00:00:00 --- log: started forth/02.11.27 00:36:14 --- join: lament (~lament@h24-78-145-92.vc.shawcable.net) joined #forth 00:49:30 --- quit: Serg_Penguin () 00:56:59 --- quit: proteusguy ("Client Exiting") 02:46:14 --- nick: lament -> lameAFK 04:14:20 --- join: Serg_Penguin (~Z@nat-ch1.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth 04:21:02 --- join: Robert_ (~Robert@robost86.tsps1.freenet6.net) joined #forth 04:21:53 --- quit: Robert (Remote closed the connection) 04:33:13 --- quit: Serg_Penguin (Killed (NickServ (Nickname Enforcement))) 04:33:15 --- join: Serg_p (~Z@nat-ch0.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth 04:39:19 --- join: Speuler (~l@mnch-d9ba46db.pool.mediaWays.net) joined #forth 04:51:49 --- join: Serg_Penguin (~Z@nat-ch1.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth 04:59:01 --- quit: Serg_p (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 05:06:04 --- nick: lameAFK -> lament 05:17:39 --- quit: Serg_Penguin (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 05:26:49 --- join: Serg_Penguin (~Z@nat-ch1.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth 05:51:31 --- quit: Serg_Penguin () 06:17:23 --- join: TreyB (~trey@cpe-66-87-192-27.tx.sprintbbd.net) joined #forth 06:24:43 --- join: tathi (~josh@wsip68-15-54-54.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth 06:51:03 --- join: Serg_Penguin (~Z@nat-ch1.nat.comex.ru) joined #forth 06:51:39 --- quit: Serg_Penguin (Client Quit) 07:14:58 --- quit: tathi ("leaving") 08:43:25 --- quit: lament ("mental mantle") 09:34:05 --- join: lament (~lament@h24-78-145-92.vc.shawcable.net) joined #forth 09:43:39 --- quit: Speuler (SendQ exceeded) 09:45:50 --- join: Speuler (~l@mnch-d9ba46db.pool.mediaWays.net) joined #forth 10:14:39 --- quit: Speuler (SendQ exceeded) 10:16:28 --- join: Speuler (~l@mnch-d9ba46db.pool.mediaWays.net) joined #forth 10:56:53 --- part: Speuler left #forth 11:06:40 --- nick: Robert_ -> Robert 11:39:09 --- join: proteusguy (~username@65.191.88.177) joined #forth 11:40:21 Hi proteusguy. 11:41:13 Hey Robert - how's it going? Take over the world yet? 11:43:23 Not yet. But just you wait - tomorrow is The Day! 11:43:29 Actually I'm working on a Forth compiler. 11:43:40 (And reading EEPROM data sheets) 11:45:33 Figuring out that address/data latch for the AtMel? 11:46:03 Tomorrow is thanksgiving in the USA. Gonna take over while we're all asleep from eating too much Turkey? 11:48:44 Yes! 11:48:44 I saw another solution, which uses counters to address the RAM. 11:48:44 Of course that's not very fast for random access, but for sequential read.. :) 11:49:33 However, addressing e.g. the low 4 bits using direct port I/O, and counters to the rest, could probably be rather efficient. 11:50:03 hmm... better watch out. External RAM access is already the slowest thing a processor can do. Don't want to cripple your CPU before you've coded up the thing. 11:50:38 Well, this will only be used for larger buffers. 11:50:57 The internal SRAM is big enough to keep stacks, variables and such. 11:52:31 You need your next code byte to be fast enough to get while the last instruction is executing. Remember you've got one cycle per instruction. Its a RISC. 11:55:44 Code is always stored in the internal flash memory. 11:55:58 External RAM can _only_ be used for data.- 11:58:04 Really??? 12:01:27 Yes. 12:01:35 Why else would I write a virtual machine? :-) 12:01:57 If I wanted code in RAM, I'd jump to the less user-friendly z80 or something. 12:02:45 VM makes sense. 12:02:48 dig an MC6800 or 6502 from the garbage? :) 12:04:39 XeF4: When I barley can get an LED to flash? Sure... 12:07:00 --- quit: proteusguy (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 12:07:17 --- join: proteusguy (~username@65.191.88.177) joined #forth 12:07:48 Hey again. 12:20:05 --- join: gilbertbsd (~gilbertbs@67.97.122.63) joined #forth 12:20:34 hi 12:21:10 Hi gilbertbsd. 