00:00:00 --- log: started forth/03.04.01
01:28:52 --- join: ramnull (~nicad@12.241.145.39) joined #forth
02:35:45 --- join: Speuler (~semtex@mnch-d9ba49c1.pool.mediaWays.net) joined #forth
03:14:59 --- quit: ramnull ("This isn't Happy Hour!")
04:06:06 <fridge> sifbot: : hello ." Hello." . ; hello
04:06:08 <sifbot> fridge: Hello.  stack underflow    
04:06:12 <fridge> whoot.
04:13:06 <Robert> Haha.
04:13:22 <Robert> sifbot: .( <3)
04:13:23 <sifbot> Robert: <3    
06:17:48 --- join: Herkamire (~jason@wsip68-15-54-54.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
06:46:02 --- quit: fridge ("http://lice.codehack.com")
06:51:23 --- join: fridge (meldrum@zipperii.zip.com.au) joined #forth
06:58:08 <Speuler> sifbot: : foo r> 1 .>r  ; foo
06:58:09 <sifbot> Speuler:   Word not found: .>r  
06:58:16 <Speuler> sifbot: : foo r> 1 . >r  ; foo
06:58:18 <sifbot> Speuler:     
07:00:19 <Speuler> hoi
07:01:40 <Robert> Hoi :)
07:01:57 <Robert> Ah!
07:02:07 <Robert> Finally the enth/flux page is up again
07:33:18 --- quit: onetom (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
07:40:05 --- join: onetom (~tom@novtan.bio.u-szeged.hu) joined #forth
07:55:40 <onetom> http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/
07:56:13 <onetom> sample program in the "whitespace" language
07:56:18 <onetom>                               
07:56:19 <onetom>                 
07:56:21 <onetom>                                   
07:56:23 <onetom>   
07:56:23 <onetom>  
07:56:53 <onetom> its half serious, not a total aprils fool joke
07:58:41 <Robert> Heh
08:21:06 --- join: deluxe (~deluxe@pD9E4E861.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
08:36:18 --- join: PoppaVic (~pfv@s95.waters.gtlakes.com) joined #forth
09:43:55 --- join: krish (KRISHNAKUM@61.1.220.209) joined #forth
09:44:32 <Robert> Hi
09:45:05 <krish> hello!
09:47:46 * PoppaVic notes signs of life
09:48:24 <Robert> Yeah, it's a miracle.
09:48:53 <PoppaVic> well, It's the first I've seen any action - beyond the twit that screwed the topic
09:49:03 <Robert> Heh
09:50:46 <PoppaVic> ..Oh. And, I have to admit that 9+ hours of rolling thru the comp.lang-forth stuff pretty-much reaffirmed my faith in "ueslessnet" as a real term.
09:53:17 <krish> people, any idea about continuations ?
09:53:38 <PoppaVic> context?
09:58:21 <krish> programming languages ...
09:59:58 <PoppaVic> Yes. I sorta' figured that one out, thanks. <shrug> I'm not sure of where you are, what's been said or done and the cutesy engineering/cs terms.
10:01:07 <krish> ok.
10:12:02 <krish> [opinion poll] iyo, which is the best free forth ?
10:12:38 <Robert> I use IsForth for my everyday Linux Forth coding...
10:12:59 <PoppaVic> I've been tinkering with gforth
10:13:43 <Robert> And you, krish ?
10:13:55 <PoppaVic> If I could stand ASM, I might check out the others..
10:14:26 <Robert> Why can't you stand it? :(
10:14:32 <krish> i've downloaded almost every free forth ...
10:14:50 <PoppaVic> I ain't touched asm sinze my z80 days - other than a bit of voodoo on the old 286 once.
10:14:51 <Robert> I haven't bothered to try many forths.
10:15:02 <krish> the other day, I was testing some examples on the FreeBSD boot loader ... it was fun
10:15:06 <Robert> Although the concept of colored Forth seems nice.
10:15:15 <PoppaVic> the x86 stuff is just too whacko to understand
10:15:24 <Robert> PoppaVic: Yeah, it's messed up
10:15:40 <Robert> PoppaVic: But you can at least deal with the simple stuff needed to understand how a PC forth works.
10:15:40 <krish> tried itanium assembly ?
10:16:03 <PoppaVic> C, man - I let C write the asm.. I have no interest in it.
10:16:45 <PoppaVic> I think I've now got something like 8 types of forth downloaded, though - and pfe & gforth running.
10:17:09 <krish> and u dont like pfe - do you ?
10:17:27 <PoppaVic> running it is nice, the code is all asm again <shrug>
10:17:40 <PoppaVic> Plus, it lacks pipes & such that gforth has.
10:17:57 <krish> but seems like gforth is dead ...
10:18:15 <krish> no new stuff since 2000
10:18:27 <PoppaVic> Could be.. I dunno' - I found 0.6.1 and had zero trouble building & installing.
10:18:52 <krish> where did you find 0.6.1 ?
10:19:12 <PoppaVic> hmm.. I was scruffing around and it was an ftp download.
10:19:13 <krish> ftp.gnu.org still has 0.5 and alpha.gnu.org does'nt have gforth dir.
10:19:28 * krish is googling ...
10:19:32 <PoppaVic> I can throw you the tarball, if you'd like.
10:19:56 <krish> i found it.
10:20:01 <PoppaVic> ok
10:20:19 <PoppaVic> Sadly, the debugger is borked.. But, everything else seems to work.
10:20:44 <PoppaVic> I figure it's prolly the best way to get my feet damp again.
10:20:52 <krish> tried bigForth ?
10:21:11 <PoppaVic> I believe I tried it a year ago - I recall it was certainly big.
10:21:25 <krish> even freshmeat was not updated ...
10:21:34 <PoppaVic> hmm.. maybe I should grab that again, too
10:21:55 <krish> its fast ...
10:22:07 <krish> i came to forth coz of bigForth and FCP.F
10:22:28 <PoppaVic> fast is nice.. useful/friendly/portable more so.
10:22:58 <PoppaVic> For "fast" I have zero issues with C.
10:23:20 <krish> you dont have to have portable implementations. it suffices to have portable code.
10:23:37 <PoppaVic> There is no such animal
10:25:30 <PoppaVic> With C, at least I can pretend to posix - with forth, the best you can hope for is ANS - and that document is giving me a good chuckle today.
10:25:59 <krish> still no C interface for gforth 0.6.1
10:26:40 * krish feels that C interface is a must for any interpreted language
10:26:57 <PoppaVic> Actually, yeah there is..
10:27:11 <PoppaVic> BUT, I'm damned if I can puzzle it all out.
10:27:44 <krish> the changelog file did'nt mention it. and 'm still pulling the tarball
10:28:02 <PoppaVic> in the root dir, find lib.fs - then you have to grep like mad. I did find one note on the web and got their example to work., but the example is raw & sans lib.fs
10:28:47 <PoppaVic> we get dlopen/dlsym & such - but the damned info-files don't document lib.fs nor, iirc, the dlopen/sym
10:29:12 * PoppaVic is grabbing bigforth - wtf, he's got gigs to burn anymore
10:29:39 <krish> in terms of dynamic linking, pfe is the best.
10:30:46 <PoppaVic> I have no idea how pfe does it, and I emailed 'im about pipes & such a week ago.. No reply.
10:31:08 <krish> iirc, pfe is written entirely in C
10:31:37 <PoppaVic> yeah, I think so - all wrapped in some sorta' macro-voodoo
10:32:35 <krish> i think it works like this: save the forth interepreter state - call C - restore state
10:33:00 <krish> with pfe, you can write entire vocabularies in C and load it on demand
10:33:16 <PoppaVic> yeah, it should.. That would be cool.
10:33:29 <PoppaVic> maybe I just can puzzle the docs then *sigh*
10:33:36 <PoppaVic> can/can't/
10:35:49 <PoppaVic> I don't know of any app written in forth, let alone bigforth, let alone minos though.
10:36:45 <Robert> What do you code in Forth?
10:36:57 <Robert> I mean.. you say you haven't seen any apps.
10:37:07 <Robert> Don't you code anything?
10:37:16 <PoppaVic> nothing, yet - this is the first time I've been back to it in almost 2 decades.
10:37:38 <krish> my time in forth is about a week.
10:37:53 <krish> this is interesting - http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/30036.html
10:39:19 <Robert> 2 decades?
10:39:20 <Robert> Wow.
10:39:43 * Robert hasn't lived 2 decades... And only coded for like 5-6 years.
10:40:09 <krish> Robert: the other day you said you were 26 ...
10:40:19 <PoppaVic> Yeah.. Once I got into turbo C in the darkages, with a jog into c++ that I don't miss, I've been prettymuch centered in C.
10:40:24 <Robert> krish: Heh, no.
10:40:38 <Robert> krish: 16 maybe, 17 maybe (depends on if you asked after or before March 8th)
10:40:59 <krish> Robert: whatz the year of birth ?
10:41:03 <Robert> 1986.
10:41:07 <Robert> Obviously :)
10:41:15 <Robert> PoppaVic: Working as a programmer?
10:42:24 <PoppaVic> no - never been hired as such
10:42:59 <krish> [poll] who is the oldest in #forth ?
10:43:02 <PoppaVic> Other folks stare at tv's, or pick up broads <shrug> I code..
10:43:24 <Robert> :)
10:43:25 <PoppaVic> in here? You'd have to beat 1960 ;-)
10:43:48 <Robert> Chuck Moore is probably the oldest one who's been in here.
10:43:48 <krish> hmm - not a bad place to be in ;-)
10:44:06 <Robert> IIRC, he was born in 1937 or so.
10:44:20 <PoppaVic> I've not seen anyone I "recognize" here, yet..
10:45:02 <Robert> If you stay long enough, Jeff Fox might show up. ;)
10:45:02 <PoppaVic> Yeah, he'd have to be older, since I was dicking with fig-forth long after he wrote forth
10:45:42 <krish> PoppaVic: so why are you interested in forth again ?
10:45:47 <krish> fed up with others ?
10:46:22 <PoppaVic> No, not really..
10:46:43 <PoppaVic> I've been looking for a good way to use a script-engine.. and with forth, you can turn the glass around the other way, too.
10:47:04 <PoppaVic> Robert: I'm not sure that's a "good thing", if I followed 1/2 of the uselessnet crap.
