprising 2 me infact...
17:48:25 <onetom> passing the parameters to deeper functions makes
17:48:38 <onetom> the unnecessary cost
17:48:51 <onetom> but probably its a wrong example...
17:49:24 <onetom> i would give meself mark 2 if would b a teacher :)
17:49:36 <tcn> hmm..
17:49:46 <onetom> but here is the final cost calculation 4 the 4th version:
17:49:53 <tcn> passing a parameter farther down is just an extra PUSH
17:50:08 <onetom> code   @ * +    \ primitives -> no extra cost
17:50:08 <onetom> cost:  0 0 0
17:50:08 <onetom> variable x y i
17:50:08 <onetom> cost:    0 0 0  \ they could compile 2 lit
17:50:08 <onetom> : textout ( x y s -- ) drop drop drop ;
17:50:09 <onetom> cost:                  1    1    1    1 = 4
17:50:11 <onetom> : copy ( s from to -- ) drop drop ;
17:50:13 <onetom> cost:                   1    1    1 = 3
17:50:15 <onetom> : abs ( n -- ) ;
17:50:17 <onetom> cost:          1
17:50:19 <onetom>       x @   y @ i @ 4 * +  abs   s"1tcn222" 2 3 copy   textout
17:50:21 <onetom> cost: 1 1   1 1 1 1 1 1 1  1+1   1          1 1 1+3    1+4
17:50:23 <onetom>        2          7         2            3       4      5 =
17:50:25 <onetom> total:2+7+2+3+4+5=23
17:50:35 <onetom> and an extra pop...
17:51:15 <tcn> no, just changing ADD ESP,12 to 16
17:51:29 <onetom> hmmm....
17:51:34 <tcn> that ADD is always there
17:51:50 <tcn> (except for a function with 0 args)
17:52:46 <onetom> .... u finally prove that C on x86 is as efficient as 4th on 4th cpu :D
17:53:34 <onetom> but that extra push should b clearly pointed out
17:54:01 <onetom> as THE unnecessary step of this 1stack arch
17:55:11 <onetom> tnc: have u finished(/started :) the meal yet?
17:55:21 <tcn> sorta been snacking..
17:55:25 <tcn> heh
17:56:06 <onetom> coz, im about 2 have a shower so i could contemplate on this experiment
17:56:24 <tcn> allright
17:56:46 <onetom> bb in ~30mins
17:56:54 <tcn> maybe i'll drop in in then.. if i can get back on :)
17:56:59 <onetom> r u gonna b here?
17:57:02 <tcn> if not, nice talking to you
17:57:15 <onetom> next time?
17:57:18 <onetom> any prediction?
17:57:24 <tcn> i'll try in 30 mins
17:57:45 <onetom> but in that case if it fails
17:57:46 <onetom> huh?
17:58:15 <tcn> tomorrow or another day
17:58:22 <onetom> or we can continue it in mail
17:58:26 --- join: CrowKiller (vircuser@HSE-Windsor-ppp250757.sympatico.ca) joined #forth
17:58:28 <onetom> or even in the wiki
17:58:31 <tcn> heh
17:58:32 <onetom> what about it?
17:58:38 <CrowKiller> hi!
17:58:46 <tcn> tcn at tunes@dot.org
17:58:54 <onetom> in A wiki. recommend 1!
17:59:14 <onetom> tcn: wha?
17:59:18 <tcn> you don't like email?
18:00:00 <onetom> dunno, not much. its 2 private for such a purpose
18:00:36 <tcn> we should compile the results when it's all done
18:01:04 <onetom> otherwise, i die 2 try the wiki concept on a REAL task
18:01:09 <tcn> heh
18:01:21 <onetom> compile? results?
18:01:31 <tcn> you got a wiki you want to use, or use the tunes wiki?
18:01:52 <onetom> u mean make the programs runnable?
