00:00:00 --- log: started forth/03.05.04 01:13:16 --- join: a7r (~a7r@206.72.82.135) joined #forth 01:13:18 yoh 02:12:52 --- join: lucid (lucid@mercenary.switchninja.net) joined #forth 02:32:12 hi 02:32:46 hey 03:47:33 --- quit: a7r ("Client exiting") 03:48:34 Morning 03:56:34 --- join: gilbertdeb (~gilbert@fl-nked-ubr2-c3a-74.dad.adelphia.net) joined #forth 03:56:48 lucid? the language? 03:57:02 --- join: a7r (~a7r@206.72.82.135) joined #forth 04:00:55 --- join: mur (murr@baana-62-165-187-213.phnet.fi) joined #forth 04:23:15 --- quit: a7r ("Client exiting") 04:53:15 --- join: ramnull (~nicad@12-241-145-39.client.attbi.com) joined #forth 04:54:22 Hi ramnull 04:54:53 Whats up? 04:55:27 * Robert codes a bit. 04:56:01 * ramnull is trying to get a handle on the Linux termios. 04:56:12 Good luck :) 04:57:26 Tempted just to write my own termios specifically for the Framebuffer. The standard one is a bitch. 05:00:24 bbl 05:00:27 --- quit: ramnull ("This isn't Happy Hour!") 05:08:31 --- quit: gilbertdeb ("Monk has left the building") 05:23:15 --- join: tcn (~tcn@tc1-login46.megatrondata.com) joined #forth 05:24:30 Hi tcn 05:24:34 hey 05:44:26 --- quit: tcn ("TinyIRC 1.1") 05:56:40 --- nick: mur -> mur__A 06:12:12 --- join: PoppaVic (~pfv@s28.waters.gtlakes.com) joined #forth 06:13:39 Hi PoppaVic 06:13:47 hi Robert 06:18:56 --- join: gilbertdeb (~gilbert@fl-nked-ubr2-c3a-74.dad.adelphia.net) joined #forth 06:19:09 gilbert :) 06:19:45 hi Robert 06:19:47 I spent the prev afternoon diddling those notes ;-) 06:20:28 terve gilbertdeb! 06:20:32 hi gil 06:20:38 terve mur! hi PoppaVic 06:20:51 I just came across this little machine -> http://www.vttoth.com/vicproc.htm 06:21:01 loading 06:21:50 My thoughts on yesterdays "debate" are still a trifle fuzzy, but I believe the idea is gelling 06:22:35 is a commonforth at hand? 06:22:47 will it be as LARGE as commonLisp? or as LARGE as scheme? 06:22:50 I dunno - It's not a minor project. 06:22:55 I prefer a scheme large :) 06:22:57 oh, certainly not 06:23:07 Not bigforth-large, anyway 06:23:19 I dunno how big scheme is. 06:23:28 its specs are 50 pages excactly. 06:23:34 Gil? Can you take a dcc? 06:23:42 I believe so. 06:23:52 commonlisps' specs are 1000+ pages. 06:23:58 hold up - I'll try to send. 06:24:37 good deal 06:24:51 received. 06:25:27 The first part tries to summarize all our noise.. then I try to puzzle out what it seems needs more noise. 06:26:36 ANS sucketh. 06:26:39 Succinct. 06:26:44 heh 06:28:22 how does C do its string library thingy? 06:28:27 is it written in c? 06:29:06 I can't ever tell you with certainty what was asm what was C - C is translated to asm to compile. And, what string library? 06:29:28 ummm string.h no? 06:29:32 re: above - unless you have the source, you'll never know 06:29:36 or was stdio.h? 06:29:53 but, the .h is just a header - the string words are all w/i libc 06:30:03 gcc is too large to diddle with, regarding its headers and such. 06:30:23 that makes no sense. 06:30:34 for finding out what goes where. 06:30:44 there are #includes everywhere. 06:30:50 what-what goes where? 06:30:56 also, I lacked the minimal patience required. 06:31:05 API's 06:31:09 I wanted to find out what the primary .h library was. 06:31:27 again: there is no ".h library" 06:31:57 with gcc, you usually get -lc linked for free, and -lm is an option. 06:32:30 i meant the stuff in /usr/include/ 06:32:57 those are merely defines, prototypes and dependencies on others of the same. 06:33:59 yer another asm-head, right? I mean, even moreso than Forth? 06:34:22 :D 06:34:34 I can barely read c. 06:34:51 for you, using "gcc -S somefile.c" is going to be the most fun. 06:35:07 I do that on irix a lot. 06:35:15 still learning MIPS asm 06:35:46 yeah, I do it periodically - hey! I actually used inline asm the other day! asm("leave; ret"); worked just as expected! whee! 06:35:56 hehe 06:36:24 Well, the easiest way to think of C is: it's a "universal assembler". 