12:21:56 how are you? 12:22:33 Quite OK. 12:22:40 Anything interesting going no? 12:22:59 not really. I just got interested in MIPS. 12:23:12 I am going to look for an SGI to buy and then do MIPS asm. 12:24:37 MIPS? As in Mega Instructions Per Second? ;) 12:25:20 nope. MIPS as in MIPS. 12:25:28 ummm its RISC based. 12:26:33 http://www.mips.com/whoWeAre/index.html 12:26:51 http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?GetResult&SortProperty=MetaLowestPriceSort&query=sgi&from=R7&ebaytag1=ebayreg&ht=1&category0=160&combine=y&st=2 12:27:50 Sounds expensive. I'd better not look it. 12:28:01 sounds? what about looks? 12:28:07 take a look at it. 12:34:22 gilb: those Cobalt Qubes have MIPS, too 12:34:43 cobalt qubes? 12:34:54 search ebay for Qube 12:35:30 little cheap server cube thingies 12:36:06 how do I get a hold of one? 12:36:24 I don't know if they're still made 12:36:28 but there are plenty on ebay 12:37:20 cheaper than SGI's 12:37:34 pardon moi. 12:37:35 brb 12:37:36 no video output though 12:37:43 --- quit: gilbertbsd (Remote closed the connection) 12:38:10 serial console and ethernet only 12:42:39 --- join: gilbertbsd (~gilbertbs@67.97.122.63) joined #forth 12:42:54 sorry about that. 12:43:00 Xef4 still there? 12:43:11 22:47 < XeF4> no video output though 12:43:11 22:47 -!- gilbertbsd [~gilbertbs@67.97.122.63] has quit [Remote closed the 12:43:11 connection] 12:43:13 22:48 < XeF4> serial console and ethernet only 12:43:26 I think the RaQs are also MIPS 12:43:58 did sun make them? 12:44:35 Cobalt or somesuch made them, then later Sun bought them out afaik 12:44:40 I've only used the Qube I 12:44:48 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2074091455 12:44:52 what was it like? 12:44:59 there are the bootup messages from 1 12:45:11 like an ordinary Linux box with a MIPS processor 12:46:03 hmmm. serial output only you say? 12:46:09 and ethernet 12:46:20 so you can telnet/ssh/display X apps to a remote server 12:47:22 have you used any other MIPS based systems or other RISC machines? 12:47:44 I have played with an SGI O2 12:48:02 did you program in asm for it as well? 12:48:05 no 12:48:35 --- quit: TreyB () 12:49:13 but how come you are most interested in RISC asm though? 12:49:40 most interested? 12:49:49 I didn't know I was most interested 12:50:11 compared to CISC. 12:50:24 you've mentioned getting a RISC based computer a few times. 12:50:52 I've mentioned getting a PPC computer a few times 12:50:56 and then I got a PPC computer 12:51:05 you got one? 12:51:06 but that's because I'm coding something that has to work fast on a PPC 12:51:26 ah I see. 12:52:53 --- join: TreyB (~trey@cpe-66-87-192-27.tx.sprintbbd.net) joined #forth 13:14:16 --- quit: Robert (Remote closed the connection) 13:14:23 --- join: Robert (~Robert@robost86.tsps1.freenet6.net) joined #forth 14:06:08 xef4 are the cobalts 64bit machines? 14:10:15 yes 14:10:17 r4000 14:10:28 the r4000 only? 14:12:33 only? I have only used one Cobalt machine, and it had an r4000 14:12:48 and the raq in that ebay posting has an r4000 14:12:52 better check the site, though 14:27:00 --- quit: TreyB (forward.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 14:27:00 --- quit: gilbertbsd (forward.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 14:27:00 --- quit: Fractal (forward.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 14:27:20 --- join: TreyB (~trey@cpe-66-87-192-27.tx.sprintbbd.net) joined #forth 14:27:20 --- join: gilbertbsd (~gilbertbs@67.97.122.63) joined #forth 14:27:20 --- join: Fractal (cduer@h24-77-171-228.ok.shawcable.net) joined #forth 14:29:07 --- join: wossname (wossname@HSE-QuebecCity-ppp80974.qc.sympatico.ca) joined #forth 14:37:35 --- quit: gilbertbsd (Remote closed the connection) 14:58:20 Uh, I thought the MIPS CPUs didn't get 64 bits until the r10000 and r15000. 14:58:39 But I could remember wrongly. 