10:47:53 <Robert> PoppaVic: How would I know? You just said you didn't recognize anyone in here.
10:48:06 <Robert> Maybe that's a good thing then.
10:48:18 <krish> am I missing something ...
10:48:21 <krish> ?
10:48:48 <PoppaVic> Umm.. I meant the handles herein.. The name I recall from a long, LONG number of long, LONG rants I waded thru yesterday.
10:49:09 <Robert> Heh
10:49:40 <PoppaVic> ..too bad google can't quite reduce the quoting to mere hyperlinks.
10:49:43 <krish> forth for scripting ? web or client ?
10:49:56 <PoppaVic> "yes"
10:50:58 <PoppaVic> Mostly, I hate perl and shell-scripting with a passion you cannot know..
10:51:43 <PoppaVic> ..and, I was sorta' thinking of a project, and looked at ficl first, but.. I dunno'.. I seem to spend most of my time this last week trying to determine why and how to get things done.
10:51:45 <krish> perl is write-only.
10:51:58 <PoppaVic> perl is crap.
10:52:01 <krish> what project ?
10:52:26 <PoppaVic> mickey-mouse idea I had... Something easier for a developer or user to use for autoconfig/install.
10:54:22 <krish> Robert: Yoda would have been a natural forther ...
10:55:16 <Robert> :)
10:55:41 <PoppaVic> [noun|pronoun][verb] || [adjective][noun|pronoun]
10:56:10 <krish> PoppaVic: you are hurting me ...
10:56:30 <PoppaVic> Certainly forth ain't as hard on my eyes as sh-scripting.
10:57:40 <krish> but i'm struggling to get to grips with it.
10:58:31 <krish> reasons - 1) lack of books 2) i'm started studying the source of complicated programs
10:59:09 <PoppaVic> yeah, I've been having to reference shit I bought back in the 70's and 80's
11:01:08 <PoppaVic> Plus, I got the overall impression that no one that writes forth really cares. Certainly not enough to suggest or host a repository.
11:01:28 <Robert> For what?
11:01:49 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: standard question. Have you seen bashforth? :)
11:01:56 <PoppaVic> forth source/snippets/utilities/apps/examples - yes, I've checked a few that said they were.
11:02:02 <krish> PoppaVic: there is plenty of code out there
11:02:09 <gilbertdeb> krish: 'out there'.
11:02:09 <PoppaVic> "bashforth"?? bog, no - wtf is THAT?
11:02:12 <gilbertdeb> not 'in there.
11:02:23 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: www.forthfreak.net/bashforth.
11:02:27 <gilbertdeb> written by Speuler :)
11:02:30 <gilbertdeb> its pretty neat.
11:02:37 <PoppaVic> OK, let me get bigforth building & I'll peruse it..
11:02:49 <krish> gilbertdeb: i did say out there
11:02:51 <gilbertdeb> oops, no /bashforth
11:02:56 <gilbertdeb> www.forthfreak.net
11:03:02 <PoppaVic> loading..
11:03:04 <Robert> Yeah.
11:03:21 <Robert> I don't really like the idea of a Bash forth, but he has a neat little archive.
11:03:22 <gilbertdeb> krish: needed. a forth bot to grab all the forth code 'out there' into one huge repository.
11:03:32 <PoppaVic> Krish: and, btw: no.. There is NOT "plenty of code out there"
11:03:35 <gilbertdeb> I think the big problem is that there is no one forth that will run them all.
11:03:42 <PoppaVic> yup. 
11:03:48 <krish> PoppaVic: i think its an illusion.
11:04:08 <krish> PoppaVic: since forth is so terse, even a small file packs a lot of punch
11:04:12 <gilbertdeb> well, I am learning forth from starting forth and I am sticking to forth79 :)
11:04:15 <PoppaVic> Frankly, I can find about 200-400% more source in C than I could over a week of searching for forth.
11:04:46 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: I think there aren't that many projects that use forth don't put their code out much.
11:04:51 <gilbertdeb> they just keep it to themeselves.
11:05:23 <krish> PoppaVic: true. there is a lot more C code. But in forth a lot can be said in a few 'words'
11:05:38 <gilbertdeb> krish: eg a webbrowser?
11:05:53 <PoppaVic> krish.. umm - I've used it before.. looong before, ok? ;-)
11:06:04 <Robert> gilbertdeb: What have you been coding in Forth so far?
11:06:05 <krish> ok
11:06:14 <PoppaVic> ..and there is still many 'C' % more C to peruse/use.
11:06:18 <gilbertdeb> Robert: the examples from SF :)
11:06:25 <Robert> Hehe, OK
11:06:28 <gilbertdeb> also school has been interrupting.
11:06:32 <gilbertdeb> but I forgive it.
11:06:49 <PoppaVic> cool - I grabbed his stringstack stuff.
11:06:56 <krish> Robert: my plans : connect forth to FastCGI and write some web apps.
11:06:59 <gilbertdeb> relative to the number of C coders, forth coders are really few.
11:07:04 <Robert> krish: :)
11:07:28 <krish> Robert: at least it looks simple at the outset.
11:07:30 <PoppaVic> gilbertdeb: yeah, but you can throw out those C newbies writing tripe and still get a hefty sum ;-)
11:07:45 <gilbertdeb> hehehe.
11:08:15 <PoppaVic> I was seriously unimpressed with the uselessnet posts, let alone most web sites.. There were only a few that seemed interesting.
11:08:33 <krish> PoppaVic: this is exactly what the C/C++ guys say about VB morons. (hope I'm insulting anyone here)
11:08:35 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: what did you expect to see?
11:08:44 <PoppaVic> ..and, I still didn't find much in the way of apps.
11:09:05 <PoppaVic> Yeah, VB is too inane to even discuss.
11:09:21 <krish> did you checkout Marcel Hendrix's page ?
11:09:38 <PoppaVic> gil.. I left forth for 20 years.. I certainly expected better development, exploitation and presentation.
11:09:46 <PoppaVic> yeah, I think so.
11:10:01 <gilbertdeb> I see what you mean.
11:10:17 <gilbertdeb> well, you can pick up right where you left off w/o much ado :)
11:10:32 <PoppaVic> a browser? a server? something.. editors? heh - yeah, ain't that the bitch?
11:11:27 <krish> PoppaVic: earlier today I saw the movie "Blast From the Past" on HBO
11:11:52 <PoppaVic> ahh - I have yet to see that... It looked cute.
11:12:32 <krish> Brendan Frasier was very good ...
11:12:33 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: I believe there are webserver written in forth. Chuck's colorforth has an editor of some sort I believe. I haven't heard of any browsers though
11:12:58 <krish> the best browser undoubtedly is Opera - and i'm using it.
11:13:25 <Herkamire> I don't like Opera that much
11:13:39 <krish> it weighs around 4M and offers just about every functionality.
11:13:51 <krish> Herkamire: tried the recent version(s
11:13:52 <Robert> I don't like any browser...
11:13:54 <krish> )?
11:13:54 <PoppaVic> yeah.. that colorforth stuff looks like it's gonna' be fanatic-ware.
11:14:12 <Herkamire> krish: one of the reasons I don't like it is that recent versions don't work on my computer
11:14:35 <krish> Herkamire: h/w or s/w probs ?
11:14:46 <PoppaVic> I liked commi-pro, and I like moz - even if it's a bit slow.
11:15:00 <Herkamire> krish: last I checked they didn't even compile the newer releases for ppc linux
11:15:05 <gilbertdeb> there are'nt that many choices outthere for browsers.
11:15:21 <Herkamire> krish: and the lates build for ppc linux uses a quite old version of glibc
11:15:21 <krish> Herkamire: so ur stuck on a ppc ...
11:15:22 <gilbertdeb> you have the netscape camp, the opera camp and thats it.
11:15:45 <gilbertdeb> oh, maybe the kde camp as well.
11:15:53 <krish> gilbertdeb: dont forget the console based browsers - there are some real good ones there.
11:15:56 <gilbertdeb> and yeah there is hotjava
11:15:57 <Herkamire> krish: I wouldn't say stuck. the best damn hardware I know about (for ~$1000)
11:16:30 <krish> Herkamire: stuck is not the proper word. 
11:16:38 <PoppaVic> eww
11:16:38 <Herkamire> lynx is still my favorite browser
11:16:50 <PoppaVic> java belongs in my cup, so... I'll go get some..
11:17:06 <krish> links, lynx, w3m, netrik are all good.
11:17:15 <Herkamire> when I want images I use dillo. when I want everything (frames, javascript, css etc.) I use mozilla
11:17:55 <krish> Herkamire: ppc linux ?
11:18:15 <Herkamire> w3m has some nice features, but it lost some very nice parts of the keyboard interface lynx has
11:18:22 <Herkamire> krish: yes
11:18:40 <krish> Herkamire: tried openMCL ?
11:18:53 <Herkamire> krish: no. what is it?
11:19:02 <krish> Herkamire: its a lisp impl.
11:19:10 <PoppaVic> ugh
11:19:16 <PoppaVic> lisp and DIE
11:19:17 <Herkamire> I don't like lisp
11:19:24 <krish> gil... ?
11:19:35 <gilbertdeb> I haven't tried it.
11:19:58 <gilbertdeb> whats so great about it?
11:20:15 <PoppaVic> cool.. bigforth installed.... now to wade thru THEIR docs... a damned pdf
11:20:15 <krish> its another mind-expanding language.
11:20:37 <gilbertdeb> another?
11:20:39 <gilbertdeb> its a lisp isn't it?
11:20:44 <PoppaVic> I wouldn't wish lisp on - er, yes. I would wish it on enemies..
11:20:51 <Herkamire> list is pretty low on the list of languages I want to learn more about
11:21:07 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: I think its a decent language all together.
11:21:09 <krish> Herkamire: it should atleast be on par with forth
11:21:18 <PoppaVic> it ranks right down there with java and vb
11:21:25 <gilbertdeb> why is that?
11:21:37 <Herkamire> krish: what's so great about it?
11:21:38 <gilbertdeb> do you do a lot of pedaltothemetal coding?
11:21:39 <PoppaVic> because I have zero interest in it.
11:21:43 <krish> PoppaVic: do you have vb on ur list ? ha ha
11:21:58 <PoppaVic> "down there" on that list.