06:36:41 ..and the programmer is the lucky snot that acts as the "preprocessor" ;-) 06:36:41 yes but the C-heads aren't willing to admit its an asm. 06:37:04 I try to never look at the asm - chances are I wouldn't understand it anyway. 06:37:54 All that matters is: I write my C - and your box generates & compiles the asm - I'm happy, you're happy - and damn the assembler ;-) 06:38:11 The asm thanks you for damning it. 06:38:32 :) come the day when you have to go under the hood ... 06:38:36 I always liked that about C... 06:39:08 I never look at asm unless I'm just curious. There is no point to it, because of the platforms we all run. 06:39:27 I suppose its a little like html. 06:39:31 yep 06:39:37 you only need to do a page in html once. 06:39:42 C is a translator & Pop is happy. 06:40:00 So is bsd, linux, solaris, ibm, and a mac ;-) 06:40:24 do you have an ibm? 06:41:07 yeah, my frankenstein just keeps getting body-part replacements ;-) Well, ok "PC" - never woulda' paid what my dad did 06:41:23 heheh. 06:42:07 I almost bought a copy of K&R the other day. 06:42:21 I still have my '78 copy ;-) 06:42:40 is that what you learnt C from? 06:42:54 Do yourself a favor, though: never, EVER try to puzzle out how to lex c-source.. 06:43:16 :) too complimacated? 06:43:20 yeah, K&R, turbo-C/C++ and a few others as time went on. 06:43:49 complicated? well, let me put it this way - I can read C ok, but apparently the syntax is a real monster. 06:44:39 every once in awhile I think about a C scanner/parser in Forth... But, I really don't feel up to that horror. 06:45:17 so who writes scanner/parsers for C then? 06:45:39 not me, thank bog... gcc is a GNU mess. 06:46:46 I even have a couple packages of lex/yacc code for C (supposedly) - and I simply can't puzzle out lex/yacc well enough to embrace it. 06:48:19 some person wrote a fortran-to-forth thing, have you ever seen it? 06:48:35 hmm.. I think I did once-upon-a-time. 06:49:26 is fortran as big a nightmare as C is to parse? 06:49:45 I haven't seen any fortran in over 20 years - nearly 30. 06:50:38 WHat makes me chuckle is - I've been mulling - waaay back of the mind - using forth to generate C ;-) 06:51:12 hmmm. the way C generates asm? 06:51:19 yes, exactly. 06:52:00 It certainly beats writing a whole new language. 06:52:38 I don't know of forth, but I know there is such a thing for scheme. 06:52:46 Scheme generating C. 06:52:53 heh - instead of "asm("...");" - forth could also add "c( ... )c" ;-) 06:53:30 a few people might protest. 06:53:35 Asm is beloved. 06:53:37 or, the {C ... }C form - which aligns nicely ;-) 06:54:27 well, if that forth - (which forth? ;-) - has an assembler - why complain? 07:05:50 --- nick: gilbertdeb -> gilbertbrb 07:30:46 --- join: sifbot (~sifforth@h0010a4f71d3d.ne.client2.attbi.com) joined #forth 07:30:46 Type sifbot: (or /msg sifbot to play in private) 07:30:59 * PoppaVic sighs 07:38:47 * PoppaVic idolates 07:39:27 sifbot: .( (:) 07:39:28 Robert: (: 07:39:40 I hate that thing. 07:42:37 --- nick: mur__A -> mur 07:55:18 --- nick: gilbertbrb -> gilbertdeb 07:55:47 So you've told us :) 07:55:57 And I couldn't help teasing you a bit 07:56:16 S'ok, I now ignore it. 07:56:21 :) 08:52:13 * PoppaVic piddles with the CommonFORTH file.. 09:12:48 * fridge hmms 09:12:52 Hmm 09:21:54 Yeah, our fridge hums too 09:54:32 --- join: GnuVince (~vince@modemcable101.50-130-66.mtl.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth 09:55:48 I got given a sun 3/80 09:55:53 needs new nvram thouhg 09:56:01 not sure if its worth bothering with 09:56:08 20mhz of RAW POWER! 09:59:56 :) 09:59:57 Neat 10:08:51 --- quit: XeF4 (Remote closed the connection) 10:08:54 --- join: XeF4 (xef4@lowfidelity.org) joined #forth 11:18:46 --- join: kc5tja (~kc5tja@ip68-8-206-137.sd.sd.cox.net) joined #forth 11:19:42 Hi kc5tja 11:19:47 re 11:19:48 What does your quit message really mean? 11:19:50 hi kc5tja 11:20:00 Can't stay long; I still need to finish my homework. 