00:00:00 --- log: started forth/05.09.26 00:51:33 --- join: aum (n=aum@60-234-156-82.bitstream.orcon.net.nz) joined #forth 04:11:08 --- quit: madwork (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 04:45:12 --- join: amca (n=plump@as-bri-2-58.ozonline.com.au) joined #forth 05:30:04 --- join: virl (n=hmpf@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth 05:40:17 --- quit: Raystm2 ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby") 05:40:55 --- join: Raystm2 (n=Raystm2@ppp-70-248-35-119.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 05:42:43 --- nick: Raystm2 -> nanstm 05:44:12 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool47-193.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 05:44:36 Mornin' 05:44:57 How goes it? 05:45:23 Not too bad :) 05:45:30 Still a bit slack with the coding though 05:45:52 Well, it might get busier 05:46:26 No, Ive been slack with coding 05:46:53 --- part: aum left #forth 05:47:01 ahh.. Yeah, I end doing an awful lot of tinkering, when doing nontrivial stuff 05:47:44 I havent done any recently >.> 05:48:20 Well, sometimes a break is good. Tis why it helps to have at least 1 more hobby 05:49:00 hehe 05:49:21 I have too many - they all keep distracting me when one of them starts to get more like work 05:50:19 they should. If the hobby feels like a "chore", then it generally means yer head is not willing to play that game for the nonce. 05:51:11 fair enough 05:51:30 But I am too self indulgent and need to get more disciplined about my activities 05:52:34 Possible. A lot of folks are like that, nowadays 05:52:37 How has your coding been going? 05:53:10 Lot's of generic stuff.. Mostly headers/ideas. No real "code", as I have so damned many facets and ideas to attack. 05:54:24 * amca nods 05:54:30 Still good though 05:54:56 I like your Heisenberg bug comment :) 05:55:07 well, I hate designing too little, cranking a ton of code; then changing the API and having to rewrite huge chunks 05:55:12 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 05:55:28 amca: I suspect he's trying to observe something that DOES observe 05:55:55 I see 06:00:02 What is the link to that wiki about your project? 06:00:19 It was axed by Q 06:00:54 So, I'm back to plain old tinkering and notes 06:01:17 Why was it axed? 06:01:37 In reaction to my being such a beastly "racist" 06:01:54 * PoppaVic shrugs 06:02:05 Oh? 06:02:16 No loss. I just need to putter along 06:02:21 * amca smells interesting curiousity arousing info 06:02:37 Do you know there are free wiki providers out there? 06:02:55 Prolly. I'm not a huge fan of wiki's. 06:03:06 wikihost.org 06:03:18 They dont fit in with how your mind works? 06:03:45 well, we might use them eventually. But, I was spedning too much time trying to puzzle out the interface and play at Q&A 06:04:21 * amca nods 06:07:51 I still need to come up with essential string and i/o opcodes. 06:08:35 Would you like to email me what you have done so far? 06:08:45 and, to make it worse, I either want to immediately support wchar strings or have them modular. 06:08:48 sure. 06:09:17 send me a reminder, I'll attach the tarball 06:09:28 ok 06:10:36 I think I'm getting too many balls juggled at once, but I can't see another way to layout an essential set of concepts 06:10:46 channel, dude 06:11:06 Hmm. so you need a higherlevel design concept than you have already to tie it together? 06:11:16 I know :P 06:11:22 It's all being designed in layers/modules 06:11:40 --- join: madwork (n=foo@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 06:12:20 I figure that folks shouldn't have to suffer an entire, interactive language if all the need is an executor of one or more modules of basics. 06:13:07 I was thinking more of a summarising object model/abstract data model or such to hide the complexity 06:13:55 you'd have to explain that a touch more: a lot of those concepts get mangled 06:15:10 Well whether it is OOP or structured in design, a dev project usually has a data model of some sort that hdes implementation details right? 