11:22:17 * krish does'nt have vb anywhere 
11:22:21 <PoppaVic> ..learning cretian or sanskrit is a jot higher
11:22:32 <gilbertdeb> so I suppose you don't like smalltalk much either?
11:22:50 <PoppaVic> I recall smalltalk from the dark ages. No.
11:23:11 <krish> Herkamire: like forth, lisp has no statement oriented syntax.
11:23:38 <gilbertdeb> krish: what do you use lisp for?
11:23:43 <Herkamire> krish: but what about all the &%$^%# perens?
11:23:44 <krish> Herkamire: lisp uses prefix (whilst forth uses postfix) 
11:24:03 <krish> Herkamire: in lisp ?
11:24:07 <Herkamire> yes
11:24:23 <Herkamire> I used lisp for a bit and I couldn't for the life of me arrange the code so I could see what the hell was going on
11:24:26 <krish> Herkamire: to start and end an expr.
11:24:47 <krish> Herkamire: if you can read forth code then you can read lisp code too.
11:25:01 <Herkamire> if you can find the closing perens
11:25:15 <krish> gil...: lisp is very good at symbolic processing
11:26:08 <krish> gil...: like forth, it suffers from a lack of modernity.
11:26:09 <gilbertdeb> krish: I know. but what do you krish use it for?
11:26:22 <gilbertdeb> krish: now that is an abominable statement!!!
11:26:34 <Herkamire> I am interested in: 1) forth (with a little asm)  and 2) some very high level (probably OO) language with garbage collection, dynamic types, lists etc.
11:26:34 <gilbertdeb> CL was the first ans-certified OO language.
11:26:35 <krish> gil...: ok. i'll take that back
11:26:52 <krish> Herkamire: for 2) I suggest Eiffel
11:27:13 <krish> Herkamire: oops, I missed the 'dynamic types' part.
11:27:22 <krish> Herkamire: so for 2) i would suggest ruby.
11:27:35 <Herkamire> I don't really need dynamic types
11:27:39 <krish> Herkamire: smalltalk is equally good.
11:27:44 <Herkamire> I was thinking of perl and python when I said that
11:28:01 <Herkamire> I liked smalltalk when I played with it
11:28:03 <krish> Herkamire: ruby beats perl in clarity 
11:28:05 <gilbertdeb> krish: do you like snobol?
11:28:20 <krish> gil...: did get a chance to see it
11:28:21 <PoppaVic> OO+gc+dyna-foo ? *sigh*
11:28:22 <gilbertdeb> it and setl are pretty high on my list.
11:28:36 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: honestly, I'd rather do octal asm.
11:28:36 <krish> gil...: but I did try icon 
11:28:41 <gilbertdeb> its just so darned hard.
11:28:41 <PoppaVic> yah
11:28:47 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: I'm trying to figure out if there's something to high level languages
11:29:07 <PoppaVic> yes, there is: hand-holding and shitloads of restrictions plus overhead
11:29:14 <krish> Herkamire: lisp is defnly worth learning.
11:29:14 <gilbertdeb> a highlevel language is pseudocode for a lowerlevel language. 
11:29:51 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: yep. that's the part I don't like. and the complexity.
11:29:52 <krish> yeah... a one liner in perl/ruby will take pages in C
11:30:41 <PoppaVic> <shrug> I'd rather - and am looking at - scripting in forth again. I have zero interest in perl & friends.
11:31:05 <krish> Herkamire: ocaml f.e infers types and generates very efficient code
11:31:16 <PoppaVic> I do think that we are hurting here with the lack of an object-compiler.
11:31:17 <Herkamire> but short scripts definately work out better in higher level languages with all those features
11:31:47 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: I haven't made up my mind about OO lags
11:31:54 <Herkamire> s/lags/languages/
11:31:56 <PoppaVic> well, certainly I'd prefer to type "mv A A.c" than write the could to do it, yes.
11:32:53 <Herkamire> I've thought that OO was crap for a long time because I learned C++ then Java.
11:32:57 <PoppaVic> I gave up on C++ when all the weenies and their poly-foo went ape <shrug> I've written OO C, which is irksome but useful.. I'm looking into forth/c|c/forth the same way.
11:33:21 <krish> Herkamire: the reason I mentioned openMCL to you is since you use a ppc, openMCL works only on ppc and generates native code.
11:33:41 <Herkamire> krish: nifty. what language is that?
11:33:48 <krish> lisp ...
11:33:54 <Herkamire> drrr
11:33:59 <krish> :-)
11:34:18 <Herkamire> do you have urls for eiffel and ruby?
11:34:54 <gilbertdeb> python is an OOL is'nt it?
11:36:26 <PoppaVic> I often have to ponder wtf folks mean by "OO" - it seems to vary.
11:36:43 <gilbertdeb> object oriented.
11:37:03 <PoppaVic> no, "mean"
11:37:27 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: all this bs oriented stuff is simply because we all refuse to learn octal thoroughly!
11:37:44 <gilbertdeb> hmmm. that should be my first priority now.
11:37:45 <PoppaVic> I can think hex, but not octal.
11:38:05 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: octal because the x86 asm is an octal machine.
11:38:19 <gilbertdeb> I don't know of the mips and the sparc though.
11:39:28 <gilbertdeb> as soon as I am done reading enough about forth, my first big project <should> be on writing a good octal tutorial.
11:39:37 <gilbertdeb> not much by way of info unfortunately.
11:40:39 <Herkamire> gilbertdeb: what the hell...
11:40:56 <Herkamire> what's octal about x86?
11:41:07 <gilbertdeb> alright, lemme fetch you the link.
11:41:09 <gilbertdeb> Again.
11:41:14 <Herkamire> the hardware is binary
11:41:18 <PoppaVic> damnfino - it's his story ;-)
11:41:19 <Herkamire> your language can use whatever base you want
11:42:20 <gilbertdeb> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3gmn58%24rbk%40DGS.dgsys.com&output=gplain
11:42:44 <Herkamire> tunes.org has a pretty bad description of eiffel
11:42:45 <gilbertdeb> the instructions are supposedly 'octal oriented' :P
11:43:07 <Herkamire> meaning.... they have 3 bit field a lot?
11:43:24 <gilbertdeb> spam.
11:43:26 <gilbertdeb> The only proper way to understand 80x86 coding is to realize that ALL 80x86
11:43:27 <gilbertdeb> OPCODES ARE CODED IN OCTAL.  A byte has 3 octal digits, ranging from 000 to
11:43:27 <gilbertdeb> 377.  In fact, each octal group (000-077, 100-177, etc.) tends to encode a
11:43:27 <gilbertdeb> specific variety of operation.  All of these are features inherited from the
11:43:27 <gilbertdeb> 8080/8085/Z80.
11:43:56 <Herkamire> whatevery
11:44:01 <Herkamire> whatever
11:44:17 <gilbertdeb> </quote>
11:45:19 --- quit: flyfly ("using sirc version 2.211+KSIRC/1.2.4")
11:46:29 <PoppaVic> gahh.. blockfiles, streamfiles.. I could beat the sucker
11:46:53 <Herkamire> wait a minute... ruby is tcl??
11:47:11 <krish> Herkamire: no.
11:47:25 <krish> Herkamire: www.ruby-lang.org
11:47:53 <krish> Herkamire: look at http://smarteiffel.loria.fr for a production quality free eiffel compiler
11:48:09 <krish> Herkamire: and join #eiffel
11:48:29 --- join: I440r (~mark4@1Cust22.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
11:48:36 <krish> I440r: hi
11:48:51 <gilbertdeb> ruby mooches off python :P
11:49:07 <krish> I440r: wanted to ask you this the other day ...
11:49:11 <I440r> hi
11:49:17 <I440r> ask :)
11:49:41 <krish> I440r: is code aligned properly in isforth ?
11:50:22 <I440r> no :/
11:50:33 <I440r> i see NO point. aligning it does NOTHIGN
11:50:34 <I440r> nothing
11:50:46 <krish> I440r: misaligned code slows down considerably.
11:50:46 <I440r> theres a reason i say this
11:50:54 <PoppaVic> yup
11:51:01 <I440r> normally aligning your code would slow you down BUT...
11:51:14 <PoppaVic> I wanted to ask myself: why the hell do we manually align anything, anyway?
11:51:17 <I440r> theres something that slows you down even more. so much more than the "unaligned" hit is negligable
11:51:46 <I440r> code and data in the same pages and having to continuously flush the instruction and data caches
11:51:54 <I440r> no point in aligning the code :/
11:52:01 <krish> PoppaVic: isforth is in asm 
11:52:07 <PoppaVic> yeah, I know
11:52:30 <I440r> PoppaVic: you a forth coder ??? - i dont recognizse the nick, are you new inhere ??? :)
11:52:34 <PoppaVic> But, I see it in that dpans crap, and in gforth - and I just have to wonder why we manually suffer it.
11:52:55 <PoppaVic> pop is an ancient forth coder that codes c & is back to perusing forth.
11:52:55 <krish> I440r: PoppaVic is a blast from the past ;-)
11:52:57 <I440r> poppa look at fpc - every single word is aligned on a 16 byte (paragraph) boundry
11:53:02 <I440r> THAT was super clever
11:53:12 <PoppaVic> heh - I used to run f-pc, iirc
11:53:18 <I440r> every single word starts at someseg:0 !!!
11:53:40 <I440r> im basing isforth on fpc - but NOT its code, its look/feel
11:53:52 <PoppaVic> well, it just seems to me that create/header and c,/, should manage it w/o bothering us.
11:54:08 <I440r> PoppaVic: i HATE c. i mean i TRUELY hate it with a passion
11:54:15 <PoppaVic> love it.
11:54:17 <I440r> ill code it tho if someone PAYS me :)
11:54:19 <Robert> Hehe...
11:54:33 <PoppaVic> what I hate is figuring out dufus' code - or scripts.
11:54:38 <I440r> so whats your irl name poppa ?
11:54:41 <krish> I440r: would you be kind enough to add a c interface (shlib support) to isforth ?
11:54:44 <PoppaVic> Pete.
11:55:05 <PoppaVic> yeah, they all need to handle pipes and the linker.