15:30:12 --- join: I440r (~I440r@sdn-ap-008tnnashP0462.dialsprint.net) joined #forth 15:30:28 Hi I440r. 15:30:31 hi 15:30:46 I440r: No tail recursion in IsForth? :'( 15:30:51 been working with my dad on code he has taken over at work 15:30:54 heh 15:31:01 yes - you do it yourself 15:31:06 : blah ...... goto foo ; 15:31:16 there are NO compiler optimizations in isforth 15:31:33 What's foo in this case? 15:31:47 Robert: It's usually possible to write a word for tail recursion 15:31:48 any other word 15:32:06 : foo noop ; 15:32:11 : blah ...... goto foo ; 15:32:12 I guess so.. how would I implement it in IsForth? 15:32:12 I440r : A tail recursion word wouldn't be a compiler optimization. 15:32:20 Robert: Ask Fractal, he's a professional tail recursion implementor :) 15:32:26 Ha! 15:32:37 its the same as changing 15:32:40 call foo 15:32:41 ret 15:32:42 to 15:32:45 jmp foo 15:32:46 in assembler 15:33:16 A better solution is to compile a branch to the beginning of the word being compiled. 15:34:03 : blah ..... recurse ..... ; 15:34:08 : blah ....... recurse ; 15:34:10 --- join: gilbertbsd (~gilbertbs@67.97.122.14) joined #forth 15:34:23 the latter should be coded as a begin again loop 15:35:58 I440r : Yes, but since forth provides you a lot of implementation flexibility, you may as well take advantage of a tail-recursive word - which would be impossible in C. 15:36:32 in what way is a tail recursive word better than a begin again ? 15:36:37 under what conditions ? 15:36:46 i avoid all recursive methods myself 15:36:52 ALL recursive methods 15:36:53 usually 15:37:02 Why? 15:37:14 i4 15:37:29 what do you use instead? 15:37:29 Hm... 15:37:31 because i have always though that anything you can do WITH recursion you can do bbeter with out 15:37:33 without 15:37:40 and ive never seen anything to prove otherwise 15:37:57 Well, that's wrong. 15:38:04 Perhaps "Just as good", but not "better" 15:38:15 show me a recursive solution ot a problem and ill show you an itterative one thats easier to read 15:38:19 for any REAL problem 15:38:25 i discount ackerman function 15:38:27 I440r : Technically there is no sound reason, but since recursion can be implemented with no loss of efficiency, and you get a much better conceptual representation of your problem. 15:38:56 I440r: that's clearly a matter of taste. 15:38:57 FRACTAL much better conceptual for someone who thinks mathematically 15:38:58 i dont :) 15:39:09 i dont think like a mathematician 15:39:10 Hey, even CM prefers recursion to loops :) 15:39:31 all hail CM 15:39:41 lament i dont agree with everything cm says 15:39:46 ...and I bet recursion is suggested in the Bible, if you look close enough. 15:39:50 well, CM's mad, of course 15:39:52 Well, I certainly don't take CM's word as gospel. 15:39:52 but i agree with more of what he says than what other ppl say :) 15:39:58 But. 15:40:02 brb betting a coffee 15:40:03 if you did, you would be implementing Colorforth too I440. 15:40:39 Although I must say CM's brand of tail recursion is particularily nasty 15:41:08 It involves semicolons in the middle of word definition 15:41:24 lament have you played with colorforth yet? 15:41:36 gilbertbsd: I never managed to run it. 15:41:41 So I gave up. 15:42:21 It's CM's right to write non-portable software, and it's my right not to use it :) 15:42:29 have you tried rebol? 15:42:46 No. 15:42:56 *gasp* :O 15:43:08 lament there i DO agree with CM. its a total waste of time, memory, diskspace and processor power to write "portable" software 15:43:10 neither have i. 15:43:21 why so i440? 15:43:26 I440r: well, that's ncie 15:43:28 *nice 15:43:32 however 15:43:35 "jack of all trades" or "master of one" 15:43:36 pick one 15:43:42 all that doesn't apply if you want people to use your software :) 15:43:46 the whole point of writing portable software is to cut down on the redundancies involved in writing non-portable software. 15:43:48 CM clearly does not want people to use colorforth 15:43:58 You clearly don't want people to use isforth 15:43:59 etc 15:44:08 bbl 15:44:12 working with dad... 15:45:06 but lament had you heard of rebol? 