06:15:29 what is a "data model"? The API? 06:16:15 the API is the interface to the datamodel 06:16:20 ahh 06:16:22 ok. 06:16:32 The data model is more of a conceptual framework 06:16:58 well, the "datamodel" seems pretty vague. Any language could play if it matches the API 06:17:03 One example is the stack: it can be implemented several different ways, but the data model is always essentially a pile of plates 06:17:11 right 06:17:14 exactly. That is the idea 06:17:33 OK, yah. I think I'm tracking, then 06:18:00 Like you may have one overarching umbrella module that is composed of submodules. 06:18:08 right 06:18:24 We're using variant terms, but talking the same mechanics 06:18:30 If you want to deal just with the more abstract module, you can, but if you wanna deal with more complicated parts you can too 06:18:42 Ah 06:18:55 Like how you have file strams and file handles in C 06:19:17 streams. Have you ever seen a file "stram" in C? :) 06:19:18 What I'm shooting for is the structures and a fist of support to run the engine/vm and core - which can be extended up and out. 06:19:38 Ah 06:19:43 stream? they consider handle or FILE* or sockets all "streams" 06:20:17 exactly. They are not so much worried about the actual implementation details 06:20:35 the only diff on those "streams" ( in C ) is that each variant has or lacks certain atomic-features. 06:20:49 but if you wanna worry about file handle details you can. Or if you wanna deal closer to the h/ware you can use ioctl etc 06:21:00 right. Precisely 06:21:04 PoppaVic: Exactly. Abtraction 06:21:10 yeppers 06:21:10 (abstraction) 06:21:27 :) 06:21:29 * amca dances 06:21:37 well, the prob with the three variant "streams" is that they are not as near-identical as they should be. 06:22:02 Well that is a problem in API design probably 06:22:03 The same issue exists with "strings" - in forth OR C 06:22:12 or just being pragmatic 06:22:22 How so? 06:22:33 I think the latter - they evolved poorly 06:22:40 Did the email arrive? 06:22:48 amca: wside-strings versus ascii 06:22:58 Ah, yes 06:23:21 yes, have the email - wait a few 06:23:40 Just checking it actually got there and didnt get lost :) 06:24:20 with strings they tend not to have identifying metadata - at least files have dot extensions 06:25:28 incoming... 06:25:33 ..splash 06:25:38 lol 06:25:42 Heads up! 06:26:16 Metabuilder? 06:26:18 yeah, and I tried to discuss strings as "objects" the other day, and we were not getting too far. 06:26:33 O_O 06:26:33 Yeah, a project that is going to rely on THIS project. 06:26:36 With who? 06:26:45 Ah, that is right, I remember now 06:26:46 the channel.. Some of the guys 06:27:00 Do Forth ppl tend to not like OOP? 06:27:06 or OOP concepts? 06:27:10 Or do you not like thewm? 06:27:15 brb 06:27:37 I believe it may be that folks think of forth as "simple-minded" and then OO as lisp or other nasty languages. 06:28:10 Personally, I feel OOP is being abused by issues that make it all more difficult. 06:30:45 Well I think that even if you do not code in an OO lang, OO design is useful for any lang. Heck, even BASIC can benifitt from an OO approach 06:31:05 yes, THAT I agree with 200% 06:31:22 "modular-design" and "functional-decomposition" 06:31:23 Well technically, you can only agree with it 100%... ;P 06:31:37 abstraction and encapsulation 06:31:44 yep 06:31:58 Ooooh! 06:32:02 do you read slashdot? 06:32:19 and, root to many issues is - "accept that you may call a few more funcs, but you can reuse those funcs in many places" 06:32:25 --- join: Ray_work (n=vircuser@adsl-65-68-201-174.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 06:32:28 no, hardly ever waste the time 06:32:43 lo, Ray_work 06:32:50 Hi PoppaVic :) 06:32:54 Hi Ray 06:33:02 amca! long time :) 06:33:12 where ya been? 06:33:58 Avoiding coding recently >.> 06:34:11 * Ray_work has finished ( for the most part ) the `basic execution env' for ChuckBot the Glyph. 06:35:13 cool :) 06:35:53 just need to add the higher level apps demos, 06:36:13 Then "Watch out! World" ! 