11:55:14 <I440r> krish thats sort of planned but its realy low priority
11:55:18 <PoppaVic> ..as well as sockets
11:55:24 <I440r> sockets isforth can do
11:55:36 <I440r> the code is only skeleton but is useable
11:55:37 <I440r> hang on
11:55:38 <krish> PoppaVic: isforth plumbs directly to the kernel
11:55:49 --- join: [Forth] (~Forth@1Cust22.tnt1.bloomington.in.da.uu.net) joined #forth
11:56:01 <I440r> [forth] is a bot written in and running under IsForth
11:56:13 <krish> ha!
11:56:20 <I440r> it cant DO shit but... its here!!!
11:56:27 <krish> I440r: can I crash it ?
11:56:37 <I440r> how would you try ?
11:56:48 <gilbertdeb> >R swap r> :)
11:56:51 <I440r> it ignores everything except server numerics and server pings at the moment
11:56:55 <gilbertdeb> oh.
11:57:02 <krish> I440r: hmmmm
11:57:16 <I440r> krish i released the bot in 1.11b i believe
11:57:21 <I440r> its a work in progress tho
11:57:36 <I440r> she realy needs the resolver and thats on hold for now
11:57:37 <krish> I440r: irc interface in forth ?
11:57:45 <PoppaVic> back with coffee... lemme read the screen quick ;-)
11:58:28 <PoppaVic> ok - back in the saddle ;-)
11:58:30 <I440r> krish yes - but its incomplete
11:58:38 <I440r> and badly implemented - needs work :)
11:59:07 <I440r> im rewroking the command line args code. its been sadly neglected for a while :)
11:59:15 <PoppaVic> Well, next you acn write me an isforth-replacement for xchat - written in c+gtk+ ;-)
11:59:25 <I440r> and i now own "termcap and terminfo" and will try resolve the terminal issues if i can
11:59:41 <PoppaVic> libpopt ;-)
11:59:41 <krish> I440r: i was about to mention that ...
11:59:53 <I440r> to mention what? - the terminal stuff ?
11:59:57 <PoppaVic> ..and my chelp upload of ez-config ;-)
12:00:22 <I440r> poppa where you located ?
12:00:27 <krish> PoppaVic: isforth is virgin code - it does'nt make use of any C libs.
12:00:27 <PoppaVic> Michigan.
12:00:40 <I440r> cool - im in indiana
12:00:40 <PoppaVic> I know krish - I'm poking fun ;-)
12:00:52 <krish> PoppaVic: ok.
12:01:05 <PoppaVic> when I want ASM - I let gcc puke it.
12:01:08 <I440r> poppa it COULD make use of them, eventually i might add the code to allow
12:01:30 <I440r> gcc is crap at asm. gas is a complete waste of everything
12:01:34 <I440r> its NOT an assembler.
12:01:41 <PoppaVic> I'd recommend peeking at pfe & gforth, if you are having asm/c issues.
12:01:42 <I440r> its the REAR END to a shitty c compiler :/
12:02:07 <I440r> im not - i never have asm issues, ive been coding asm since i was 17 and im 39 now :)
12:02:27 <PoppaVic> yeah. I left asm as soon as I upgraded from my z80 <shrug>
12:02:29 <I440r> brb
12:02:31 <krish> gil...: 26 ?
12:03:22 <gilbertdeb> hell no.
12:03:22 <gilbertdeb> -1
12:03:34 <gilbertdeb> actually. - 4mths :(
12:03:35 <PoppaVic> 0xFFFF?
12:04:00 <krish> gil...: I expected an octal no. from you
12:04:05 <gilbertdeb> hehehe.
12:04:58 --- join: karingo (karingo@239.portland-03-04rs.or.dial-access.att.net) joined #forth
12:04:59 <krish> I440r: back ?
12:05:30 <gilbertdeb> and forth?
12:05:33 <gilbertdeb> back and forth?
12:06:49 <gilbertdeb> grrr. I've forgotten how to re-wire my serial console :(
12:08:47 <PoppaVic> I'm still screwing around trying to see how I can mangle/use these stupid "wordlist"s
12:10:11 <krish> I440r: how about using a coroutine for the C interface ?
12:12:01 <PoppaVic> huh??
12:12:47 <krish> gil...: forth-script.sf.net
12:14:52 <gilbertdeb> inneresting.
12:15:03 <PoppaVic> hmm.. with all the bigforth/xbigforth/minos foo-foo... Still no nifty "apps"?
12:15:27 <krish> PoppaVic: tried fcp.f ?
12:15:43 <PoppaVic> #  Operating System: Windows 95/98/2000
12:15:52 <I440r> ive no idea what a coroutine is. it sounds like more BS make it up as you go along obfuscation crap :)
12:15:54 <PoppaVic> no, just loading and perusing..
12:16:08 <gilbertdeb> isn't a co-routine akin to pipes?
12:16:09 <PoppaVic> a coroutine is the same as a cotask
12:16:30 <I440r> that helps :)
12:16:32 <krish> a routine is something you call and it returns.
12:16:43 <PoppaVic> $ less fcp.*
12:16:44 <PoppaVic> fcp.*: No such file or directory
12:16:48 <I440r> thats a SUBroutine. or... in forth... a WORD :/
12:17:00 <krish> a coroutine is something more
12:17:05 <PoppaVic> yup
12:17:09 <krish> you can suspend a coroutine and resume later
12:17:24 <PoppaVic> it requires either a scheduler/task-manager - or cooperative switching.
12:17:30 <krish> coroutines are widely used in discrete event simulation
12:17:46 <krish> its actually simple to implement even in c
12:17:52 <PoppaVic> coroutines are a waste of time.
12:18:13 <PoppaVic> you might as well use threads and semafores/mutex
12:18:22 <PoppaVic> fore/phore
12:18:51 <krish> the difference is using coroutines you schedule them. when using threads, the OS schedules.
12:19:03 * PoppaVic sighs
12:19:08 <PoppaVic> "waste"
12:19:10 <krish> in short, coroutines do not need synching
12:19:55 <krish> no need for mutex etc.
12:20:37 <krish> PoppaVic: if coroutines are that bad they why does Knuth mentions them in 2 of his vols ?
12:20:54 <PoppaVic> perhaps he enjoys writing them <shrug>
12:21:22 <krish> PoppaVic: then why does WinNT has a seperate set of APIs for them ?
12:21:57 <PoppaVic> win... ? I don't want to know
12:22:00 <I440r> isforth doesnt have multi tasking yet - im still in 3 minds as to how i should do it
12:22:25 <krish> I440r: coroutines are the way to go given the current impl.
12:22:57 <krish> otherwise you have to use the _clone syscall
12:23:13 <I440r> clone is top of my list right now
12:23:17 <krish> its better to have cooperative threads.
12:23:37 <krish> _clone will cause probs. coz there are so much globals 
12:23:49 <PoppaVic> ugh.. coop coop blah
12:23:58 <I440r> i can write a "forth" tasker that justs JUST forth - or one that uses fork or one that uses clone or use JUST clone or.....
12:24:19 <krish> or simply implement coroutines....
12:24:30 <krish> and juggle between them
12:26:13 <PoppaVic> krish: see USER... and stop repeating it, sheesh
12:26:29 <I440r> eh ?
12:26:30 <I440r> heh
12:26:36 <PoppaVic> The question becomes: do you want useful or portable or both.
12:26:55 <I440r> thers alot that needs to be done in isforth, top of my wish list is an assembler
12:27:17 <PoppaVic> <shrug> gforth has one, I presume pfe does as well.
12:27:31 <krish> i would love to see the code for multitasking/threading in isforth ...
12:27:42 <I440r> pfe is not a forth by my standards, its coded in c
12:27:54 <krish> I440r: they all use the same assembler.
12:28:04 <I440r> no - gforth has its own
12:28:15 <I440r> erm bigforth has its own....
12:28:24 <PoppaVic> I feel no need to run out & download/install some other assembler.
12:28:29 <I440r> but they are all FUCKED in the head "5 # eax, mov," bullshit
12:28:40 <I440r> i wont acceot ANY assembler that thakes that format
12:29:03 <I440r> not unless it defaults to using SANE assembler syntax and has that as an "option"
12:29:14 <I440r> one that i would prefer to see removed
12:29:23 <PoppaVic> rpn is rpon - always has been.
12:29:31 <PoppaVic> rpon/rpn
12:30:15 --- quit: karingo ()
12:30:18 <I440r> not in assembler its not
12:30:19 --- part: deluxe left #forth
12:31:26 <I440r> bas ackwards assembler is brain dead. 
12:31:35 <I440r> and thers another reason i wont accept one,
12:31:49 <I440r> it would mean going through all the existing sources and BUTCHERING them
12:32:10 <Herkamire> I440r: does isforth run in menuetos?
12:32:27 <I440r> no. it runs in Linux/x86 only.
12:32:34 <I440r> if you can get it to run anywhere else id love to know :)
12:32:56 --- quit: [Forth] ("abort" Reality Strikes Again"")
12:32:59 <krish> I440r: can you give me a list of problematic syscalls on FreeBSD ?
12:33:13 <I440r> mmap - for a start
12:33:13 <Herkamire> I don't do x86 asm sorry
12:33:34 <I440r> :/
12:33:35 * PoppaVic chuckles
12:35:16 <I440r> PoppaVic: what did you use fpc for ?
12:35:52 <PoppaVic> That was back - hmm.. on my 286, I think
12:36:12 <I440r> aha :)
12:36:30 <PoppaVic> Because I was still actively exploring it.. TC was still in the future, iirc.
12:36:32 <I440r> i had a dx-2/66 :)
12:37:20 <PoppaVic> yah, I ran that ol' 286 right on up until I bought a pt90 - and the day THAT arrived, the price dropped and the 100+ shit was out.. Bastards.
12:37:34 <I440r> i remember being able to extend in only a few seconds on that box - fpc compiled very quickly
12:37:44 <I440r> lol
12:37:54 <I440r> the instant you get it its outa date
12:38:07 <PoppaVic> Yeah, I'm still seeing that sorta' blitz-speed with gforth, pfe and even bigforth.
12:38:55 <krish> i have a pt 233MHz lying around ...
12:38:58 <I440r> isforth does about 800k per second.
12:39:10 <PoppaVic> I have a lot of exploring to do, it seems.. Between the asshole alignment-crapdoodle, and trying to work with strings, libs and such..
12:39:19 <I440r> thats on an amd k6-3/550
12:39:32 <PoppaVic> yeah, I run a k6/300
12:39:36 <I440r> i might be able to improve on that but thats not a definate. nor is it a high priority yet :)
12:39:52 <I440r> linux ?