11:20:05 Okay.. 11:20:23 THX: Thanks 11:20:30 QSO: for the QSO (for the conversation) 11:20:34 ES: and 11:20:45 73: Good bye, have a nice trip, etc. 11:20:48 DE: This is 11:20:54 KC5TJA/6: KC5TJA/6 11:20:56 clog: Clear 11:21:02 uhh no 11:21:04 CL: Clear 11:21:06 ES: And 11:21:12 QRT: Ending transmission 11:21:22 AR: End of transmission 11:21:26 skylan: Silent key -- off the air. 11:21:29 jesus 11:21:34 SK: Silent Key -- off the air 11:23:06 Hah. Thanks :) 11:23:18 I hope you excuse me for asking, but it looks a bit cryptic. 11:23:22 Like Forth... 11:23:42 Unless you're a ham radio operator, it is cryptic. :) 11:24:38 And even then, more often than not, you'll find the above in RTTY, morse code, and one of the numerous *TOR modes of operating. You don't hear many prosigns used for voice communications. 11:25:16 It's a lot faster to send "73" over 31.5bps PSK31 than "Goodbye", even with PSK31's Huffman-encoded character set. :) 11:25:24 Ditto for morse code. 11:25:44 That would be pretty useless, _saying_ 73 instead of bye, etc. 11:25:57 People say it all the time. 11:26:07 It's a colloquialism. 11:26:26 But you'll very rarely hear people say, "Joe, are you QRO or QRP?" 11:26:38 Normally, they'll just ask, "Are you high or low power today?" 11:27:08 But on CW (Continuous Wave; aka Morse Code), you'll often see, "Joe -- QRO or QRP?" 11:28:00 The Q-codes have international meanings too, so you can actually hold limited conversations with people who do not know your language. 11:31:17 Wow. That's quite neat. 11:31:19 Speaking of which, I need to fix my 2m antenna so I can check my BBS e-mail... 11:32:21 Need to tie down the feed point so the wires will stop breaking on me in the wind. 12:02:28 --- quit: lucid ("BitchX-1.0c19 -- just do it.") 12:02:32 --- join: crc (crc@AC882B05.ipt.aol.com) joined #forth 12:39:18 Oh well. My lunch break is over; I need to get back to homework. 12:39:43 --- nick: kc5tja -> kc-hw 12:45:09 --- part: Klaw left #forth 13:06:39 --- quit: crc ("Leaving...") 13:24:00 --- join: ramnull (~nicad@12-241-145-39.client.attbi.com) joined #forth 13:37:03 --- quit: ramnull ("This isn't Happy Hour!") 13:45:05 --- join: divgrad (~wer@81.25.33.236) joined #forth 14:15:15 --- join: a7r (~a7r@206.72.82.135) joined #forth 14:15:17 hey 14:15:43 ho 14:17:16 anyone tried parsing XML w/ Forth? 14:17:38 stfw - there is a nice, big package out there ;-) 14:17:51 I have been STFW, I'm lacking hits. 14:18:27 what should I be searching on? 14:18:28 use figUK as your starting point, or taygenta (sp?) 14:29:41 --- nick: kc-hw -> kc5tja 14:43:49 --- quit: divgrad () 14:45:01 kc5tja: have you seen this: http://www.vttoth.com/vicproc.htm 14:46:58 No, but it looks cool. 14:47:06 His 4-bit CPU does a heck of a lot more than mine did. :) 14:47:46 I wonder how cheap his components are! 14:51:03 his machine looks a lot like it could have come from a lego set too. 14:52:46 The components aren't that expensive, but they are time consuming to wire up and all. 14:53:37 got some more done, thinking of 'sizes" refs.. 14:54:05 so essentially, what he's done is created a cpu from parts. 14:54:17 I wonder how easily such can be done for a forthy system. 14:54:27 eww 14:54:40 eww? ;) 14:55:14 its a blazingly fast 4mhz 14:55:16 why in the hell would you want a "forthy" pile of chips pretending to be a cheap-assed 4-bit cpu? 14:55:33 a stack machine! 14:56:03 * PoppaVic uses The Chair - liberally - about gilbertdeb's head & shoulders 14:56:27 hehehe. Should I buy a forth chip instead? 14:56:44 * PoppaVic switches to The Club... 14:57:06 you can then go walk around the streets with a holier-than-thou attitude towards everything 14:57:37 why would I do that? no one'll notice! 14:57:48 btw, last I heard, figUK had boards avail with such things. 14:58:04 really? how much are they? 14:58:08 --- quit: mur ("MURR!") 14:58:11 and when was 'last'? 14:58:32 check their page(s) - I can't recall, and I don't understand "pounds" at all 14:58:57 Building a stack processor out of discrete components should not be hard. I was planning on building myself a 16-bit stack CPU that way myself several years ago. I just never got around to doing it. 15:01:55 I've a perfect record with designing a chip-circuit: they always go up in smoke. 