06:36:16 PoppaVic: There was an article referenced which said about how MS has had to switch from a hacker coding approach to a more s/ware Eng appraoch because Windows Vista is too big to just hack together 06:36:40 amca: they'd have to reverse-engineer most of their crap 06:37:17 Chuckbot is now programmed for World Domination (TM)? 06:38:09 call it "Pinky", and yer in 06:38:14 hehe 06:45:42 amca: I apologize for the lack of really good docs in the tarball, but I think you prolly can overview the headers and clue-in 06:46:03 yep. Looking at them now 06:46:12 Just checking what sizes in are on my comp :) 06:46:19 sure 06:46:56 I'd love to even get past worrying about THAT, but the ABI's all over are so bad we can't just ignore it and pray it goes away 06:47:50 heh 06:51:23 You tend to code rather cryptically 06:52:01 I apologize. Feel free to write an email-query or ask. I'll try to answer as best I'm envisioning 06:52:31 I was looking at z.c 06:52:39 I was commenting more on your instincts 06:52:56 oh, shit that.. It's a throwaway I just use to doublecheck sizes 06:53:40 * amca nods 06:53:46 Eventually, it may mean something - but as of now, it's just a noise-generator to make gcc happy 06:53:50 I didnt even notcie properly what it was doing 06:54:04 "make z; ./z" 06:54:07 But as a comparison, here is how I code instainctively: 06:54:21 printf("sizeof(int) = %d\n", sizeof(int)); 06:54:23 it just reports on struct-sizes/opcodes-in-use 06:54:42 * amca nods 06:56:56 Ah, good ol 32 bit for int 06:57:27 yeah, tathi used it as a guide - no real reason not to. 06:57:48 I was just wondering if my system used short or long for int 06:57:57 it's ALWAYS a ponder 06:58:59 32-bit systems are supposed to use 32-bit as an int. 06:59:01 I suspect I'll eventually add WORD and DWORD as well as QCELL 06:59:14 -Wlong-long ? 06:59:20 just testing 06:59:31 I wanted to hear any screams of agony from gcc 06:59:41 hehe 06:59:50 What does it do? 07:00:02 Warn about what? 07:00:09 warn if 'long long' is used. 07:01:39 Ah 07:01:44 right: because (officially) It's _sometimes_ supported 07:01:50 bad long long? what? 07:01:56 on most all 32-bit systems, you have short = 16-bit, int = 32-bit, long = 32-bit, long long = 64-bit. 07:01:56 Why does Gforth lack a dodoes? :P 07:01:57 hi tathi 07:02:11 Think there are a few systems that are different, but IIRC that configuration is given in some standard somewhere. 07:02:21 amca, why do you need one? 07:02:24 amca: I believe they do some major bit-blasting 07:02:53 shit, I gotta' split for awhile in 30 07:02:54 Quartus: No, PoppaVic had in his code "Note: Gforth lacks a 'dodoes': do NOT ask me why!" 07:03:07 Oh . 07:03:25 Sometimes you have to be difficult because there is not enough entropy in the universe 07:04:03 amca: I suspect that gforth abuses gcc and their metacompiling attributes to get the speed & size it gets 07:04:56 Ah 07:07:17 terminates a packed-fetch opcode-list (legacy) ? 07:07:30 WTF does a new system have legacy code already? 07:07:42 --- join: Amanita_Virosa (n=jenni@CPE0000e812679b-CM000a7362da55.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 07:07:52 yeah, herk/jas and tathi pack 6-bit opcodes 07:08:04 It's not a bad idea, but I use bytes 07:08:53 so, if you ever hit an opcode=0, they bail 07:09:08 ..has to do with the outer/stepping-loop 07:10:13 It may well disappear in my own code, but whatthehell - it doesn't cost much. 07:10:48 What is the size of the cell in this code? 07:11:10 a CELL is based on uint - or 4 bytes 07:11:47 Well given it is so big, I think it is a bit excessive to worry about 2 spare bits per opcode 07:11:55 or - go the other way and call it a void* or even a func-ptr 07:12:07 that was my feeling 07:12:24 I'd rather fetch bytes or cells, for sure 07:15:13 tathi: any new ideas on do/loop flop? I really think using the RS is a bad idea, or (more gently) it makes me a trifle ill 07:16:32 I've never had a case where it was an issue. 