12:39:58 <PoppaVic> natch ;-)
12:40:02 <I440r> bleh
12:40:04 <I440r> :/
12:40:22 --- join: tathi (~josh@wsip68-15-54-54.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
12:40:38 <PoppaVic> I'm quite happy with debian, thankyouverymuch ;-)
12:40:48 <I440r> heh - me 2
12:40:51 <I440r> woody!!
12:41:02 <I440r> i only have it installed on all 3 of my boxes heh
12:41:03 * Robert pets Debian.
12:41:21 * PoppaVic apt-get's update & upgrade...
12:41:30 <Herkamire> have you tried gentoo?
12:41:43 <I440r> nah. if it aint broke dont fix it
12:41:55 <I440r> debian isnt broke so why should i change :)
12:41:59 <PoppaVic> not interested in it, myself.
12:42:12 <krish> Herkamire: is that the one that is modelled after the FreeBSD ports system ?
12:42:25 <Herkamire> krish: yep.
12:42:27 <Herkamire> works wonders
12:42:33 <PoppaVic> I live on this box - I want it to run properly allllll the time.
12:42:34 <gilbertdeb> krish: apt-get is awesome.
12:43:04 <Herkamire> gento has equivilent of apt-get except it builts the packages according to your prefferences
12:43:22 <Herkamire> optomized for your system, etc
12:43:36 <I440r> yes, debian needs a "build world"
12:43:39 * krish pulls the CVS trees 
12:44:55 * I440r didnt sleep last night, my father and i were working in our new machine shop trying to make a gunsmithing tool to true up the face of a bolt.
12:45:04 <I440r> it took us all nite but we made it :)
12:45:05 <krish> although I started with Mandrake 8 my system is fairly uptodate.
12:45:51 * PoppaVic cries - he'd always wanted to tinker with 'smithing..
12:46:43 <I440r> i started with redhat 5.2, went to 6.0 and then when 6.1 came out i abandoned it for debian and have never looked back
12:46:44 <PoppaVic> arrrgh.. I HATE these stupid .fb files
12:46:57 <PoppaVic> ..btw, krish: your tasker is tasker.fb ;-)
12:47:21 <krish> .fb = ?
12:47:43 <PoppaVic> the ancient 1024b block-files
12:48:15 <I440r> forth block files
12:48:23 <krish> PoppaVic: url ?
12:48:25 <PoppaVic> ..and, of course, that's what the xbigforth friggin' editor uses, too
12:48:29 <I440r> isforth supports them but they arent terribly useful for source files if you ask me
12:48:42 <PoppaVic> it's on my drive - not an url
12:48:46 <I440r> except on an embedded system with no bios or os
12:49:09 <krish> PoppaVic: can u dcc the file ?
12:49:20 <PoppaVic> yeah, back before cp/m they were great. Under cp/m they worked, but.. nowadays, I just hate 'em.
12:49:25 <PoppaVic> sure.
12:50:27 <PoppaVic> btw, "you" is only two more letters
12:56:44 <I440r> lol
12:58:17 --- join: flyfly (~marekb@ip164.ktvprerov.cz) joined #forth
12:58:30 <Robert> "Laughing out loud" is just 14 more characters.
12:59:42 <PoppaVic> hmm.. when apt-get finally lets me surf a bit... I need to check out anton's site for more info on his oop-shitzu
13:00:11 <Speuler> back
13:00:25 <PoppaVic> ..he's using those freaky wordlists more like I ws considering..
13:00:31 <PoppaVic> front!
13:00:32 <gilbertdeb> moin Speuler
13:00:38 <Speuler> hi gilb
13:01:08 <PoppaVic> your string-stuff looked interesting, btw - I'll have to glare at it.
13:01:30 <Speuler> strings ?
13:01:39 <krish> string stack ...
13:01:47 * Speuler wonders whether PoppaVic means him
13:02:10 <gilbertdeb> Speuler: your string stuff from forthfreak
13:02:10 <PoppaVic> yeah.. from your bashforth site.
13:02:19 <Speuler> ah. ok
13:03:02 <Speuler> i've sent a copy to jens wilke, maintainer of gforth, in case he would like to include it
13:03:03 <PoppaVic> yeah.. I was despairing at finding anything useful.
13:03:16 <PoppaVic> cool.
13:03:29 <Speuler> hope it works for you
13:03:44 <PoppaVic> I'm spolied, I usually just do foo(...) { char buf[LARGE]; and work threadsafe.
13:04:20 <PoppaVic> thanks.. Will try it as apt-get finally shuts up ;-) I may have to beat it, but I was happy to see it was ANS..
13:04:22 <Speuler> i was trying to address a real need
13:04:36 <PoppaVic> yeah - I wsa in real pain before I saw it ;-)
13:05:03 * PoppaVic still needs to tinker with the dynamic shit to reach pcre, though
13:07:34 <I440r> well i gotta go zzz, im exhausted :)
13:07:48 --- quit: I440r ("zzz")
13:07:50 <PoppaVic> ack - it's only 4pm+
13:07:52 <PoppaVic> heh
13:08:17 <Robert> Whoa..
13:08:28 <tathi> Speuler: speaking of bash...have you seen osimplay?
13:08:30 <Robert> 23:08 here...
13:08:42 <Speuler> tathi: nope. what that ?
13:08:45 <krish> 3AM in my TZ 
13:08:55 <krish> assembler ?
13:09:00 <Robert> You live too far away :)
13:09:39 <krish> tathi: ?
13:09:46 <gilbertdeb> Speuler: bash asm!
13:09:51 <gilbertdeb> i thought you had seen it.
13:10:01 <tathi> Speuler: Osimplay is a 386 assembler with Forth and C-like conveniences like "print", reentrant procedures, data "clumps", arrays, execution arrays, a nice Linux syscall format, etc.
13:10:07 <tathi> tathi: ...written in bash :-)
13:10:15 <PoppaVic> Speuler: btw, I believe I will tweak these.. Getting the data outta' the dict-space to the heap.
13:11:20 <PoppaVic> I don't *like* bash, but I hate sh..
13:11:30 <Speuler> hmm. luckily i edited the welcome screen
13:11:33 <PoppaVic> I cringe whenever I see '$'
13:11:43 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: what would you rather use then?
13:11:45 <Speuler> it said "first forth interpreter written in pure bash"
13:11:55 <Speuler> it doesn't say so anymore
13:12:11 <PoppaVic> gilbertdeb: I'd rather use forth, I'm also used to getting pissed and cranking out C on-the-fly ;-)
13:12:31 <gilbertdeb> heheh.
13:12:39 <gilbertdeb> Speuler: isn't it the first bash forth?
13:12:53 <Speuler> tathi: maybe i should check back with the osimplay developer whether code can be merged
13:13:22 <Speuler> gilbertdeb: from what tathi says, it sounds like it wasn't
13:13:43 <PoppaVic> yeah.. I occasionally ask "the guys" for a fast solution.. and use a perl cl for one job I now see that "rename" does as well., but.. I usually only suffer sh for a dirty "don't forget" cli or for - gag me - autoshit/makefile voodoo
13:13:49 <tathi> Speuler: I don't know how forth-like osimplay is.
13:14:06 <tathi> sounds like it started off as just an assembler, but then he started adding operators and stuff
13:14:43 <tathi> that bit "Osimplay is..." was the text from the freshmeat project page :-)
13:17:10 * Herkamire imagines a warm fuzzy feeling spreading through Speuler as he realizes that he is not the only bash nut
13:19:20 <gilbertdeb> i think the writer of osimplay is a forther too.
13:19:35 <gilbertdeb> was he not working on a linux in forth?
13:19:42 <gilbertdeb> or am I mixing googles again :D
13:19:56 <PoppaVic> heh
13:20:25 <PoppaVic> oh, well - maybe I should page (painfully) thru ten-tons more uselessnet posts
13:20:42 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: d/l all of it and then grep !
13:21:02 <PoppaVic> I never saw a dl-point for it ala' google.
13:22:02 <PoppaVic> btw, anyone know - cuz I sure don't - if the dpans-crap managed to specify what wordlist/voc their CORE words and such have to live in?
13:22:36 <PoppaVic> ..I saw a kinda' nifty file that isolated them in STANDARD - which shoulda' been ANS, but <shrug> we can't have it all
13:24:08 <Speuler> PoppaVic: you're new to this channel ?
13:24:35 <PoppaVic> I've been popping in & out for a week or so, but today was the first lifesign
13:24:37 <gilbertdeb> I've seen him sneak in and out a few times ;)
13:25:03 <PoppaVic> I usually live in #c 
13:25:17 <Speuler> ah. ok. so you picked up forthfreak.net here on this channel
13:25:37 <PoppaVic> yeah, I believe gil pointed me at it awhile ago
13:26:15 * PoppaVic hugs trueprint: he can now peruse those string-ops
13:26:15 <Speuler> gilbertdeb: i know about shasm. shell assembler
13:26:28 <gilbertdeb> Speuler: I think its the same thing.
13:26:37 <gilbertdeb> they renamed it or some such.
13:26:56 <Speuler> i see. still have an old copy of shasm.
13:30:12 <krish> bye all!
13:30:31 --- quit: krish ("Client Exiting")
13:30:43 <gilbertdeb> osimplay, formerly shasm, is now beta
13:54:21 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: most of is in this channel don't like the ANS Forth standard
13:54:38 <PoppaVic> I don't blame you..
13:54:59 <PoppaVic> I was sharing my morning chuckle with the wife this am..
13:55:10 <PoppaVic> the ANS shit and "counted strings"
13:55:26 <Herkamire> Personally, I think the ANS standard has done a lot to lessen the popularity of forth
13:55:35 <PoppaVic> First it sez the length is a char, then it turns right around and sez it's "implementation-dependent".
13:55:56 <Herkamire> it's also badly written
13:56:11 <PoppaVic> Seems to have helped the big-boys, anyway
13:56:16 <Herkamire> it says how you should implement things, rather than what it's supposed to do
13:56:26 <Herkamire> what big-boys?
13:56:32 <PoppaVic> yep
13:56:49 <PoppaVic> I see in uselessnet they are due to flock together and gabble it all over this next year.
13:56:59 <Herkamire> the whole point of something being implementation-dependant is so that you can implement it however you please.
