00:00:00 --- log: started forth/05.04.02 00:19:48 --- quit: aum () 01:09:36 --- quit: solar_angel ("whoopsies, laterish.") 03:37:10 --- join: Nero (ofiorio53@host120.200-117-128.telecom.net.ar) joined #forth 03:37:17 --- join: yoyo (yoyo@222.90.81.31) joined #forth 03:40:03 --- part: Nero left #forth 03:40:42 --- join: aum (~aum@60-234-138-239.bitstream.orcon.net.nz) joined #forth 03:43:16 --- join: bbls (~bbls@80.97.121.133) joined #forth 03:43:29 hello 04:03:19 --- join: Nelanth (~Nelanth@83-134-161-62.Liege.GoPlus.FastDSL.tiscali.be) joined #forth 04:07:50 hi 04:09:26 --- quit: yoyo (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 04:10:31 hi Nelanth 04:10:36 hi 04:10:51 could someone explain me what forth is ? 04:11:04 it's a programming language 04:11:11 have you done some programming before? 04:11:16 yes 04:11:21 ah 04:11:27 programming ! 04:11:29 ok, unlike other languages it's a stack based one 04:11:41 "One language, many dialects" 04:12:00 I thought it was a natural language or a conlang 04:12:08 you push values into a stack then you push an operator and the initial values in the stack get replaced by the result 04:12:17 it's a concatenative language 04:12:19 ah 04:12:42 what is it ? 04:12:45 concatenative 04:13:11 hmm, not sure how to explain :) you concatenate functions 04:13:12 :) 04:13:29 you have to look on how it works 04:13:33 2 3 + 04:13:37 will result into 5 04:13:38 okay 04:13:43 2 3 + 2 * 04:13:46 will result into 10 04:13:53 do you get the idea? 04:13:54 ah 04:14:07 3 3 * 1 + 04:14:13 10 :) 04:14:13 will result into 10 04:14:30 ok, now you also have dup that duplicates the top element 04:14:34 did you make a program with it ? 04:14:36 drop that removes the top element 04:14:50 swap that swaps the top 2 elements 04:15:04 for example 04:15:12 : square dup * ; 04:15:47 this defines a word (function) named square that duplicates the top element and then it multiplies, therefore resulting the square of the initial element 04:16:09 so x square would result into x^2 04:16:13 okay 04:16:31 you also have . to print the top of the stack 04:18:02 --- join: Cctoide (~Cctoide@80.172.160.91) joined #forth 04:18:18 fortran? :P 04:18:29 no 04:18:32 forth 04:18:56 ... 04:19:01 example? 04:19:06 2 3 + 2 * 04:19:10 will result into 10 04:19:26 it's a stack based language 04:19:34 (concatenative more precise) 04:20:24 use? 04:20:44 very small compiler+interpreter+debugger 04:20:49 something like 4kb 04:20:55 (depending on machine) 04:21:16 also very effective language 04:22:57 In 500 lines of colorForth these tools provide everything required to design a chip. They are derived from an earlier version called OKAD that successfully generated many versions of Forth microprocessor chips. 04:23:03 this is from colorforth site 04:24:28 it looks complicated ! 04:24:53 it's not complicated at all 04:24:59 I got out the programming universe a year ago 04:25:02 in fact it's one of the simplest languages ever 04:25:24 it's not a language 04:25:30 it is 04:25:33 it's a script for programming 04:25:38 not a script 04:25:44 it's a full programming language 04:25:56 or even an OS, depending on implementation 04:26:00 like Php, Javascript, Java, VBscript... 04:26:05 no 04:26:24 explain 04:27:32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORTH 04:28:01 ... you can't code an os with it 04:28:12 or any program? 04:28:14 you can 04:28:35 actually initially forth environments were all operating systems too 04:28:40 .... could you code a word processor? 04:28:46 yes 04:29:09 O.o 04:29:45 so it's like Pascal, PHP or ASP 04:29:52 not really 04:30:20 ... so is any of you fluent in it? 04:30:38 i haven't written myself large applications 04:30:45 but some people did 04:31:41 what is an OS ? 04:31:42 :s 04:31:46 operating system 04:32:02 ah 04:32:04 Nelanth you nubstick 04:32:14 http://astro.pas.rochester.edu/Forth/forth.html 04:32:19 this is an introduction to forth 04:32:20 rhhh 04:32:25 any learning resources out there? 04:32:36 making a program is so boring 04:33:02 ... 