07:17:08 PoppaVic: Why is using the RS a bad idea? 07:17:49 hmm 07:18:04 I just hate using a return-stack for variables 07:18:28 How about the idea of a "stack frame", tathi any really neat insights? 07:18:47 as in "every call/func needs a stackframe" 07:19:56 This latter idea seems to mostly mean gobbling inputs and allowing for 'local' space - to leave 0+ "droppings" 07:20:30 A return stack would only be used temporarily to hold data. (Hopefully only within the same line/statement) I thik it would be overkill to have a 3rd stack 07:20:37 As far as I'm concerned, stack frames are an ugly hack that was invented to allow you to use one stack for both return addresses and input/outputs. 07:20:46 ahh 07:20:57 tathi: Id agree with that 07:21:08 tathi: I was thinking of startup/cleanup, but I can see what you mean 07:21:24 ok, I'm exaggerating. I just don't have a use for them. 07:21:56 I suppose storing loop index/limit on the rstack could cause problems with catch/throw (walking back up the rstack). 07:22:03 But current implementations seem to manage... 07:22:24 ok, now stretch yer mind and consider "strings" - I still hate the index/limit on the stack 07:22:26 tathi: Do you know how they do manage? 07:22:41 amca: voodoo, always voodoo 07:24:16 needing to do "unloop exit" always struck me as insane. 07:24:34 but, strings can be just as insane 07:24:48 amca: no, never thought about it much. 07:25:39 PoppaVic: well, you could always have a separate control flow stack. Or even one for forward refs and one for backward branches, like Quartus mentioned the other day. 07:25:44 I'm going to cogititate it, but it seems likely that a plain old break/continue/exit should be plenty 07:25:56 tathi: yep, been cogitating it 07:26:49 oh, I'm getting confused. control-flow stack is a compile-time concept for branch addresses. 07:26:53 but anyway. 07:26:58 right 07:27:23 hmm...if you don't want to do "unloop exit", it seems to me that exit has to know about your loops so that it can drop any loop-control data. 07:27:26 it seems like there is a real bicameral-issue with compile-time and execute-time 07:27:28 which sounds ugly to me, but... 07:28:15 hmmmm 07:28:55 maybe...I just don't use the "immediate" model much -- I think Chuck's dual dictionaries model the issues better. 07:29:06 http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112743680328349448,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one <- MS changing coding methods 07:29:21 tathi: does that change the whole paradigm? 07:29:26 tathi: With the macros? 07:30:40 I know I'm still considering the dual-dict - thinking it over, but sometimes you can overthink a problem 07:31:03 PoppaVic: not really. The main difference is that "macros" are only found at compile-time, while "immediate" words are found either way. 07:31:12 ahh 07:31:32 OK, then I guess we are still dicomboobulated. 07:31:37 dic/dis 07:31:57 There has GOT to be a clean solution. 07:32:20 amca: that article sounds overly dramatic to me... 07:32:22 I gotta' roll for an hour or so.. Damn.. Back laters. 07:32:27 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 07:32:51 tathi: The whole article or the heading? The heading is just hype 07:33:48 I'm just sceptical as to whether Microsoft's coding practices are actually so bad that they need to start fresh. 07:35:16 tathi: From what I have heard, yes 07:35:44 They have aweful coding style. Their books on coding style are good, but they dont follow them 07:37:14 I'm not convinced that wiping out years of work and starting from a clean slate is ever anything but a suicidal move for a software company. 07:37:27 But maybe Microsoft has enough money to burn that they can pull it off. 07:38:39 No matter how bad your code is, it stil has years of bug fixes, so it includes all the little special cases that it needs to run on bazillions of different computers. 07:39:01 And a lot of those are probably non-obvious enough that you're not going to get them the first time around with a new implementation. 