15:45:37 gilbertbsd: no. 15:45:39 what is it? 15:45:58 gilbertbsd : Yes, instead it creates entire redundant software projects. 15:45:59 hmm. in less than 550k it comes with a gui component. 15:46:09 its as cute as python is! 15:46:17 some solutions in it look downright pythony. 15:46:24 I don't believe it ;) 15:46:29 you've gotta. 15:46:37 and oh, it was written by a forthright. 15:46:43 It's simply foolish to completely discount portability. 15:46:53 http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-10/lw-10-rebol.html 15:47:42 writing non-portable software is simply not very businesslike. 15:47:56 Writing non-portable software is simply stupid. 15:48:14 but CM says he is not a roll model so we shouldn't complain too much :P 15:48:21 role. 15:48:22 gilbertbsd : No, it simply flies in the face of reason. 15:48:46 gilbertbsd : Yes, I think he has said that. :) 15:48:55 n e way the reason I keep mentioning rebol is that I think forth can do a lot that rebol does. 15:49:03 Does rebol have a free implementation? 15:49:09 especially since it was written by a guy who implemented forth a number of times. 15:49:13 lament yes. 15:49:18 but not free as in GNU free. 15:49:23 Bah. 15:49:29 You mean not free as in open source? 15:49:33 but you can read binary can't you? 15:49:37 no its not open source. 15:49:43 Then I won't bother. 15:49:47 It's either dead, or dying. 15:49:47 c'mon ... 15:49:55 c'mon take a look at it. 15:50:03 www.rebol.com 15:50:16 Non-free languages don't live long enough to be useable 15:50:18 its implemented uniformly for 50 platforms. 15:50:20 or interesting 15:50:30 but it is small enough to teach some good lessons! 15:50:47 its a pythony tcl/tk . 15:50:59 sounds pretty horrible :) 15:51:01 but its not as funny as tcl/tk (tickle tick) 15:52:36 c'mon it takes up only 520k of space and it comes with all the network protocols and you can write gui frontends in it. 15:52:56 AND there aren't 1001 versions. there is just one version for 1001 platforms. 15:53:05 And it's not free. 15:53:16 you don't need to pay for it. 15:53:30 also source is available for all hex/octal coders ;) 15:54:05 I don't mean free as in 'need to pay for it' 15:54:09 s/free/non-free 15:54:18 I mean that, since it's non-free, it has no future 15:54:32 It's either dead, or will die very soon 15:54:34 multics had no future but it greatly influenced unix. 15:54:45 I'm not learning multics either :) 15:55:12 When rebol influences some (free) language, I might learn that. 15:55:17 gilbertbsd : Multics only really influenced unix in providing precisly the wrong way to design a system. 15:56:01 :D multics still had influence. 15:56:14 supposing multics had not existed, where on earth will unix be today? 15:56:17 thats right. No where. 15:57:07 gilbertbsd: Yes, and we would have a better OS 15:57:22 vms. 15:57:24 or so they claim. 15:57:28 or AmigaOS. 15:57:43 which the rebol guy greatly influenced (multitasking kernel). 15:57:44 No, just something completely different 15:58:03 like what? have you read the article I posted? Sassenrath talks about good stuff. 15:58:08 That, unfortunately, doesn't exist now and never will, because UNIX influenced history this way. 15:58:12 REBOL today: The OS is irrelevant? 15:58:44 nah thats incorrect. Unix is a quick and dirty system and that makes it very popular. 15:58:53 so what we need is a better quick and dirty system. 15:58:58 Afterall worse is better isn't it? 15:59:11 No, not really. 15:59:28 Is Better better than 'worse is better'? 15:59:30 I440r : In isforth, why does dup on an empty stack push a 0? 15:59:51 no 16:00:06 it pushes the item below stack 16:01:00 I440r : Doesn't the word stack? catch that? 16:01:07 Or your equivalent? 