04:33:06 then don't make a program 04:33:15 I'm sure it take ages to make a simple program 04:33:25 it doesn't 04:33:38 http://forthfreak.net/jsforth.html 04:33:47 this is an implementation in jscript 04:33:56 Cctoide 04:34:51 woah 04:35:01 hm? 04:35:12 what? 04:35:19 how can I use of this implementation in jscript 04:37:00 jscript in forth in assembly in c in machinecode 04:37:08 woohoo 04:37:17 qFox ? 04:37:21 notin 04:37:55 hmmm 04:38:01 nubstick is nothinh 04:38:06 nothing* 04:38:23 when you search it into Google, it takes nothing 04:38:27 .... 04:38:36 Nelanth: you're really a newb 04:38:42 "The newest registered user is nubstick" 04:38:50 don't know nothing about internet slang 04:39:03 it's gaming slang 04:39:14 well, we don't know slang :) 04:39:31 it's not a really smart telling 04:39:40 grah! 04:39:44 shut up! :P 04:39:52 "hacker language" blah blah... 04:39:54 Cctoide have you got an idea of what forth is? 04:40:02 yea, sort of 04:40:33 but... 04:40:44 http://www.forth.org/successes.html 04:41:01 sorry but I programed with french explanations 04:41:13 these words are frenchized 04:41:35 you better learn english :) 04:41:57 er 04:42:02 any learning resources? 04:42:27 http://astro.pas.rochester.edu/Forth/forth.html 04:43:11 ok 50 25 5 */ 100 - 100 do get-data write-data loop 04:43:32 what does work for ? 04:43:34 "ok" 04:43:47 ok is just a propter 04:43:52 like c:\ 04:43:55 ah 04:44:12 50 25 5 */ 100 - 100 04:44:34 */ ( n1 n2 n3 -- quot ) n1 times n2, divide by n3, return the quotient. 04:44:35 */ could be a * and a / ? 04:44:43 ah 04:45:51 so it's ((50*25)/100)-100 04:46:03 -87.5 :) 04:48:50 (20+43/confused)+1-800 04:49:47 20 43 + confused / 1 800 +- 04:50:35 bbls ? 04:50:44 are you still here ? 04:50:52 I'm querying you 04:51:20 --- join: bbls2 (~bbls@80.97.121.133) joined #forth 04:51:24 :s 04:51:46 err 05:05:33 --- quit: bbls (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 05:19:52 stack... ? 05:20:25 Cctoide what do you mean? 05:20:43 I dunno... what's its purpose? 05:21:02 it stores data 05:21:22 ehmm 05:21:26 when you do 2 3 + 05:21:31 can't be used for sequential processes? 05:21:32 first 2 is pushed into the stack 05:21:34 then 3 05:21:40 then when + is called 05:21:47 2 and 3 are dropped from the stack 05:21:50 and 5 is pushed back 05:22:51 hmm. 05:23:03 are you the channel chaperon? :P 05:23:14 no 05:23:15 :) 05:23:25 well, forth seems interesting 05:23:50 my dad has a wired magazine with a family tree of programming languages along the times 05:23:56 I'm going to see if I can dinf forth 05:24:00 *find 05:24:02 :) 05:24:25 lol 05:24:27 never done this before :S 05:24:37 "dinf" for "dind" 05:24:41 AHH! 05:26:18 hmmm 05:26:35 bbls why didn't you answer my question in private chat ? 05:26:59 Nelanth i didn't get any message in a private window 05:27:08 I found it 05:27:11 :/ 05:27:15 and now ? 05:27:17 it's says it evolved into postscript 05:27:26 and is listed in black 05:27:36 black meaning what? 05:27:40 which means "extinct - no active users or up-to-date compilers" 05:27:47 says it was first used to guide a telescope 05:27:50 that's not true :) 05:27:53 black - extinct 05:27:58 yes it's true 05:28:14 evolved into postscript which evolved into postscript2 05:28:15 it was a custom os to guide a telescope 05:28:16 :/ 05:28:20 it's way down in the chart 05:28:32 it's a very linear progression, doesn't meet any other languages till postscript 2 05:29:11 another one here 05:29:15 http://www.levenez.com/lang/history.html 05:30:56 there it is 05:30:58 at the to 05:30:59 p 05:31:07 between 1965 and 1970 05:31:28 says FIG-Forth branched into Forth-83 and PostScript 05:31:59 it's funny the way you concider a programming language as a natural language 05:32:27 with derivating branches 05:32:28 Nelanth: conlangs can evolve like that too :) 05:32:41 i write more code than i speak :) 05:32:42 lojban is a good example 05:33:25 in fact, I like languages for their beauty: written and pronounced 05:33:32 I don't think we're in our home environment nel 05:33:38 :D 05:33:42 huhuh 05:33:54 nevermind 05:33:55 think bbls has