07:39:06 tathi - i completely disagree 07:39:09 tathi: Well they are using NT code ( I believe) as a base 07:39:10 starting from scratch with a fresh base is great 07:39:17 *especially* if you've kept your talent 07:39:23 companies with high turnover rates can't do it 07:39:27 --- join: sproingie (i=foobar@64-121-2-59.c3-0.sfrn-ubr8.sfrn.ca.cable.rcn.com) joined #forth 07:39:36 it's suicide if you haven't still got the people who built your first core 07:39:43 but you *can* learn from previous work 07:40:01 heck even microsoft proved that when they built .net, which from what i understand, while still not a system i'd use, is a lot nicer than java 07:40:07 Yes, but will your core people remember all the little quirky work-arounds that they have added over the last 20 years? 07:40:15 why should they have to? 07:40:41 Well, the alternative is to build a system that doesn't support the odd cases, and then have to find them all over again the hard way. 07:41:04 I'm not saying it's not good for the software (long term) to start over, just that it seems like an extremely expensive business proposition. 07:42:01 tathi: In the short term, more expensive, but in the long term it was gonna be more expensive/suicidal not to change 07:42:05 Amanita_Virosa, it is my experience that it's extremely valuable to have whole systems, or at least whole major subsystems, residing in one person's head in their entirety. It's possible to transfer that from one head to another, but it rarely happens. 07:42:18 head transfer 07:42:22 Quartus - i agree. 07:42:29 When you lose that person, what can happen is that subsequent changes are piecemeal and random. 07:42:30 Vulcan mind transfer? 07:42:34 Quartus - i agree to such a level that i'm building my entire system singlehandedly from the ground up 07:42:49 amca: yeah, I'm just wondering whether it wouldn't be cheaper to rework things from within. Slower, but safer? 07:43:20 tathi: Well they are starting with an NT base, so it isnt like they are starting from scratch 07:43:21 tathi - you seriously need to work on a few big software projects. heh. 07:44:11 Amanita_Virosa: true, I haven't, but it just seems like most of the companies that try to do that sort of thing wind up going under. 07:44:32 The 'starting over' thing is helpful primarily because it lets you build that 'one-head' view of the project again. 07:45:25 But it's a panicked move that happens when the previous head is lost. 07:45:29 Quartus - more or less. but it also lets you change the underlying structure without rendering the software completely unusable/untestable 07:45:37 * Amanita_Virosa nods 07:45:50 usually hear those referred to as "bus errors" 07:46:01 as in "soandso gets hit by a bus" 07:46:04 tathi - hrm. well, it's risky, but it's also a good thing. 07:46:08 microsoft did it with win32 tho 07:46:10 and it payed off 07:46:11 --- join: amca_ (n=plump@as-bri-2-40.ozonline.com.au) joined #forth 07:46:13 apple did it with osx 07:46:15 and it paid off huge 07:46:28 Amanita_Virosa, I've seen the win2k sources. They still aren't getting it right. 07:46:29 Yah, I'm sure with all the talent they've got at Microsoft they know what they're doing. :) 07:46:50 --- quit: amca (Nick collision from services.) 07:46:58 --- nick: amca_ -> amca 07:47:09 Quartus: arguably you could derive a similar argument from linux sources 07:47:23 Those are far more coherent and well-organized. 07:47:32 in places 07:48:04 They're written by different people, but the overall structure, how everything hooks together, is still in Linus' head. 07:48:20 * amca nods 07:48:35 i've heard windows source makes MFC's source look clean 07:48:36 heh 07:48:49 ya, actually, the linux sources are actually somewhat coherent. 07:48:51 It's the *system* that needs to be conceptualized by one person, not every line of code. 07:48:53 i've seen solaris source, and it's extremely clean 07:49:07 although i can't say much for some of the garbage buried in the drivers tree, lol 07:49:12 i guess everyone sees it now with opensolaris 07:49:24 i wrote an entire operating system in the code it takes linux to run a floppy driver 07:49:32 and my os had a zero-wait-state floppy driver, at that, lol. 07:49:46 how many different floppy drives did it drive? 