13:57:02 <PoppaVic> like forth, inc and other major users.
13:57:21 <PoppaVic> the Players.
13:57:41 <PoppaVic> I have a naggin' suspicion the whole intent is to "tone down" the public access.
13:58:14 <PoppaVic> I'd certainly like to see it "come to life" again - as it seemed 20 years ago..
13:58:26 <Herkamire> I think the intent is to standardize forth so it can be widely used and we can share code.
13:59:00 <Herkamire> unfortunately most good forth programmers won't use it.
13:59:14 <PoppaVic> well, THAT certainly failed.
13:59:16 <Herkamire> and it makes it harder to form an accepted standard of something good
13:59:50 <PoppaVic> They need to scrap that crap they call a standards document, anyway
14:00:11 <Herkamire> I think the standard should have specified a virtual machine, and some io stuff to interact with the OS.
14:01:00 <PoppaVic> well, that OS is part of the problem.
14:01:15 <PoppaVic> ..there seems to be a lot of folks feel that it IS an os..
14:01:29 <gilbertdeb> it Is an os
14:01:57 <gilbertdeb> forthos for instance.
14:01:57 <Herkamire> you could make a wonderful os with forth (and I plan to do so)
14:02:28 <Herkamire> however, I think it would be cool to have a better forth standard (for forths that work in mac/win/unix)
14:02:42 <PoppaVic> I think, personally, they just need to refocus.. You need language requirements, and then you need to specify something intelligent for the other shit - like IO.. Because, at this point: in an embedded sys, gforth isn't going to play well - and a posix forth isn't going to like dos, doze OR embedded toys.
14:03:05 <Herkamire> speaking of virtual-machines. I'd like to see a forth that compiled code for the java VM (so you could write browser applets in forth)
14:03:46 <PoppaVic> ..and, sadly - I can't see the majority of those uselessnet posters being very valuable to making a decision about wiping my ass, let alone a standard.
14:03:57 <PoppaVic> I wouldn't
14:04:12 <PoppaVic> I have absolutely zero interest in java.
14:04:36 <PoppaVic> BUT, yes - a useful metaforth would be nice.
14:04:37 <Herkamire> I don't like java, but I hear the VM is stack based, and I wonder if it would run compiled forth code nicely
14:05:10 <PoppaVic> Not according to what I stumbled over on uselessnet
14:05:39 <Herkamire> I think forth needs a standard 32-bit VM, and it would be convenient if the java VM would work, because then we wouldn't have to write emulators for all platforms.
14:06:41 <PoppaVic> again, I'd disagree
14:07:02 <PoppaVic> it should actually be MORE portable than gcc - and, from what I see, it isn't
14:07:03 <gilbertdeb> why not just write it in C
14:07:15 <gilbertdeb> since C exists for every darned thing and its grandmother?
14:07:37 <PoppaVic> part of it all seems to stem from the barely-thought-out environment? stuff
14:07:52 <gilbertdeb> forth is meant to be its own os.
14:07:54 <gilbertdeb> :)
14:08:10 <PoppaVic> gilbertdeb: I have no prob with a c-based forth.. but, I'd to not preclude getting there BEFORE c, too
14:08:22 <PoppaVic> d LIKE to...
14:08:30 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: I believe that forth should be specific to the computer you are running it on. if you want a portable forth, then you should design a virtual machine for it.
14:08:36 <PoppaVic> sadly, that's one view
14:08:39 <Herkamire> then you can emulate that machine on all your different computers.
14:08:53 <PoppaVic> dude, it was a "VM" before there were VM
14:09:02 <gilbertdeb> but a machine specific forth is just a forth written in a native asm!
14:09:07 <PoppaVic> ..I can remember tinkering with friggin' fig-forth source.
14:09:35 <PoppaVic> the bottom line was to write only the absolute minimum in asm
14:09:45 <Herkamire> "portable" code is generally big, bloated, complex, buggy and SLOW
14:09:55 <PoppaVic> ..in fig, it was something like a K or 2 of source
14:10:40 * PoppaVic sighs
14:10:56 <PoppaVic> gilbertdeb: where is "forth as an OS" different from "embedded forth"?
14:11:07 <gilbertdeb> same thing no?
14:11:24 <Herkamire> "embedded" usually means on really small computers right?
14:11:30 <gilbertdeb> yes.
14:11:38 <Herkamire> like microwaves etc
14:11:40 <gilbertdeb> on tiny tiny chips 
14:11:43 <gilbertdeb> cameras...
14:11:58 <gilbertdeb> too many computers in places they oughtn't be.
14:12:03 <PoppaVic> and, if a VM is so wonderful, then why the hell is : <Herkamire> "portable" code is generally big, bloated, complex, buggy and SLOW
14:12:25 <PoppaVic> embedded is usually devices, but can also mean "my comp is so dumb it has no OS"
14:13:01 <PoppaVic> our old cp/m boxes were so dumb, forth-as-os was trivial..
14:13:17 <PoppaVic> ..ytou had to load a cp/m boot anyway - so forth was just "other"
14:13:35 <PoppaVic> ..and over cp/m was pretty-much the same.
14:15:15 <PoppaVic> is it still an OS or embedded if a few chips and a bit of rom/ram manage the i/o devices, gilbertdeb?
14:16:17 <Herkamire> VM might be a good idea because you don't have to write portable code. you write code that just works on the VM
14:16:34 <PoppaVic> that's what forth was
14:16:55 <PoppaVic> except that it's 'tokens' were compiled - you shared source.
14:16:58 <Herkamire> what was the vm?
14:17:03 <gilbertdeb> PoppaVic: not sure anymore.
14:17:08 <PoppaVic> ..and, personally, that's all I'd ever support.
14:17:31 <Herkamire> I don't think forth ever had a VM until recently
14:17:32 <PoppaVic> I want source, or I want c-source for libs I can build and link.
14:18:08 <PoppaVic> what the heck do you think the stepper-interpreter did?
14:18:09 <Herkamire> there are tons of forths written in C
14:18:33 --- join: deluxe (~deluxe@pD9E4EF82.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
14:18:43 <Herkamire> I don't know much about old forths because I don't have an x86 box to try them on.
14:19:09 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: I even wrote a forth in C myself
14:19:24 <PoppaVic> cool
14:19:26 <Herkamire> and, I even hooked it to this channel:
14:19:31 <PoppaVic> I never went that far.
14:19:34 <Herkamire> sifbot: .( Hello, World!)
14:19:36 <sifbot> Herkamire: Hello, World!    
14:20:02 <Herkamire> PoppaVic: if you haven't written your own forth before, you should.
14:20:07 <Herkamire> it really  doesn't take that long
14:20:10 <PoppaVic> I basically would tweak low-source, then extend like mad.. Hmmmm.. prettymuch what Ive been doing all week.
14:20:24 <Herkamire> sifbot: 3 4 + .
14:20:26 <sifbot> Herkamire: 7     
14:21:09 <Herkamire> oop, I gotta go home and then play volleyball :)
14:21:12 <PoppaVic> sifbot: s\" This is a test\n I'll bet fails hard!\n" ;-)
14:21:14 <sifbot> PoppaVic:   Word not found: s\"  
14:21:31 <PoppaVic> tootles
14:21:48 <PoppaVic> gilbertdeb: well, all that above is why I say the standard went whacko.
14:22:06 <Herkamire> s\" is wacko
14:22:09 <Herkamire> I've never even seen that
14:22:12 --- quit: tathi ("leaving")
14:22:14 --- quit: Herkamire ("leaving")
14:22:19 <PoppaVic> ..and then you have their assorted "this is so big" and "this is so long" stuff.
14:22:31 <Robert> Hmmm.
14:22:50 <PoppaVic> gforth/pfe - uses c-like escapes in it.
14:22:53 <Robert> tathi and Herkamire at the same place?
14:23:03 <Robert> Or one person..? I'm confused
14:23:27 <PoppaVic> no idea
14:24:51 <PoppaVic> I think what I saw of the "environment?" idea was sorta' interesting - but someone got brain-farted after the original idea.
14:26:51 <gilbertdeb> Robert: I think they know each other.
14:27:19 <Robert> Hm, OK.
14:30:16 --- join: wossname (wossname@HSE-QuebecCity-ppp80412.qc.sympatico.ca) joined #forth
14:54:53 <PoppaVic> hmm.. apt-get is gonna' take all day - it's got gcc shitzu
15:05:11 --- part: deluxe left #forth
15:06:49 --- join: pura (~pura@198.162.22.66) joined #forth
15:07:21 --- quit: pura (Client Quit)
15:11:32 --- quit: flyfly (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
15:13:42 <PoppaVic> Speuler? Question..
15:14:44 <PoppaVic> I'm looking at the string-source..
15:15:27 <PoppaVic> the string count - thus size - is.. Umm... "twisted" ;-)
15:16:52 <PoppaVic> 'course... this is in part due to gforth, and part in the stupidANS crap.
15:21:40 --- join: pura (~pura@198.162.22.66) joined #forth
15:21:44 --- quit: pura (Client Quit)
15:35:16 --- quit: wossname ("2:(")
15:49:50 <Speuler> back
15:49:58 <Speuler> PoppaVic: go ahead
15:50:02 <Speuler> size is cell, not byte
15:50:04 <Speuler> to allow strings > 255 bytes
15:51:20 <PoppaVic> wb
15:51:25 <PoppaVic> no.
15:51:47 <PoppaVic> it's ANS - and their goofy def, and his own source in gforth
15:52:02 <Speuler> i have the source opened in editor here. tell me where to look
15:52:17 <PoppaVic> hmm.. prim.i, I think
15:52:28 <PoppaVic> \pfv:   {
15:52:28 <PoppaVic> \pfv:   #line 1309 "./prim"
15:52:28 <PoppaVic> \pfv:   u = *c_addr1;
15:52:29 <PoppaVic> \pfv:   c_addr2 = c_addr1+1;
15:52:29 <PoppaVic> \pfv:   #line 6857 "prim.i"
15:52:29 <PoppaVic> \pfv:   }
15:52:46 <Speuler> ah. that's not stringstack
15:53:02 <PoppaVic> no, just entering into it - but the comment worried me
15:53:17 <PoppaVic> "\ string count is cell size, i.e. strings > 255 bytes are ok."
15:53:38 <PoppaVic> ahh...... YOUR stuff uses it?