18:01:56 <tcn> nononono
18:01:58 <onetom> or make a montage
18:02:06 <tcn> a report
18:02:11 <onetom> of our results
18:02:13 <onetom> ah, c
18:02:36 <tcn> a concise summary so people don't have to wade through irc logs and such :)
18:02:47 <onetom> :) agree
18:03:26 <onetom> hermantom@freemail.hu
18:04:03 * onetom -> shower
18:04:15 --- quit: CrowKiller ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby")
18:11:39 --- quit: tcn ("Leaving")
18:32:07 * onetom is finished w showerin
18:32:20 <onetom> hes now clothin
18:32:22 <futhin> ahh, my turn to shower
18:32:32 <onetom> :D
18:32:35 <futhin> and by the time i get back, i will be invis!
18:32:44 <onetom> oh, so u r here man
18:32:54 <onetom> :))
18:33:10 <onetom> "invisiblemaaan" ...
18:34:19 <onetom> have ya cn the discussion on 4th vs C?
18:36:08 --- join: tcn (tcn@tc2-login1.megatrondata.com) joined #forth
18:36:59 <onetom> hi
18:37:04 <tcn> hey
18:37:25 <onetom> was i accurate? ;)
18:38:10 <tcn> about what?
18:38:34 <onetom> i didnt think much about the topic during showering
18:38:47 <onetom> about the time of my return :)
18:39:03 <onetom> BUT
18:40:22 <onetom> call trees were showing up in various shapes when i closed me iz (<-eyes)
18:41:07 <onetom> and i also have 2 analyze the generated asm
18:41:22 <onetom> and your asm b4 stating anything serious
18:43:51 <tcn> now i'm having trouble understanding you :)
18:44:31 <futhin> he closed his eyes and saw call trees
18:44:48 <futhin> and has to analyze the generated asm and your asm code before making any serious statements
18:45:06 * futhin likes to play the role of the translator, lol
18:45:07 <tcn> we could find some common patterns in call trees.. maybe come up with some formulas..
18:47:08 <onetom> would u rephrase it?
18:47:09 <tcn> heh.. we should assume a "nice" processor for each language..
18:47:29 <futhin> forth chips for forth?
18:47:38 <onetom> u mean patterns in the seq of executed instructions?
18:47:50 <tcn> well.. i was thinking up a processor that would suit C and Forth
18:48:01 <onetom> thats sure :) that must b the basis of the experiment
18:48:44 * onetom is thinkin about eating some pacal
18:48:46 <tcn> C or asm routines could use the data stack register for recursive algorithms
18:48:52 <onetom> do u know what pacal is?
18:48:57 <tcn> nope
18:49:07 <tcn> sounds hungarian
18:49:20 <onetom> its not like, it is :)
18:49:30 <onetom> its not LIKE, it IS :)
18:49:40 <futhin> (reading the backlog)  web distracts us from our true purpose ;P
18:49:50 <tcn> hehe
18:50:11 <onetom> and u shouldnt confuse it w pascal :)
18:50:14 <tcn> enslaved by the web, maintaining broken links :)
18:50:26 <futhin> tcn:  do you know about Patriot Science processors ?   they are forthchips that handle Java and C very well apparently
18:50:31 <futhin> tcn:  www.ptsc.com
18:50:37 <tcn> yeah
18:50:41 <onetom> just like hungary w hungry :)
18:51:10 <futhin> broken links don't need to exist
18:51:23 <tcn> pacal=food?
18:51:28 <onetom> yup
18:51:52 <tcn> that could come in handy if i'm starving in hungary :)
18:51:55 <onetom> thats a spicy food
18:52:08 <tcn> going hungry in hungary
18:52:16 <onetom> kind of pörkölt...
18:52:20 <futhin> that's okay as long as spciy = spicy  not spicy = hot
18:52:30 <futhin> s/spciy/spicy
18:52:55 <tcn> is the sun up yet, onetom?
18:53:23 <futhin> 19:52 + 8 = 3:52
18:53:33 <onetom> robert should remember what is it stands 4 (the pörkölt. we have already found it once here :)
18:53:45 <onetom> futhin: thats right
18:54:25 <onetom> spicy = loaded w spices
18:54:44 <onetom> and its a bit hot usually, anyway.
18:55:28 <onetom> so its made of the ?stomach? of the cow
18:55:55 <tcn> tripe?