07:49:56 Quartus: If the system concept is documented, cant the person be disposed of? 07:50:25 The map is not the territory, amca. Somebody needs to own it, and have it all upstairs. 07:50:33 Quartus: Good point 07:50:47 amca: if the system is simple enough, yes. anyone who makes their living maintaining something trivial doesn't really deserve the job 07:51:01 Got to run. Dentist. 07:51:21 documentation is soooo overrated. 07:51:34 otherwise, documentation doesn't substitute for experience. you gotta read and memorize those docs to be as productive as the original programmer, and that takes a while 07:51:46 i went through a documentation phase 07:51:49 where i wrote "good" code 07:51:59 well documented, self-describing, deep heirarchy C++ code 07:52:04 with long variable and function names 07:52:15 Amanita_Virosa: Documentation is vital IMO. Human memory is weak. Only the written word survives for generations intact. 07:52:16 hehe 07:52:31 i moved past that now. what i write now is all in plain C, totally undocumented, 1-letter variable names, and looks IOCCC worthy 07:52:31 * sproingie inherited a big pile of driver code at sun for one of those multiline scrolling LED display thingies. fantastic documentation, massively complex 07:53:00 Amanita_Virosa: Why did you move past that? 07:53:02 amca - i completely disagree with you. i have far less problem understanding the type of code i write now, which invariably fits on a single page or at most two pages, than the intricately documented bloated mass that was my "good code" 07:53:10 i blame the manufacturer for making it so complex, since the translux datawall I inherited right after that worked just like a terminal. simple 07:53:18 because it's akin to writing french poetry by writing it in english and then translating 07:53:46 Amanita_Virosa: Maybe you werent factoring/modularising enough? 07:53:59 LOL 07:54:09 i suggest you look up "deep hierarchies" sometime 07:54:14 if anything, i could have been accused of the opposite 07:54:19 Good point 07:54:21 J'ACCUSE! 07:54:26 Wait asec! 07:54:29 factoring is something of a fetish in forth-land 07:54:36 it doesn't really translate well to C 07:54:44 Also, not using C++ is something of a fetish in forth-land too :) 07:54:45 If there is good abstraction and encapsultaion, wouldnt it not matter about deep hierachies? 07:54:51 sproingie - granted, writing a FORTH-based OS was a large part of what changed my coding style... 07:55:32 amca - for a reference on the endpoint of abstraction, i refer you to abstract art. 07:55:39 that should say enough, i think, lol 07:56:02 Amanita_Virosa: I disagree - there can be a happy medium between abstraction and pragmatism 07:56:09 sure there can. 07:56:22 there's a gallery in SFMOMA that consists of the most abstract of abstract, which is entirely blank canvases 07:56:29 Besides, what is wrong with a painting of a polar bear in a blizzard? :P 07:56:52 well now, see, what i write... 07:56:53 i can appreciate minimalist abstract art and the effort something like mondrian's lines and colored rectangles actually took 07:57:07 now i write minimalist C code. it's native C code. it's not written in english and translated. 07:57:15 i'm more fluent in C than i am in english 07:57:20 i think like the computer. heh. 07:57:27 but when i saw that, i just thought that the art there was the bullshit artistry in passing this off as an artistic creation 07:57:45 Amanita_Virosa: Can other ppl understand the code you write? 07:57:59 amca - i really couldn't care less. i don't write open source. 07:58:09 i can understand it when i come back to it after forgetting how it works 07:58:13 and that's what's important. 07:58:14 Ppl who have to maintain your programs will :P 07:58:54 Would you mind if I saw an example of your C coding? 