15:02:15 ..never seem to get the caps & resistors right *^/ 15:03:04 :) 15:03:17 Heh 15:03:31 stop feeding it 220volts then! 15:03:44 few of my designs go up in smoke, but few work right off the bat too. It usually takes me a bit to get things working. 15:04:13 gilbertdeb: Hehe, that reminds me of something that happened in my digital electronics class while I was attending MVCC. 15:04:47 I'd love to figure it out... My boards are always neat, the solder-joints perfecto.. I just suck at "Gee, I'll throw together.." 15:04:49 Someone thought he was going to be smart, and design a super-cheap power supply by building a voltage divider across the 120V AC lines using resistors, then rectifying the output right down to 5V directly. 15:05:07 It worked, until the person accidently bridged one of the resistors with a wire from another component. :) 15:05:27 wow. Nice spark-display 15:05:31 He blew the ceramic tops off several of his chips clean. 15:05:33 smelly, too 15:05:53 The semiconductor was fully exposed. However, the power supply connections had vaporized. :D 15:06:03 Heh, yeah. 15:06:11 He passed the project on humor value alone. 15:06:17 :) 15:06:29 The teacher couldn't stop laughing about it, clear up to the finals. :D 15:07:29 sheesh 15:09:22 Oh well, break over...back to work for me. 15:09:29 Looked over that file at all, kc5tja? I know you were doing some homework. 15:09:29 * kc5tja can't wait for this damn assignment to be done and over with. :( 15:09:34 ahhh 15:09:39 OK. 15:09:45 Yeah, I have a frigging insane English project homework to do. 15:09:56 ah-hah ;-) 15:10:16 15 page persuasive essay with at least 12 documented sources, an outline, etc, and it has to have an ethical element to it. 15:10:21 gilbertdeb: yer an ASM-head, yes? 15:10:39 geezus - sounds like a damned debate-class shitpile. 15:11:15 I enjoyed the class, but this one assignment is dragging me down. It's taking a lot of my time, and I feel like I'm getting nowhere fast with it. :( 15:11:21 Well, be noxious: pick a Libertarian or even Radical Democrat stance ;-) 15:11:28 PoppaVic: evolving :) 15:11:55 PoppaVic: I'm doing it on renewable energy supply, and how we're lightyears behind other countries. That's about as "green" as you're going to get. :) 15:11:55 gilbertdeb: well, I asked in order to see how thee might write this silly file. 15:12:08 kc5tja: what is your topic? 15:12:24 PoppaVic: push it on kc5tja. he has more experience :D 15:12:31 kc5tja: hmm - nah, a "green" would eat it's newborn to plant a lousy shrub. 15:12:55 gilbertdeb: not tonight - I can see kc5tja is busy as a one-legged man in an ass-kickin' contest. 15:13:00 I think you're confusing green with tree-hugger. I'm not a tree-hugger. :) 15:13:22 Anyway, back to the word processor... 15:13:25 --- nick: kc5tja -> kc-homework 15:13:35 kc5tja: maybe ;-) OTOH, militant "greens" make tree-huggers look lame ;-) 15:14:12 heh. Proof that I'm not a tree-hugger: I drive a Mazda RX-7. 'nuff said. :D 15:14:35 I like my truck.. It waves as I get passed ;-) 15:15:15 heheh. the figUK folks are doing quite a bit. I missed their irc session on ircnet yesterday though :( 15:15:21 I pass people all the time. :) However, it gets 17MPG city and 24MPG freeway. But it's a rotary engine, and that's all I care about. 15:15:37 Yeah, I always liked the wankel ;-) 15:15:46 ..that, and the sterling. 15:16:05 Yes! The Stirling engine is awesome! 15:16:21 Ericcson engines too, but they've got too many moving parts for my liking. 15:16:24 * PoppaVic remembers the Fat Albert schtick about the Merc with a Cessna engine in it ;-) 15:17:30 Cheaper to buy a OS radial-engine than their dinky Wankel, though.. Bastards. 15:19:30 Wankels aren't dinky. They seem dinky only because they're pre-choked from the factory. If you port a stock 13B naturally aspirated, it'll fly at 250HP easily. 