18:56:04 <tcn> haggis?
18:56:07 <onetom> thats it :)
18:56:11 <onetom> tripe
18:57:06 <onetom> no, not haggis. ihavent heard about haggis b4, so i never ate
18:57:16 <tcn> we eat mostly the meat.. and heart & liver sometimes..
18:57:22 <onetom> so u know what is tripe, dont u?
18:57:29 <tcn> stomach
18:58:10 <onetom> but have u already eaten or @ least seen tripe?
18:58:10 <tcn> haggis is something they make in Scotland.. a stomach filled with oatmeal, raisins, nuts, spices, etc.. i think. never had it.
18:58:24 <tcn> never even seen it
18:59:00 <tcn> is it good?
18:59:01 <onetom> tcn, my dict also told it... thats how iknow ive never met w haggis :)
18:59:20 <onetom> its terrific IF...
18:59:39 <onetom> if u make it really clean & cook it long enough
18:59:49 <tcn> hehe
19:00:04 <tcn> i bet American tripe all goes into dog food
19:00:18 <tcn> as "meat by-products"
19:00:33 <onetom> u can chew it easily and it wont stink :)
19:01:49 <onetom> its not stomach anyway... its from a part what is closer 2 ... well ... the ass of the cow
19:02:11 <onetom> stomach is just the 1st stage
19:02:29 <onetom> then the food passes through a thin _________
19:02:40 <onetom> then a thick _________
19:03:04 <onetom> and finally arrives on the other side
19:03:08 <tcn> small intestine, large intestine
19:03:28 <tcn> what is it in hungarian?
19:03:38 <onetom> bél
19:04:00 <tcn> thin bel, thick bel?
19:04:02 <onetom> but my dict justifies u :)
19:04:07 <tcn> and pacal :)
19:04:08 <onetom> yup
19:04:38 <tcn> heh.. as food, bel = chitterlings (pronounced "chit-lins")
19:04:44 <onetom> so, i think pacal is made of the large intestine
19:05:09 <onetom> coz it is napster
19:05:30 <tcn> so the Pachelbel Canon = Entrail Canon .. heh
19:05:45 <onetom> loll
19:05:53 <tcn> you know what i'm thinking of?
19:06:18 <tcn> written by Bach or Handel or some composer like that?
19:07:02 <onetom> hm?
19:07:29 <tcn> guess not. it's a hymn, song, mass, something like that..
19:07:46 <onetom> it seems its beyond my comprehension.. :)
19:07:49 <tcn> some kind of musical piece :)
19:08:05 <onetom> iknow pachelbels canon, sure
19:08:30 <onetom> r we looking for sg similar but composed by bach or handel?
19:08:32 <tcn> hmm.. pacel-bel cannon .. shoots guts :)
19:08:43 <tcn> never mind :)
19:08:58 <onetom> pacal-bél umean
19:09:05 <onetom> igot that part
19:09:17 <onetom> but can do anything w entrail..
19:09:43 <onetom> cant
19:09:44 <tcn> i can't type é very easily
19:10:10 <tcn> entrails = guts = everything from the stomach to the ass
19:10:13 <onetom> the problem wasnt w the é but w the 2nd A ;)
19:10:44 <onetom> aaaahah
19:11:33 <onetom> so its nothing 2 do w bach or handle :)
19:11:36 <onetom> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/jpachelbel.html
19:12:31 <tcn> aha
19:13:03 <onetom> c now? ;)
19:13:18 <tcn> so Bach played a lot of Pachelbel's works
19:13:25 <onetom> dont mess w me! me younger brother is a pianist ;p
19:13:41 <tcn> heh
19:14:02 <onetom> sure, coz - as ive just learnt from the bio - he was living that age
19:14:07 <tcn> Bach and O'Carolan are the only composers I know anything about
19:14:15 <onetom> loll
19:14:17 <onetom> nice pair
19:14:35 <onetom> ocarolan, the harpist? 