understood where we come from yet? 05:34:03 I have to leave you 05:34:09 blah! 05:34:25 we come from conlang channel 05:34:39 Nelanth you comed from there, not we 05:35:02 yeah, but I came because he pointed out the channel 05:35:08 I think you use "came" for that :P 05:35:10 :P 05:35:19 comed s 05:35:20 :s 05:35:39 ah 05:35:44 you strange 05:35:47 lol 05:36:21 * Cctoide uses the conlangpower to mesmerize bbls 05:36:21 my english isn't perfect because I learnt other languages 05:36:33 like German, Italian, Swedish 05:36:50 .. Asemaen :P 05:36:53 and I stopped to use English a long time 05:37:04 I don't speak Asemaen, I just constructed it 05:37:32 the creator of Klingon language cannot speak it very well 05:37:51 and the fans of it speak better than him 05:38:20 they were disappointed to see it 05:38:45 when they spoke him in Klingon 05:39:17 NELANTH 05:39:21 you don't understand jokes! 05:39:29 anyhow, Aszev is fluent in his lang 05:39:40 yes 05:40:21 I cannot imagine me learning a language I only speak 05:40:22 :s 05:40:50 s/I only/only I 05:41:47 I'd be unusefull 05:41:54 s/me/myself 05:42:04 s/unusefull/unuseful/useless 05:42:04 ^^ tnx 05:42:18 rhh my bad english !! 05:42:18 --- nick: Cctoide -> GrammarBot 05:43:12 --- nick: GrammarBot -> Cctoide 05:43:24 okay 05:43:32 -15:34- I have to leave you 05:43:48 huhu ^_^'' 05:43:52 so good bye 05:44:09 --- quit: Nelanth () 06:11:07 --- quit: aum () 06:31:19 --- join: Topaz (~top@spc1-horn1-6-0-cust219.cosh.broadband.ntl.com) joined #forth 07:03:47 --- nick: bbls2 -> bbls|eat 07:27:56 1 3 + 5 07:28:30 Cctoide? 07:30:00 4 5 ? 07:31:25 yes bbls? 07:32:40 i just wander what you meant with 1 3 + 5 07:33:09 1+3=15 07:54:48 --- nick: bbls|eat -> bbls 08:31:44 --- join: tathi (~josh@pcp01375108pcs.milfrd01.pa.comcast.net) joined #forth 08:36:44 --- join: tkb (~tkb@64.181.9.170) joined #forth 09:17:46 --- quit: bbls (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 09:41:28 --- nick: Al2O3 -> SeaForth 09:42:46 --- nick: SeaForth -> al2o3 10:16:49 hi all 10:17:50 --- mode: ChanServ set +o crc 11:09:25 --- quit: Cctoide (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)) 11:28:37 --- join: I440r_ (~mark4@216-110-82-203.gen.twtelecom.net) joined #forth 12:03:09 --- quit: saon ("leaving") 12:07:30 --- join: BACbKA (~vassilii@85-250-113-253.bb.netvision.net.il) joined #forth 12:08:03 Hi folks! I have trouble understanding whether I misunderstand POSTPONE or whether there is a bug in gforth. 12:08:56 hi BACbKA 12:09:44 Remember I presented here a naive macro generator snippet I had used in teaching http://www.tarunz.org/~vassilii/modifier-maker.fs , and then i440r et al noticed that on forths with recursive definitions possible (smth out of the DPANS scope) this won't work because MODIFY!: has : inside which would be immediate on things like (IIRC) retroforth? 12:09:56 Well, I tried prepending it w/ POSTPONE, as in 12:11:02 : MODIFY!: ( xtModifier -- ) >R POSTPONE : R> POSTPONE MODIFY!, POSTPONE ; ; 12:11:23 and now gforth chokes on the same code it worked with previously. 12:11:58 My understanding of POSTPONE was that I *don't* have to know whether the following word is or is not immediate, and so with non-immediate ones it will be a no-op? 12:12:41 yeah, I think so. 12:13:10 so why should POSTPONE break things here? anybody can speak in favour of gforth's behaviour here? 12:13:45 (you can try to download the script off the URL and add run it as is and then with the additional postpone to see the exception thrown) 12:15:04 postpone just creates more problems than it could ever solve. use compile and [compile] 12:17:44 exactly what does postpone do? 12:17:51 i440r: I am not going to use your anti-DPANS extremes in my teaching of a newbie :-) I had told though that what DPANS forth is castrated and for anything real one needs local system-dependant things (graphics, networking etc.) 12:18:10 crc: http://www.taygeta.com/forth/dpansa6.htm#A.6.1.2033 12:19:26 i440r: OTOH in a strict DPANS fanatism case, one might argue that gforth is OK because nested : is anti-DPANS and hence there's no need to even think of postponing it ;-) 12:20:13 BACbKA, postpone is not as simple as compile or [compile] - therefore it cannot ever be the best solution 12:20:30 first rule of engineering is "if it aint broke dont fix it" 12:20:38 and neither compile nor [compile] are broken 12:20:48 and they are in the standard too 12:21:06 i440r: I don't think we are arguing here 12:21:32 were not 12:22:41 i440r: I still want to understand if gforth's breakage with POSTPONE : instead of : (that works) when compiling is a bug or not. 12:22:49 that's pretty strange. 