15:19:45 no - the .30 OS wankel 15:20:01 Actually, the 13B RENESIS in the soon-to-be-released (drool!) RX-8 is 250HP, and even it is pre-choked, but not as much. :) 15:20:06 Oh, I'm not familiar with those. 15:20:12 .. the radials are 2x or more bigger, for less - for a model, the cost is prohibitive. 15:20:32 Oh, this is for model aircraft? Cool! :) 15:20:43 last I looked, they wanted $299 for that little wankel 15:21:06 What is its power output? 15:21:06 Yeah, glow-plugs and all ;-) 15:21:20 Sweet! No spark ignition! Air cooled no doubt. 15:21:32 Couldn't tell you offhand, they don't even have the picture in the flyer I picked up last month. 15:21:52 yes, certainly - it's only for planes like... 60" wingspan. 15:22:20 I would expect they have a website though - for later reference & fun ;-) 15:22:47 * PoppaVic is rather peeved that the nips are building almost every R/C engine on the damned planet. 15:24:45 I wish I had a milling system setup. I have tons of ideas about using a bi-rotor Wankel to make a valveless Ericsson engine. 15:25:41 yeah, I've seen model-mags that show retired mechanics doing shit like that.. I dunno which was more impressive, the straight-12 or the radial I saw - both to scale, naturally. 15:26:03 mechanics/machinists ? I can't recall. 15:26:16 Hmmm...straight-12 would have a lot of flex in its crank, I'd suspect. :D But it would sure look neat. :D 15:26:32 Especially polished. 15:26:42 I think it was for an aircraft, but it might have been like a Dusenberg. 15:26:58 Yeah, the color photos make you cry. 15:27:22 oh: and both were spark-ignition, no less 15:28:04 bbl 15:28:05 * kc-homework is currently experimenting with pop-pop engines and Tesla turbines, because they're easy to hack up at the house. 15:28:05 --- part: gilbertdeb left #forth 15:28:24 no idea - can't recall ever seeing one. 15:29:01 The simplest pop-pop engine is just a copper tube, coiled at one end, with the open ends submerged in water. 15:29:15 ah? 15:29:22 Heat at the coil (the flash boiler) causes a bubble of steam to eject the remaining water out the open ends of the tube. 15:29:27 (thus, thrust is produced) 15:29:28 oh - ok, I remember that url from the other day 15:29:51 right - sucking in cool water as well. 15:29:55 The Tesla turbine is a bladeless turbine, which relies of viscous drag or fluid adhesion (depending on who you talk to about them) to spin a shaft. 15:30:18 hmm well, if you ever have an url with pictures, let me know ;-) 15:30:47 I can get you a scientific paper on the thermodynamic efficiency of one. :) 15:30:55 It has pictures in the back. 15:31:03 the math would be welllll beyond me ;-) 15:31:40 Well, I can't access the site anymore. I no longer have permission. Fortunately, I have a local copy of the document, because I just knew something like this was going to happen. BUaauahahahaha! 15:31:50 heh 15:32:19 http://www.geocities.com/vair65_2000/tesla/ -- has computer generated CAD pictures. 15:32:35 The top three are a Tesla turbine (with throttle control); the next two are tesla pumps. 15:33:21 loading 15:34:27 The research paper I have indicates that a single Tesla turbine stage has a thermodynamic efficiency between 15% and 25%, depending on how heavily it's loaded. 20% is average across most of its loading range. While not the best a turbine can get (bladed turbines can get higher efficiencies), you cannot deny it's damn simple to build and experiment with. :) 15:45:56 weird. 15:49:55 When I first saw that turbine design, I built one to prove to myself that it wouldn't work. 15:50:05 Now that's the only turbine design I'll consider for home projects. 15:50:20 I have zip facilities - still trying to see an image that runs fuel into it. 15:50:44 What turned me off the first time was all the "Tesla conspiracy theories" surrounding it, and the whole new-wave atmosphere around the turbine. 15:50:58 They don't exist. 15:51:02 Nobody has done it. 15:51:04 Ever. 15:51:15 Steam is as far as they got with that kind of turbine. 15:51:39 And Tesla's own claims about 200HP out of one of his smaller turbine designs is bunk -- it's not physically possible. 