19:14:39 <tcn> yup
19:15:30 <onetom> well, i can help u enwiden ur horizon on this land, if ud like
19:16:42 <tcn> heh. that line took me a minute to decipher
19:16:46 <onetom> we've collected lots of folk music w me gf over the last 4-5yrs
19:17:05 <onetom> :D it was intended
19:17:19 <tcn> cool.. from where.. all over?
19:17:32 <onetom> finally yes :)
19:17:39 <onetom> but 1st from ireland
19:17:46 <onetom> scotland
19:17:54 <onetom> then finland
19:18:25 <onetom> serbia, transylvania and finally from hungary
19:18:28 <tcn> holy shit.. i bet we know a lot in common
19:18:43 <onetom> then came turkey and so on
19:19:08 <onetom> it would b fun if that would b true :)
19:19:22 <tcn> well.. i started with ireland and scotland, and england, america, sweden, finland..
19:19:31 <onetom> we have ~130+90 mp3 cds
19:19:33 <tcn> i just learned a couple kolos fro serbia
19:19:44 <onetom> yummm
19:19:59 <onetom> & how did u manage 2 learn?
19:20:05 <tcn> sumadisko kolo and umm.. tractrska kolo?
19:20:14 <onetom> do u have some sheet music by chance?
19:20:28 <tcn> from a local band that learned from sheet music :)
19:20:28 <onetom> do u have recordings?
19:20:42 <tcn> i have .abc for sumadisko
19:20:48 <onetom> imean have u recorded yourself playing these?
19:20:52 <tcn> no
19:21:16 <onetom> btw, what connection do u have?
19:21:32 <tcn> oh, i have lots of connections, heh heh
19:21:37 <tcn> 56k
19:21:39 <onetom> :)))
19:21:44 <onetom> yikes..
19:21:50 <tcn> you?
19:22:08 <onetom> 384/64kbps @ home
19:22:15 <tcn> heh
19:22:25 <onetom> but im @ the university these days... :p
19:22:33 <tcn> poor backward eastern europe has gotten ahead of the US :)
19:22:42 <onetom> so 700kByte/s ? :pp
19:23:01 <tcn> typically 40kbps
19:23:19 <tcn> 4 kByte/s
19:23:25 <onetom> its not a world record :)
19:23:55 <tcn> oh, 700kB/s at university?
19:24:08 <onetom> a year b4 iwas also hanging on a 56k modem, so u dont have 2 tell about it more :)
19:24:22 <onetom> its JUST 700kBps coz
19:24:57 <onetom> the department where am i has only an old coax cabling
19:25:10 <onetom> so its just a 10Mbps line
19:25:14 <tcn> heh.. sounds like where I went to college
19:25:29 <onetom> but other departments already have 100Mbps
19:25:31 <tcn> and it was coax on the end of a long chain..
19:26:12 <tcn> i dunno what we have at work, but it's even slower than 56k at home.. probably 1 ADSL line
19:26:22 <onetom> so in special cases im able 2 make 2-3MB/s in-country
19:26:49 <tcn> yeah, when the spam load drops off :)
19:26:54 <onetom> hmm, so tell me more about yourself
19:27:23 <onetom> what r u workin on? what is ur job actually?
19:27:35 <tcn> oh, mechanical engineering
19:27:36 <onetom> r u still studying
19:27:57 <onetom> or gonna study further?
19:28:16 <tcn> i'm working at a factory that makes stove pipe..
19:28:20 <onetom> will u have a better net-conn in near future?
19:28:25 <tcn> no
19:28:39 <onetom> do u have a microphone?
19:28:58 <tcn> i'm just starting to mess w/ recording myself on the computer
19:29:12 <tcn> i suppose an 8-bit mono mp3 could be pretty small..
19:29:25 <onetom> wow, stove pipe?! and whats ur duty in the factory?
19:29:52 <onetom> oh, 32kbps is pretty small and still sounds valuable
19:30:27 <onetom> @least as valuable so i can recognize what r u playin ;)
19:30:27 <tcn> hmm.. 32khz, 16 bit, mono?