16:02:06 I440r : OK, I see how you've done that... 16:02:42 i440r are you writing anything in the form of 'Role your own forth in asm?' apart from the source code? 16:06:35 has anyone here used or purchased an SGI from ebay? 16:25:58 no ?stacks doesnt catch that 16:26:00 :) 16:27:27 I440r : OK, in isforth, how do I get to the beginning of the actual code of the last compiled definition? 16:27:31 last @ name> 16:27:36 Something like that? 16:38:26 yes 16:38:29 no 16:38:37 last @ IS the nfa 16:38:46 not the cfa 16:38:53 # of words in isforth 1.09b's core: 592 16:39:28 and growing :) 16:39:44 brn, going to store... 16:40:33 :) 16:40:34 OK 16:42:21 --- join: gilbertbsd_ (~gilbertbs@67.97.122.14) joined #forth 16:42:33 hi lament 16:44:23 --- quit: gilbertbsd (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 16:44:30 --- nick: gilbertbsd_ -> gilbertbsd 16:47:14 hi. 16:47:35 there are open source rebols ;) 16:48:02 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OSCAR-PROJECT/ 16:49:04 --- quit: I440r (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) 16:52:20 Fun. 16:52:38 so are you gonna look at it? 16:52:45 Arg. I give up on isforth... Too complex, too few docs. 16:52:53 --- quit: wossname ("have to go") 16:52:54 too complex? how so? 16:53:17 Well, for starters, everything in the system is defined in assebler. 16:53:20 Assembler. 16:53:34 Much of it could be moved to the higher level forth definitions. 16:53:40 there are C based forths and even a small python based forth. 16:53:46 Secondly, there are simply too many words in it. 16:54:05 Much should be relegated to the core. 16:54:49 what would you have done instead Fractal? 16:54:58 --- quit: fridge ("We Are LiCe. You Will Be Assimilated.") 16:55:03 what would be the strictly minimum set you would implement in asm? 16:55:17 gilbertbsd : Well, I'd have only a few primitive branch instructions, and enough to bootstrap the colon compiler. 16:55:36 gilbertbsd : Here's my forth: www.hcsw.org/frugal/ 16:55:40 ah good. 16:55:57 It's not exactly my ideal forth: I would definitley change a few things if I started over. 16:56:23 whats it written in? 16:56:32 The core is in ANSI C. 16:57:04 But most words are defined in init.fs 16:57:23 Whereas in isforth, most of the words (even looping constructs) are wrappers to assembler routines. 16:59:40 However, my biggest problem with isforth (aside from the fact that it's completely non-portable) is the lack of documentation. 16:59:59 the source is the documentation :D 17:00:13 Uh huh... 17:01:06 so does your forth work? 17:01:22 Um... Of course it "works"... 17:01:38 fatal: symbol referencing errors. 17:01:44 Just depends on your definition of "works". :) 17:01:46 from ld 17:01:59 gilbertbsd : Show me how you compiled it. 17:02:07 You used "make" I trust. 17:02:17 yep 17:02:24 Platform? 17:02:29 --- quit: proteusguy (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 17:02:51 --- join: proteusguy (~username@65.191.88.177) joined #forth 17:02:58 sunos 5.8 generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ul,tra-4 17:03:27 OK, give me one second. I have access to a sunbox. 17:06:36 gilbertbsd : OK, as you should know, SunOS wants you to link with -lsocket and -lnsl 17:06:48 So, add that to the CFLAGS in the Makefile. 17:07:06 Then open up extprims. You can comment out the line containing a bzero() call. 17:07:38 --- quit: lament (Remote closed the connection) 17:08:27 Bus error (core dumped) 17:08:36 Ya, hold on, I'm looking into that. 17:08:46 Next release I'll make SunOS compatible. 17:09:01 In the meantime, you might have more luck trying it on the machine you use isforth on. 17:09:11 I don't use isforth :D 17:09:23 I have no access to a linux machine you see? 17:09:49 So, in fact, you don't know if isforth suits your needs. 17:10:20 all I want is to role my own forth (byof) to CM's party :D 17:11:28 why didn't you write your forth in asm? 17:11:57 Well, it's simply counterproductive. 17:12:12 you want a portable system don't you? 17:12:17 I'd rather not bind my forth to one platform. 