15:51:47 With a larger turbine, yes. But not with the turbine he quoted. 15:52:13 ahhhh.. OK, that explains the lack of images. 15:52:50 Oddly enough, I am positively convinced that Tesla killed his own turbine's opportunities. 15:53:18 He made claims that were simply not true about the turbine. Had he been more pragmatic about it, I think it would have gone further. 15:53:40 prolly the math 15:54:32 Could be, but this isn't the only area where Tesla made grandiose claims. :) 15:55:22 So, basically, it's just a gizmo to convert steam (pressure, anyway) to rotary motion, eh? 15:55:27 I made a simple 3-disc, 2" diameter turbine a couple of days ago for use under water (for eventual driving by the pop-pop engine), and just a twist by the hand introduced quite a bit of swirling in the water. :) 15:55:32 Yes 15:55:49 So, you still end up needing a boiler.. 15:56:09 Yes, if you're going to use continuous steam flow. 15:56:16 * kc-homework is going to use intermittent water flow from the pop-pop engine. 15:56:19 I dunno.. seems like in CONJUNCTION with the waste heat from a wankel or sterling it might be useful. 15:56:27 And yes, this whole contraption is basically a toy for me. 15:56:32 right 15:56:47 It's possible to build a bigger, more useful turbine, but I just lack the facilities or income to do it. :) 15:56:54 Hey, I can't even falt spring-powered goodies ;-) 15:57:02 falt/fault 15:57:23 I figure if I can make my gizmo solar powered, I can at least use it to recharge my rechargable batteries in my calculator. It's good for something. :) 15:57:30 heh 15:57:47 OK.. I'm back & forth to the kitchen and such.. 15:58:09 * kc-homework nods 16:04:58 --- join: ramnull (~nicad@12-241-145-39.client.attbi.com) joined #forth 16:13:29 --- join: gilbertdeb (~gilbert@fl-nked-ubr2-c3a-74.dad.adelphia.net) joined #forth 16:13:53 I was salivating over this: http://www.abstractnonsense.com/schemix/ 16:14:18 The first Forth learnt a bit from lisp, perhaps commonforth might learn a bit from scheme? :D 16:15:41 this is pretty good too: http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$1831 16:15:47 gilbertdeb: I'm kinda partial to K and J. 16:15:52 eeek! 16:15:55 :) 16:16:20 I'll be partial to j/k when I finish my 20th reading of the j dictionary :D 16:16:24 We should not restrict ourselves to any one language. 16:16:25 Lisp is big, Scheme is usually big and slow. Not sure if I want that in a Forth. 16:16:36 The new Forth must learn from ALL existing languages, both what to do and what not to do. 16:16:37 ramnull: scheme CAN be really tiny! 16:16:52 eg ramnull sChemes specs are only 50 pages in length total! 16:17:02 I really think thats a fantastic inspiration!!! 16:17:12 ramnull: He's not saying to implement Scheme in Forth. He's saying to learn lessons from it. 16:17:19 kc-homework: I heartily agree with you there. 16:17:31 precisely! its a little language too that can do a really great deal. 16:17:41 Scheme does have some elegant concepts for sure. 16:17:45 I think it does what forth is supposed to do, at a much higher level. 16:18:08 the paper's subtitle was A universal scripting framework! 16:18:24 now I say, that is forth's niche!!! 16:18:37 a language to write dialects with no? 16:18:49 But one needs to be careful that it doesnt become the C++ of Forths. A little of everything, sucks at everything. Heh. 16:19:14 ramnull: no I think from yesterday's discussion the goal was to do a minimal commonforth. 16:19:36 I agree at the conceptual level, but there are pitfalls that one needs to be wary of. 16:19:48 one from which all the other dialects can be cleanly generated... so that you don't have a commonlisp 1000+ tome, but rather a scheme 50 page paper! 16:20:04 ramnull: it'll be worked out. 16:20:23 Well, you basically have three to four common language groups.... 16:20:34 in general or for forth? 