12:23:36 if you use 'POSTPONE :' and then SEE MODIFY!: it has '(compile) :' in there. 12:27:18 tathi: yeah, but not if you do a plain `:'. It is during the subsequent call of ' 1- MODIFY!: 1-! that the version with POSTPONE crashes. Reading the insides of '(compile)' doesn't add any additional insight why the hell this should be the right thing on gforth's behalf... looks like I will submit a bug report after all... 12:29:33 BACbKA, what are you trying to do 12:29:59 figure out whether what gforth is doing is a bug or not 12:30:21 lol 12:30:28 i mean what is it that you want the CODE to do 12:31:26 i440r: demonstrate some macro-generating concepts along with general interaction with the forth intepreter from within one's own words 12:31:49 BACbKA, no - i mean SPECIFICALLY what are you trying to code 12:32:09 i cant read the definition, its gobbldegook to me, postpoine this postpone that postpone the-other always is for me 12:32:14 what are you trying to DO ?? 12:32:36 BACbKA: actually, I think it might not be a bug. 12:32:36 i440r: specifically, I am trying to code things like the 1+! commented out in the 1st line 12:32:57 : 1+! 1 +! ; 12:33:00 heh 12:33:10 why the postponing ? - you want to make it a macro ? 12:33:32 i440r: yeah! (btw, assume +! isn't there) 12:33:42 i440r: and then 1-! with the same macro 12:33:50 BACbKA: 6.1.2033 POSTPONE says "Append the compilation semantics..." 12:33:52 ' 1- MODIFY!: 1-! is an example of usage 12:34:00 tathi: yeah 12:34:24 err you cant TICK a number 12:34:29 oh 12:34:31 1- not -1 12:34:33 sorry 12:34:54 3.4.3.3 says compilation semantics are to "append its execution semantics..." 12:34:55 i440r: you are right, my macro generator is pretty lame in that sense. 12:35:44 i440r: COMPILE,: ...... 2 .... ; won't work precisely because you can't tick a number and my tiny interpreter in COMPILE,: doesn't check for that case 12:35:44 BACbKA, in isforth i have a word called m: to create macros 12:35:45 so...looks like POSTPONE on a regular word isn't actually a noop. 12:35:53 m: blah code code code code code ;m 12:36:09 and every time you reference blah it will inject all that code into the definition currently being created 12:36:18 and when your finished the macro takes NO ROOM at all in the target 12:36:44 its effectivly a noop 12:36:56 postone non-immediate 12:37:16 not according to ans, AFAICT. 12:37:21 however - i cannot figure out how postpone knows weather we want the compile or the [compile] operation 12:37:36 tathi: I don't understand? doesn't it mean that if the word has no immediacy i.e. just a regular word, then isn't compiling that word exactly appending its execution semantics?? 12:37:42 postpone non-immediate means to compile code to compile the non-immediate. 12:37:49 do we want to compile non-immediate at compile time? or do we want to compile it at run time 12:37:55 tathi?????? 12:38:25 BACbKA: ok, POSTPONE blah means compile blah's "compilation semantics" into the current word. 12:38:25 THIS is where postpone is mentally broken - you KNOW with compile and [compile] exactly when the word is going to be compiled 12:38:40 the precieved problem is that you need to understand what words are and what words are not immediate 12:38:48 postpone is an attempt to relieve you of that responsability 12:38:58 and in doing so it creates a whole slew of other problems 12:39:16 its a complex solution to a simple problem 12:39:17 but if blah is non-immediate, then its compilation semantics are "compile call to blah", according to 3.4.3.3 12:39:32 i think the whole of ans is screwy 12:39:33 BACbKA: agree with both of those? 