17:12:39 Yes, effectively. Take this problem with SunOS. It should be relatively easy to fix - I should have it working soon. 17:13:09 Whereas porting isforth to SunOS would be ridiculously difficult. 17:13:22 if nasm existed for SunOS ... 17:13:38 so how are you creating frugal? 17:13:50 what docs are you using to guide you and what do you want it to become? 17:14:19 I've created it almost solely on things I've learnt from using other forth systems. 17:14:36 And I just want a forth system to experiment with, really. 17:15:03 --- join: lament (~lament@24.78.145.92) joined #forth 17:15:23 why don't you create a diary as well? 17:15:40 a diary containing design decisions. the whyfors of frugal. 17:16:03 Well, the file CHANGELOG is starting to become one, but it's pretty sparse as of yet. 17:16:31 were it not for my antiC attitude, your source might have helped me implement my own forth. 17:16:43 I read C rarely and understand it not. 17:17:08 Write a forth compiler in Python :) 17:17:41 I wanna write it in asm first. 17:18:11 using pythonish pseudocode ofcourse ;) 17:18:37 Heh. I'd write a Forth for my TI calculator if I ever managed to connect it to the PC under linux 17:19:02 I don't understand the lanugage well enough unfortunately :( 17:19:16 gilbertbsd : That's a shame. Despite it's serious shortcomings, C is quite popular. A wellrounded program should at least learn enough to read it. 17:19:25 Programmer, that is. 17:19:44 yes yes. 17:20:20 I would like to write a rebol-ly forth. 17:20:27 Don't learn C. 17:20:30 Learn Ocaml instead :) 17:20:30 I am just in love with the language. or a python-ny forth. 17:20:38 Ocaml? hell no. 17:20:44 It's almost as fast, and a lot better. 17:20:50 as python? 17:21:04 As C 17:21:15 Well, one ought to have at least some experience with a structured procedural language. 17:21:26 Yep I agree. Python is it. 17:21:31 Yes. Preferrably as early as possible 17:21:36 And then forget about it 17:21:57 the reason I love asm so much is that none of that BS percolates to that level easily. 17:22:08 Fractal: and C is not that structured either :) 17:22:22 --- quit: proteusguy ("Client Exiting") 17:22:28 c does too have a 'goto' which is available for abuse. 17:22:32 It doesn't even have proper namespaces. 17:22:43 gilbertbsd: ah, well, that's not such a big deal 17:22:56 indeed. 17:23:21 but the syntax feels 'quick and dirty' like. 17:23:42 to me. ie. 17:24:06 Umm 17:24:13 heck I just have an inborn resistance to certain languages and C is one of them. 17:24:17 You are a forth programmer. 17:24:24 You don't have any right to say things like that. 17:24:31 Anyway, don't learn C, learn ocaml :) 17:24:34 I am learning forth :D so I can sneak that in. 17:24:44 I promise I shall learn ocaml. 17:24:48 heh 17:24:50 I have heard fantastic things about it. 17:25:02 well, it's not that great 17:25:13 its main advantage is that it's so fast 17:25:17 what is your preferred language? 17:25:21 Python 17:25:27 ^5 17:25:31 Ocaml has a good type system, and is functional 17:25:49 see what I mean by 'no bs' in asm? 17:25:53 It also has, to my taste, disturbingly ugly syntax 17:25:58 No, I do'nt 17:26:06 What do you mean by 'no bs'? 17:26:06 'functional, type' etc. 17:26:11 That's not bs :) 17:26:21 oh yes its not. But once it gets compiled it is. 17:26:29 what? 17:27:06 a compiled functional factorial function is gonna look a little funnier than a straight asm factorial function. 17:27:11 ppar example. 17:27:14 So? 17:27:23 Who cares? 17:27:26 why not just skip the whole thing? 17:27:31 Skip what? 17:27:43 the functional, type, object stuff. 17:28:01 I guess they are called HLL for a reason afterall. 17:28:13 Because higher level languages are more convenient. 17:28:18 for? 17:28:22 who us? 17:28:23 For everything. 17:28:36 For large programs, they're thousands of times more convenient than assembly. 17:28:45 For small ones, tens of times perhaps :) 17:28:45 I dunno. 17:28:56 Yes? 17:29:01 Do you disagree? 17:29:05