15:53:49 <Speuler> use what ?
15:53:53 <PoppaVic> a cell?
15:53:58 <Speuler> yes
15:54:03 <PoppaVic> ahhh..
15:54:24 <PoppaVic> OK.. That's gonna' be... fun...
15:54:25 <Speuler> i want to be able to put strings > 255 bytes on string stack
15:54:32 <Speuler> and work on them
15:54:46 <PoppaVic> right - but they then have to live there, right?
15:55:14 <Speuler> when returning strings, the representation is never "leading count bytes"
15:55:38 <Speuler> and storage in string stack is transparent
15:55:44 * PoppaVic is an old man - needing translation ;-)
15:55:55 <PoppaVic> right - in the stack, they can be anything
15:56:12 <PoppaVic> I should say "your stack", sorry
15:56:17 <Speuler> say,    pop$
15:56:26 <Speuler> gives you  ( -- addr len )
15:56:38 <PoppaVic> yes?
15:56:39 <Speuler> addr is cell size, len is cell size
15:56:51 <PoppaVic> right..
15:57:05 <Speuler> len bytes of string at addr
15:58:01 <PoppaVic> ok, so.. The thought is that this isn't an issue for "external use", since it "comes back" to the d-stack as a normal pointer+len?
15:58:56 <Speuler> issue comes up only when representing a string as     (byte) (char1) (char2) ...
15:59:15 <PoppaVic> ..I'm just unsure - being fairly new BACK to forth - how the other functions would act, is all.
15:59:18 <Speuler> i try to avoid that representation where possible
15:59:41 <Speuler> most would work on  ( addr len -- ??? ) anyway
16:00:19 <Speuler> and, there aren't a lot of string functions in forth
16:00:53 <PoppaVic> cool. I'm still trying to decide wtf is wrong with these guys, that they don't take advantage and simplify to a stupid word/cell for the size - and add the silly \0 ala' C too.
16:02:03 <Speuler> ans forth more or less did drop the count byte string issue
16:02:04 <PoppaVic> It seems to me it would quietly enhance the silly stuff, let alone allow for interfacing with greater ease.
16:02:27 <Speuler> but "count" still does autoincrementing byte fetch
16:02:34 <PoppaVic> well, according to their DPANS thingie - their own "counted string" def is twisted/skewed
16:03:04 <Speuler> if you want to be able to "count" a string, it needs a leading byte
16:03:10 <PoppaVic> in one line they call the count a "char" - and in the next breath, the size is imp-dependent.
16:03:31 <Speuler> yes, because a char is imp-dep
16:03:36 <Speuler> char .   
16:03:42 * PoppaVic sighs
16:03:45 <PoppaVic> Yeah..
16:04:11 <Speuler> sorry
16:04:13 <Speuler> 0 char+ .
16:04:18 <Speuler> likely to give you 1
16:04:23 <PoppaVic> yup
16:04:27 <Speuler> but, may be 2 
16:04:46 <PoppaVic> ..and a really nasty limitation, (and I'm known as a limiting bastard, too ;-)
16:04:46 <Speuler> 1 chars .
16:04:49 <Speuler> 5 chars .
16:05:12 <Speuler> idea is, don't hard-code the size if a character
16:05:18 <Speuler> of
16:05:32 <Speuler> that's why you got cells
16:05:36 <Speuler> cell .
16:05:38 <PoppaVic> ..then we can get into the uglies of align, too ;-)
16:05:45 <Speuler> may be 2, or 4, or 8
16:05:49 <Speuler> even 1
16:05:51 <PoppaVic> right.
16:06:13 <Speuler> so instead of writing "2+" when meaning "cell+"
16:06:19 <PoppaVic> yup
16:06:20 <Speuler> you'd write  "cell+"
16:06:26 <PoppaVic> THAT part, I like
16:06:36 <Speuler> cause that'll work on cell=4 systems too
16:07:03 <PoppaVic> the mistake is deciding what "count" is going to do - universally.
16:07:20 <Speuler> you say "4" if you mean "4", and cell if you mean to say "number of bytes in a cell"
16:07:30 <PoppaVic> yup.
16:07:32 <Speuler> yes. but:
16:07:46 <Speuler> char is not necessarily width of count byte
16:07:59 <PoppaVic> hold on a sec..
16:08:02 <Speuler> if they call the count byte a char,
16:08:08 <Speuler> in my opinion, that's wrong
16:08:46 <Speuler> 't would be a "count char", not a "count byte"
16:09:06 <PoppaVic> COUNT
16:09:06 <PoppaVic> CORE
16:09:06 <PoppaVic> 	( c-addr1 -- c-addr2 u )
16:09:06 <PoppaVic> Return the character string specification for the counted string stored at c-addr1. c-addr2 is the address of the first character after c-addr1. u is the contents of the character at c-addr1, which is the length in characters of the string at c-addr2.
16:09:26 <PoppaVic> "..is the address of the first character after c-addr1."
16:09:57 <Speuler> ok. then my terminologie is wrong
16:10:04 <Speuler> it is not a count byte, but a count char
16:10:17 <PoppaVic> Actually, I think it's just a shitty-standard..
16:11:08 * PoppaVic is looking for the other def
16:12:02 <PoppaVic> 3.1.3.4 Counted strings
16:12:03 <PoppaVic> A counted string in memory is identified by the address (c-addr) of its length character.
16:12:03 <PoppaVic> The length character of a counted string shall contain a binary representation of the number of data characters, between zero and the implementation-defined maximum length for a counted string. The maximum length of a counted string shall be at least 255.
16:12:10 <Speuler> i seem to have an instinct for trying to avoid problem cases with the standard :)
16:12:28 <PoppaVic> well, it's certainly not much fun to work with
16:12:34 <Speuler> at least means, it could be more than 1 byte
16:12:44 <Speuler> means, it is not a byte
16:12:45 <Speuler> but a char
16:12:49 <Speuler> consequence:
16:12:59 <PoppaVic> umm, ok - it can be more - but it can't be a counted string, then.
16:13:05 <Speuler> you can use count on leading count char, as well as on string chars
16:13:24 <Speuler> size of count same as size of chars in string
16:13:37 <PoppaVic> yup
16:13:43 <Speuler> : xxx ( a -- )   count 0 ?do count emit loop drop  ;   \ would work
16:13:54 <PoppaVic> 3.1.2 Character types
16:13:54 <PoppaVic> Characters shall be at least one address unit wide, contain at least eight bits, and have a size less than or equal to cell size.
16:14:17 <PoppaVic> sooo.. it's sorta' circular
16:14:35 <PoppaVic> ..it's a char/ a cell/ a char/ a - well it's a char..
16:15:16 <Speuler> 1 cells   1 chars >=    ( true )
16:15:19 <PoppaVic> Basically, what you describe is a string with an independent count - they describe one with a count byte
16:15:37 <Speuler> those ones which i try to avoid
16:15:52 <Speuler> count char !
16:15:52 <Speuler> :)
16:16:32 <PoppaVic> So, basically - your string stack(which I am about to play with) - needs full support of its own, and just becomes a useful-extension that may or may not play-well with their core-foo.
16:16:53 <Speuler> i don't see any conflict
16:17:08 <Speuler> there is no  (count) (char) (char) representation
16:17:18 <PoppaVic> no - as long as it always shows to the core as *c n, it's fine.
16:17:22 <Speuler> it just avoids it
16:17:29 <PoppaVic> yup - good plan, too
16:17:53 <Speuler> and represents strings as they tend to be represented in ans 
16:18:01 <Speuler> addr len
16:18:06 <PoppaVic> OK, so.... this thing uses heap, right? a stack of pointers then?
16:18:18 <Speuler> almost
16:18:34 <Speuler> a stack of structures, whereof one is a pointer
16:18:42 <Speuler> another is a reference count
16:18:45 <PoppaVic> errmm
16:18:58 <Speuler> dup$ does not duplicate the string
16:19:13 <Speuler> just points to the same string, and incrementing the reference count
16:19:30 <PoppaVic> hmm..
16:19:37 <Speuler> wrong
16:19:39 <Speuler> stack of pointers
16:19:44 <Speuler> pointers to structures
16:19:51 <PoppaVic> right
16:19:56 <Speuler> "structure" = "string"
16:20:09 <PoppaVic> that's fine - I think C ;-)
16:20:52 <PoppaVic> ..still trying to absorb their stupid "struct.fs" - let alone the OO stuff.
16:20:56 <Speuler> so, dup$ increments reference count in string structure
16:21:15 <Speuler> drop$ decrements it
16:21:24 <PoppaVic> that works as long as you are not able to alter one or the other
16:21:57 <Speuler> you can get there of course, but the string operations handle that transparently
16:22:14 <Speuler> if you really need to modify the ref count, go ahead
16:22:20 <Speuler> i wouldn't know what for
16:22:46 <PoppaVic> no - I was thinking of the string - like your translate$
16:24:06 <Speuler> that's in-site translation. if the ref-count is not 0, the string is "detached"
16:24:17 <PoppaVic> ahhh
16:24:21 <Speuler> i.e. new string is copied, with ref count 0
16:24:41 <PoppaVic> ah-soo.
16:24:59 <Speuler> all string operations od string stack deal with ref count as required
16:25:31 <PoppaVic> I think I'll need to read this printout and tinker - I like some of the ideas
16:25:49 <Speuler> first thing  translate does is  detach$
16:26:36 <PoppaVic> yep - saw that
16:27:00 <Speuler> doing reverse$ twice means, you have the same string twice
16:27:06 <Speuler> no effort done to reconciliate those
16:27:12 <PoppaVic> I'm thinkin' it could be "genericized" and become useful as hell.
16:27:36 <Speuler> i'd like it to be included in one or the other forth distribution
16:27:55 <Speuler> as a base to work on from
16:27:56 <PoppaVic> yeah.. (think of your 'structure' term earlier, btw)
16:28:32 * PoppaVic makes a bathroom run..
16:34:45 <PoppaVic> back
16:37:28 <Speuler> turbo shower
16:37:49 <PoppaVic> nahh.. I want to soak in a nice, hot tub soon..
16:38:18 <PoppaVic> I'm thinking this is another good use for those stupid "wordlist" things, if I can puzzle it out some more.