16:21:22 Lisp/Scheme(Functional), Procedural (C, Asm, etc...), and Wirth languages (Ada, Pascal, Oberon) etc... 16:21:27 4: the logical languages, the functional languages, the procedural languages, the array based languages, the oo languages ... and what else? 16:22:12 Writh languages are a specific kind of algol languages so that covers C. 16:22:20 and I don't think asm is a procedural language per-se! 16:22:22 You could put Algol, K, and K as a subset or crossover between the functional and procedural langs. 16:22:25 its just a mnemonic. 16:22:39 algol is pure procedural methinks. 16:22:43 errr...K and J. 16:23:02 ah yes, apl, k, j, nial, withglee, matlab, mathematica etc ... 16:23:22 and yorick. 16:23:28 I wonder where R fits in? 16:23:42 Now, there is the OBJ line of langs that doesn't fit in anywhere. 16:23:52 OBJ? what are those? 16:24:22 http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/users/goguen/sys/obj.html 16:24:25 hey we neglected to mention forth. 16:24:54 OBJ looks like a friend of prolog's 16:25:26 It states in the introduction that OBJ languages are all logical languages. 16:25:55 Of which Prolog is the first. However OBJ looks interesting because it appears to be more "traditionally" written (e.g., algebraicly instead of rules-based). 16:25:56 Logical definitely, but I'm not sure I would place them under Functional, Procedural, ect... 16:26:12 Not sure where I would put them. 16:26:17 logical does not necessarily fall under functional. 16:26:29 logical == declarative methinks. 16:26:35 gilbertdeb: Good point. 16:26:52 ramnull: Logical languages are their own group. 16:27:16 I've never played with Logical langs. Anyone recommend one? 16:27:22 gilbertdeb: Functional languages are also declarative, but they're not "logical". 16:27:25 prolog. 16:27:50 I should play with prolog sometime there is a neat quote somewhere ... 16:27:51 The problem with the OBJ line, from what I've been told, is that their slow. Dont suppose theres a Forth remedy for that? 16:28:36 All logical languages to date have been slow. 16:28:39 Prolog is no exception. 16:28:45 It's because they do a lot of backtracking. 16:28:58 I see. 16:29:37 ramnull: speed is not important when you are having fun. 16:29:46 remember, time flies when you are having fun :D 16:29:47 Backtracking support is actually amazingly easy to do in Forth, assuming your return stack actually holds return addresses. 16:29:57 Hmmm...It makes an interesting Computer Science challenge. Making a fast logical compiler. 16:31:09 I think it would be prudent, in the interests of CommonForth, to crack open those Algorithm and CS textbooks we have laying around to help meet those challenges. 16:31:32 I got Volume 1 of TAOCP sitting here next to me. 16:31:40 ramnull: I'm starting with scheme. 16:32:03 I think it REALLY has a lot to teach, and I have Lisp in small pieces and SICP to memorize :D 16:32:10 * kc-homework can never understand a word of what Knuth is trying to say. 16:32:22 gilbertdeb: Get "The Art of Computer Programming" by Knuth, and "The Dragon Book" by Aho. 16:32:28 aha! I'm not the only one then who thinks his style is baroque? 16:32:30 I'm pretty mathematically "with it," but his symbolic designations and explanations are just unbelievably out of this world. 16:32:43 ramnull: I dunno, I got TAOCP but the math is a tad formidable. 16:33:05 It is formidable, but that's what I love about it. Forces me to get better. 16:33:09 If I were to faithfully go through TAOCP, I'll only start making sense in 6 months from now. 16:33:22 I understand the reasons why he uses his notation (independence from any existing computer systems). But man, I think it could be a heck of a lot easier to read. 16:34:03 I take the subjects in TAOCP one step at a time. 16:34:12 ramnull: so how far are you into taocp? 16:34:32 ah I'm expecting a copy of loeliger's Threaded INterpretive languages sometime this week. 16:34:39 About 2 thirds of the way through Volume 1. 16:34:47 * ramnull grins 16:35:29 thou GEEK! 16:35:32 It's making me conjure up things that I never would have considered before. 16:35:49 are you gonna read the remaining volumes? 16:36:03