07:59:00 people who have to maintain my programs have my deepest pity. only 1 in a hundred (and that's being generous) programmers have the brains to understand my code. 07:59:32 the actual page of code? or an example of what it does? 07:59:41 Actual page of code 08:00:02 hrm. funny enough, that might be hard to find these days. i haven't released any code in years. 08:00:10 i've gone binary-only 08:00:13 You make it sound like it would be easier to reverse engineer the binary rather than read your code ;) 08:00:21 by and large, yes. 08:00:26 lol 08:00:33 i would say only 1 in a hundred have the patience 08:00:44 You only code in machine language? 08:00:53 amca: i think he's being facetious 08:00:55 amca - no, but i do code a fair bit of assembly... 08:01:00 and i'm female, thank you. 08:01:21 careful, let the rest of irc know and you hear no end of it 08:01:28 fine. i'm also lesbian. 08:01:39 LOL 08:01:39 so it doesn't do them any good. heh. 08:01:48 Amanita_Virosa: You are not making it any easier on yourself :P 08:01:48 you usually get accused unkindly of that within 5 minutes anyway 08:01:59 lol 08:02:12 anyhow... i don't really have much code online. lots of schematics... 08:02:19 EE? 08:02:23 the most recent code i released was in postscript 08:02:40 this kind of stuff: http://caladan.nanosoft.ca/c4/ccorner/6.php 08:02:52 Amanita_Virosa: You realise that that sort of outrageous claims ("Im female") would have to be proven unequivicolly in IRC. :P 08:02:56 http://caladan.nanosoft.ca/c4/bbbits.php 08:03:00 * amca looks 08:03:22 and if you really want to see my code, you can at least see it in action: http://caladan.nanosoft.ca/c4/software/bugout.php 08:03:24 postscript, thus why you hang out on #forth. spiffy, you do the schematics stuff in postscript yourself? 08:03:39 i do the schematics in xcircuit. 08:03:44 which saves in postscript :P 08:03:55 aha.. 08:04:05 comparing postscript to forth is like comparing PHP to C. 08:04:13 actually, pretty much exactly like that comparison 08:04:36 i wish i stuck with electronics, never could find much to do with it 08:05:18 got a gf now who hates clutter, so my workshop wouldn't go over here 08:06:10 ah 08:06:30 was too afraid of microcontrollers, processors, chips in general to find anything useful to do 08:06:43 stems from being poor and chips being expensive and easily fried 08:06:59 now it's different, but so's the environment. oh well. 08:08:41 xell... 08:09:02 virls daily commercial... 08:47:55 --- join: JasonWoof (n=jason@pdpc/supporter/student/Herkamire) joined #forth 08:47:55 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof 09:12:11 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool46-127.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 09:12:54 Damn, I'm tired 09:13:21 OK.. back... Sorta' 09:13:45 Sorta? 09:14:06 catching my breath.. Another 1/4 ton of cans and frozen meats 09:14:20 O_O 09:14:22 Anywa.. I miss anything exciting? insights? 09:14:26 Well I am off to bed 09:14:32 ahh, ok 09:14:40 Cya later 09:14:45 stay well 09:14:54 --- quit: amca ("d34d") 09:18:22 --- quit: Amanita_Virosa ("Whoopsies.") 09:23:33 --- join: MjrTom (i=A2305CVS@adsl-66-136-203-123.dsl.austtx.swbell.net) joined #forth 10:14:25 --- join: Serg[GPRS] (n=Miranda@clients.sonicduo.com) joined #forth 10:31:18 --- part: Serg[GPRS] left #forth 10:45:58 --- join: neceve (n=Clau@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 11:19:40 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 12:13:30 Hey all. 12:49:02 --- part: MjrTom left #forth 12:51:37 hi Mr. Quartus :) 12:51:49 Hope this finds you well. 12:51:50 What's the news of the world, Ray_work? 12:52:47 In The World Today.... Dateline Forth Wort Texas, Escapes Hurrican, No rain for our burnt grass yards. 12:53:03 Mixed blessing? 12:53:11 Yes, si, is. 12:54:47 Big Blow In Houston, Just Full Of Hot Air, Says WindBag. 12:55:03 --- quit: neceve (Excess Flood) 12:55:11 Nothing new for Houston, I think. :) 12:55:18 True. 12:55:44 --- join: neceve (n=Clau@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 12:55:46 ChuckBot the Glyph well on it's way.... Advice please 12:55:52 as a customer walks in brb 13:01:23