16:38:37 <Speuler> i've put a subset of stringstack into recent bashforth too
16:39:22 <PoppaVic> well, the idea of a user being able to whip up and immediately use a stack of his own is enticing, strings or not.. The strings are "bonus points", to me.
16:40:17 <Speuler> ability to create additional stacks is nothing new for forth
16:40:45 <PoppaVic> I agree - but to have it organized such that anything new can whip one up is nice.
16:40:59 <Speuler> but, what you don't see often is a second set of stack words
16:41:06 <Speuler> you do with float stack, for example
16:41:09 <PoppaVic> stack: mystrings
16:41:13 <PoppaVic> right
16:41:25 <Speuler> but most of the time, additional stack are just used for holding items
16:42:45 <Speuler> with strings, some operation are just not easy to do when holding those on parameter stack
16:42:58 <Speuler> especially if you work with several strings at once
16:42:58 <PoppaVic> most are downright ugly, actually
16:43:10 <PoppaVic> yeppers
16:43:21 <Speuler> because you need to buffer those strings somewhere
16:43:25 <Speuler> usually not on stacl
16:44:35 <Speuler> so you need several buffers
16:44:35 <PoppaVic> yeah, and I like them out of the dictionary space.
16:44:36 <Speuler> and without a system, taking care of several string buffers, your app needs to do that
16:44:36 <Speuler> i think, that's better moved to a library of some sort
16:44:40 <Speuler> so you program can be considered the "client"
16:44:41 <PoppaVic> I know - it was messy 2 decades ago - and they still leave it messy.
16:45:22 <PoppaVic> as far as a "library", no forth other than for-pay - that I know of has ever been successfuly done thus.
16:45:27 <Speuler> as a stack is the logical choice for holding data items in forth,
16:45:47 <PoppaVic> they are handy all over - but in forth they shine.
16:46:08 <PoppaVic> ..and with little effort, you get a queue
16:46:29 <Speuler> yep. got a structure, allowing me to use it as lifo, fifo, array
16:46:44 <Speuler> pushing to front, to end
16:46:48 <PoppaVic> yeah.. I wrote an ACT for my lib.. Handy bastard.
16:46:48 <Speuler> pulling from front, from end
16:47:06 <PoppaVic> tis one of the things glib is dead useful for
16:47:11 <Speuler> indexed access relative to top or bottom
16:47:25 <Speuler> (dealing with wrap-around itself)
16:47:42 <Speuler> called it fliflo first
16:47:49 <PoppaVic> I'm really suprised that gforth didn't use the heap for the strings, rather than embed them as they do.
16:47:53 <Speuler> first/last in / first/last out
16:48:02 <PoppaVic> fifo
16:48:12 <Speuler> can be filo fifo lifo lilo
16:48:13 <PoppaVic> and lifo
16:48:30 * PoppaVic is too old to watch them screw up the terms
16:48:50 <Speuler> aiao
16:48:57 <Speuler> anywhere in anywhere out
16:49:47 <Speuler> but
16:50:10 <Speuler> it happens that additional flexibility adds some overhead
16:50:38 <PoppaVic> hmm.. 
16:50:46 <Speuler> if zou don't use the additional flexibility, the overhead may still be in effect
16:50:49 * PoppaVic is glaring at several implementations...
16:51:14 <Speuler> you may ask "why does this cost extra cycles for nothing" 
16:51:41 <Speuler> and decide that a structure which does exactly what you want, and only that, may be a better solution for you
16:52:16 <Speuler> that's ok with "fliflo"
16:52:31 <Speuler> because the overhead sits in the word accessing the structure
16:52:40 <Speuler> don't use a word, no overhead incurred
16:52:47 <PoppaVic> Well, I've watched folks write shit for years - it's commercial and web-side.. And, I've watched dufii' whimper about "optimizing" when their basic premise was all gefuckt.. So, I don't much let it all bother me.. If the problem is ugly, reduce it - if the solution is ugly, either reduce it or rethink the problem.
16:53:19 <Speuler> i was coding for cycles count some years ago
16:53:38 <Speuler> but programs get faster all alone.
16:53:39 <PoppaVic> What I don't like - in gforth anyway - is how 99% of everything seems dumped into the main voc
16:53:50 <Speuler> just wait for the next generation of cpus
16:54:07 <PoppaVic> oh, well yeah.. On the z80 I'd squeeze til it cried - since then, it's not worth the energy.
16:54:15 <Speuler> one can get to the point of no return, optimizing for speed
16:54:40 <PoppaVic> <shrug> gcc does fine.. a bad routine is bad at -O0 or -O3
16:55:03 <Speuler> but readability does not improve all by itself with the next cpu generation
16:55:11 <PoppaVic> I hear that
16:55:26 <PoppaVic> .. even the forth I've found and downloaded seems to suffer that.
16:55:39 <PoppaVic> "let's pack it all on a line - and the hell with comments"
16:55:57 <Speuler> i don't think i'm a shiny example when it comes to "readable code". 
16:56:01 <PoppaVic> (or comments in russkie - THAT was amusing)
16:56:12 <Speuler> but i focus more on that than i did once
16:57:47 <Speuler> learning from experience
16:57:53 <PoppaVic> yours is ok <shrug> vertical-alignment & comments help to puzzle out the assorted stack-gymnastics, of course
16:58:16 <PoppaVic> ..much more than that is just silly.
16:58:36 <PoppaVic> and, of course we know that a nice comment-block before something is also handy.
16:58:43 --- quit: fridge (Success)
17:00:31 <Speuler> it saved me quite some work when i took more care of, well , let's call it "understandable code"
17:00:48 <Speuler> fewer questions, directed towards me :)
17:00:59 <PoppaVic> KISS principle ;-)
17:02:29 <PoppaVic> I think that's why this wordlist shit is bothering me.
17:03:12 <PoppaVic> ..it seems as though there is no nice, neat, clean way to use them as I'd like.
17:03:50 <Speuler> also, improves relationship to co-workers
17:03:50 <Speuler> when they ask you about your code, at one point you wonder whether they're too stupid to just take it from the code
17:03:51 <Speuler> so they don't ask you so much anymore, and your confidence into them rises
17:04:20 <PoppaVic> yeah.. Sometimes you have to wonder, though
17:04:51 <PoppaVic> I mean, I comment pretty well, imnsho - and I still get folks that say "gee, that's ugly" or "but where/why is.."
17:05:18 <Speuler> goes along the way of thought "there a no stupid pupils, there're just bad teachers"
17:05:23 <Speuler> are
17:05:26 <PoppaVic> ..believe me, I KNOW "ugly" 
17:05:52 <PoppaVic> heh - there are bad teachers, but I'd suspect a shitload more bad students and parents.
17:06:39 <PoppaVic> too many parents and students expect the "knowledge" poured into the kids ear..
17:06:46 <Speuler> what's your forth experience ?
17:07:10 <PoppaVic> I began coding with forth, back around 80
17:07:30 <Speuler> old-timer
17:07:41 <PoppaVic> forth -> tp ->tc -> tc++ -> C (gcc)
17:07:44 <Speuler> fig and f79
17:07:50 <PoppaVic> yah
17:08:00 <PoppaVic> f-pc/f83 was nice
17:08:17 <Speuler> i hated f-pc
17:08:37 <PoppaVic> for a basically iggerment OS, it was fine.
17:08:56 <PoppaVic> I'm not terribly enthused with everything I see anymore
17:09:45 <PoppaVic> btw, if you have not tried it or use it - look into "trueprint" - damned thing makes the NICEST ps files for printing.
17:10:05 <Speuler> haven't tried
17:10:10 <Speuler> i'm an ascii person :)
17:10:13 <PoppaVic> I found it accidentally
17:10:22 <PoppaVic> ..but I wanted nicer source-listings.
17:11:38 <Speuler> small enough
17:11:43 <Speuler> 60 k debian package
17:12:00 <PoppaVic> yeah.. Nice little bug-wump
17:16:02 <Speuler> nice toc builder
17:16:13 <Speuler> just tried it on bashforth
17:16:17 <Speuler> shell script
17:16:44 <PoppaVic> yeah, it's a cool tool
17:17:20 <PoppaVic> all w/o voodoo - and has a decent manpage to boot!
17:17:58 <Speuler> looks not bad. good tip
17:18:05 <PoppaVic> np
17:18:49 <Speuler> i'm a display person too btw. hardly ever do i print anything
17:19:31 <PoppaVic> I like the crt, but for reading in the LR or bath, I like paper.
17:19:37 <Speuler> workplace is littered with screens
17:19:40 <PoppaVic> ..also easier to keep notes
17:20:59 <Speuler> couldn't imagine working with one screen anymore
17:27:50 <PoppaVic> well, I'm going to go sit in the tub awhile... Talk to you tomorrow, boss
17:28:05 --- quit: PoppaVic ("goes forth to conq")
17:32:18 --- join: semtex (~semtex@mnch-d9ba4973.pool.mediaWays.net) joined #forth
17:33:23 <semtex> the joys of dynamic ip addresses
17:33:30 * semtex alias Speuler
17:40:08 --- quit: Speuler (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
17:40:26 --- nick: semtex -> Speuler
18:18:49 --- join: fridge (meldrum@zipperii.zip.com.au) joined #forth
18:56:58 --- join: Herkamire (~jason@ip68-9-68-123.ri.ri.cox.net) joined #forth
21:21:30 --- join: PoppaVic (~pfv@s200.waters.gtlakes.com) joined #forth
23:21:04 <PoppaVic> sifbot: 2rdrop
23:21:06 <sifbot> PoppaVic:   Word not found: 2rdrop  
23:21:16 <PoppaVic> sifbot: rdrop
23:21:18 <sifbot> PoppaVic:   Word not found: rdrop  
23:21:21 <PoppaVic> heh
23:21:57 <PoppaVic> sifbot: : Poppa cr ." Yo, Chief!" cr ;
23:21:58 <sifbot> PoppaVic:     
23:22:08 <PoppaVic> sifbot: poppa
23:22:10 <sifbot> PoppaVic:   Word not found: poppa  
23:22:16 <PoppaVic> sifbot: Poppa
23:22:17 <sifbot> PoppaVic:   Word not found: Poppa  
23:23:28 <PoppaVic> sifbot: words
23:23:29 <sifbot> PoppaVic: ." .( : if then do loop repeat until exit ...    
23:23:43 <PoppaVic> ahhh
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/03.04.01