12:39:52 tathi. an example! 12:40:01 : foo postpone x ; 12:40:09 see foo 12:40:12 does X cet compiled into the definition for foo or 12:40:15 : foo compile, x ; 12:40:15 tathi: yes, but : my-word .... blah .... ; does compile a call to blah in it, doesn't it?? 12:40:22 does x get compiled into the definition where foo is referenced 12:40:36 i.e. foo might be immediate (for the latter it would have to be) 12:40:46 tathi: hold on, compile, takes a literal from the stack when seen!!! 12:40:52 but at the time you call postpone POSTPONE doesnt know that the word its inside is immediate 12:40:54 oops. 12:41:12 sorry, in gforth you see : foo (compile) x ; 12:41:16 so weather x is immediate or not is not important 12:41:28 tathi: : foo [ ' x ] compile, ; 12:41:33 yeah. 12:41:52 normally when you're executing, you _perform_ the execution semantics of the word. 12:41:54 tathi. show me two definitions for foo. 12:42:03 when you're compiling, you _perform_ the compilation semantics. 12:42:03 in the first one X gets compiled into foo but postpone does not 12:42:10 postpone _compiles_ the compilation semantics. 12:42:16 in the second i want foo to cause X to be compiled into the word where foo is referenced 12:42:34 postpone obfuscates the semantics 12:42:41 I440r_: I don't think you can do the first with postpone. 12:43:09 tathi. then postpone is definatly broken 12:43:19 it adds NOTHING to the language 12:43:49 I don't think anyone ever said it adds anything to the language. 12:43:51 other than to obfuscate it 12:43:58 i440r: there's an article by A.Ertl on state-smartness and postpone, that discusses all this PITA 12:44:16 BACbKA, state smartness has nothing to do with it 12:44:24 : foo compile x ; 12:44:29 : foo (compile) x ; 12:44:30 i440r: I'll now have to re-read it before I understand if I agree or not with tathi's interpretation 12:44:34 no state smarts there 12:44:58 i440r: sure it has no state smartness, I just recall there were a lot of POSTPONE-related musings in there 12:45:09 i440r: wanna read this before I come bitching :) 12:45:32 brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr 12:45:35 * BACbKA confuse 12:45:39 * BACbKA confused 12:45:56 any time you have alot of people discussing how postpone is supposed to work and how your supposed to use it and what its failings are and what it simplifies (nothing) you can immedialy tell that it adds nothing but more confusion factor 12:46:11 postpone is absolutly the WORST word in the ans standard bar none 12:46:16 i440r: that is something I heartily agree with :) 12:46:46 postpone should be abolished 12:47:02 now. about my cron job - why the hell isnt it working :( 12:47:33 * BACbKA off to reading 12:47:38 --- quit: BACbKA ("Leaving") 12:47:54 I440r_: from what I can tell, the ANS guys decided there was no point in using [COMPILE] on a normal word. 12:48:08 ? 12:48:10 and ? 12:48:23 i dont get it. using [compile] on a normal word is innocuous 12:48:23 so they assume you want either : foo [ ' x ] compile, ; where x is non-immediate. 12:48:36 or : foo [compile] x ; where x is immediate. 12:48:39 wtf is compile, 12:48:53 : fooo [ ' x , ] ; is what it does 12:48:54 and they combined the remaining functionality into one word. 12:49:01 BIG mistake 12:49:12 yes, but ANS allows for forths which have SEPARATE data and code spaces. 12:49:24 : foo [ ' x , ] ; <-- segfaults in retroforth ;) 12:49:36 so comma won't necessarily work for that. they had to come up with another name. 12:49:45 crc x is defined ? 12:49:47 yes 12:49:49 : x ." x was here" 12:49:50 STC 12:49:58 : foo [ ' x , ] ; 12:50:01 foo 12:50:02 x was here 12:50:03 just using a comma generates code that crashes 12:50:07 oh, right, or STC forths. 12:50:07 stc, not dtc 12:50:09 hehe 12:50:21 : foo [ ' x compile ] ; 12:50:27 non forths :P 12:50:34 crc yes 12:50:39 it's a real forth 12:51:09 (Unless you think that chuck moore doesn't do real forth anymore...) 12:51:44