19:30:38 <onetom> no
19:30:43 <tcn> 8 bit
19:30:48 <onetom> 32kbit/s mp3
19:30:55 <tcn> see what i know about mp3 :)
19:31:05 <onetom> just record w 44kHz/16bit/mono
19:31:08 <tcn> oh i see.. that's the transfer rate
19:31:28 <onetom> and encode 2 32 or 24 kbps
19:31:56 <onetom> u know the usual rate is 128kbps
19:32:25 <onetom> but thats 4 stereo, so an equal quality mono stuff just requires half of it
19:33:07 <tcn> here, i'll untar this mp3 stuff i downloaded :)
19:33:16 <onetom> w a good encoder there is no practical diff between 128&112kbps
19:33:35 <onetom> so 56kbps 4 mono is still CD quality
19:34:04 <onetom> so 4 introductory purpose 32kbps is reasonable, ithink
19:34:07 <onetom> but try it!
19:34:29 <onetom> what mp3 stuff?
19:34:31 <tcn> oh, for crying out loud! it's a C program with C++ i/o
19:34:41 <onetom> :))
19:34:50 <onetom> what os do u have?
19:34:54 <tcn> and they give you a glibc2 executable.. i have libc5
19:35:02 <onetom> whoooh
19:35:11 <tcn> no problem, i'll change it to C
19:35:36 <onetom> u dont really keep up w the jonses :)
19:36:17 <onetom> iguess u have a PI-200, right?
19:36:39 <tcn> 150
19:36:52 <tcn> and a K6-350 which is probably slower
19:37:40 <onetom> :) there always come strange ppl 2 this channel...
19:38:28 <onetom> i say it, who was also using a PI200 4 years
19:38:31 <tcn> and i'm writing an OS called RETRO.. what do you expect??
19:39:01 <tcn> if I had a C64 i'd use that
19:39:14 <onetom> i upgraded 2 PII-lot-of-hundred about 2years ago
19:39:39 <tcn> you don't get much by going over 200
19:39:44 <onetom> coz i like 2 play w audio & video
19:39:51 <onetom> oh, i get
19:40:13 <tcn> 486 -> P90 was "wow".. P90 -> PIII-600 "uhh.. i'm supposed to be impressed?"
19:40:28 <onetom> noise reducion of 1hour long snd file lasts significantly shorter on a PII600 :)
19:40:29 <tcn> the bus is still 100 or 133mhz..
19:40:52 <tcn> heh.. i cracked passwords an a 486-33
19:41:23 <onetom> nah, c! another speed hungry application
19:41:47 <onetom> and the main thing what requires speed is the video playback
19:42:08 <onetom> and also encoding nowdays (think of dvd-ripping...)
19:43:08 <onetom> u need @least a PII-300 and a matrox card 2 view fullscreen dvd quality divx films
19:43:31 <onetom> so thats the reason
19:45:24 <onetom> ithink we could continue chatting 4 some days
19:45:44 <onetom> but its time 2 eat/sleep/work 4 me
19:46:16 <onetom> but im gonna b here, just wont respond so fast
19:49:38 <onetom> i have lotsa questions anyway
19:49:48 <onetom> what instruments do u play
19:50:16 <onetom> how much (how often) and how professionally play them
19:50:44 <onetom> have u tried color4th (sure u did. ive already refered 2 it)
19:51:03 <onetom> any experience w enth/flux?
19:51:11 <onetom> what other langs do u know
19:51:59 <onetom> what os do u have?
19:55:50 --- join: CrowKilr (vircuser@Ottawa-HSE-ppp3653353.sympatico.ca) joined #forth
19:59:46 --- quit: tcn (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
21:08:00 --- quit: CrowKilr (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
21:33:15 --- join: kp2 (kp2@sm3-1.wvi.com) joined #forth
21:33:18 <kp2> hello all
21:38:22 --- quit: skylan ("sleepy.")
22:26:08 --- join: CrowKiller (Forther@Ottawa-HSE-ppp3652836.sympatico.ca) joined #forth
22:26:10 --- quit: kp2 (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
22:58:35 --- join: sbk_ (~kbs@dsl-65-184-98-221.telocity.com) joined #forth
23:15:05 --- quit: sbk_ ("Leaving")
23:45:28 --- quit: CrowKiller ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby")
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/02.08.15