00:00:00 --- log: started forth/05.09.29 03:07:29 --- quit: Quartus (Remote closed the connection) 03:50:17 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 03:50:32 Hi, tathi. 03:51:32 Hi Robert 03:51:35 How's it going? 03:52:14 Doing some prolog homework and waiting for school to start. Not all that bad. 03:52:20 It's a pretty interesting language. 04:35:49 Oops. Started reading a blog and got lost in the network. :P 04:36:29 * tathi doesn't know anything about prolog. 04:58:34 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool47-5.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 04:58:50 Mornin' 05:05:10 --- join: virl (n=hmpf@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth 06:00:45 --- join: madwork (n=foo@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 06:06:49 --- nick: Ray_work2 -> Ray_work 06:07:40 hi ray 06:18:53 Good morning. 06:19:13 Still tickling code.. How you doin'? 06:19:15 * Ray_work actually working, right out of the gate this morn, feeling good. 06:19:32 Yeah, getting paid is nice ;-/ 06:19:51 Ya my "ChuckBot the Glyph" is coming along nicely" 06:20:31 Trying to clean up the headers some more (from the bottom), before taking a deep breath and thinking of "top-down". 06:20:58 Oh yes, I wish I hadn't missed so much of yesterdays convo, but I did read that near the end. 06:21:13 * Ray_work will check out logs over the weekend. 06:21:21 I can't even recall it, I had too many irons in the fire 06:21:26 :) 07:26:20 --- join: sproingie (i=foobar@64-121-2-59.c3-0.sfrn-ubr8.sfrn.ca.cable.rcn.com) joined #forth 07:28:14 Hi sproingie ;-) 07:34:58 * sproingie waves 07:46:03 --- join: JasonWoof (n=jason@pdpc/supporter/student/Herkamire) joined #forth 07:46:03 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof 07:46:20 --- join: PoppaVic_ (n=pete@0-1pool67-207.nas22.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 07:47:20 --- quit: PoppaVic (Nick collision from services.) 07:47:22 --- nick: PoppaVic_ -> PoppaVic 08:28:21 --- quit: sproingie (Remote closed the connection) 08:34:11 man...I'm having more trouble writing this macro preprocessor... 08:35:38 heh 08:35:50 damn, I got stuck for a few when I WANTED to chuckle 08:37:05 What are you "preprocessing"? 08:38:32 assembly language source. 08:38:53 I ran up against a bug in the GNU macro facility that I couldn't track down. :( 08:38:53 I've nearly concluded that unicode foo-foo is not worth the efforts *sigh* Either you need a utf-8 module or libiconv around. 08:39:15 ouchie - writing a whole preprocessor for THAT? 08:39:42 Bah, it's not that complex. Just taking me a while to figure out the dataflow. 08:39:49 hehe 08:40:12 Actually it's pretty much trivial in Perl. :) 08:40:14 I've never seen a GOOD document on "preprocessors should spew..." 08:40:41 oh, damn - you cheat like crazy! Perl to feed asm? 08:41:07 Hey, it's text manipulation. That's where Perl really shines. 08:41:13 true 08:41:13 I'm doing a C version now. 08:41:23 or awk or sed or something 08:41:41 C is _still_ a lovely tool. 08:41:44 Actually, I tried just using m4 first, but that's just too ugly. 08:41:59 eww, yeah - I wish m4 on those I dislike 08:42:22 Well, I hadn't ever tried it before -- figured it was a good excuse to find out if it was actually any good. 08:43:16 I get told - by folks even longer at programming than myself - that m4 is wonderful. I keep thinking they have done "too much LDS in the 60's" 08:43:20 Very odd mix of restrictions and features. 08:45:38 Actually, the only reason I gave up on it was that I couldn't figure any way to get it to ignore stuff inside strings. 08:46:15 yep 08:46:19 substrings 08:47:32 It's just so weird -- it's like they went to write a TOTALLY generalized macro processor, but then they added some syntax that you can't get around. 08:47:53 Oh well. 08:48:05 At least now I know that I really don't like it. :) 08:48:14 tathi: did I tell you I have a nice interpret loop going under fovium? 08:48:26 JasonWoof: You might have. 08:48:29 Cool though. 08:48:42 can't do much with it, because of the limited word set, but it's a nice milestone :) 08:48:52 yeah. 08:49:08 I don't have runtime versions of the fovium opcodes... 08:50:57 ah 08:51:10 so no + dup @ etc 08:51:40 ahh 08:51:58 Been there, screamed and cried about that 08:52:14 PoppaVic: whaat? 08:52:57 I've gotten inner-interps to run the same way - then had to get it to communicate with outer-interp. It's "fun" 08:54:13 or, I should say: the outer-interpreter needs to tell the inner "wtf". 08:54:24 there is no inner/outer 08:54:31 hehe 08:54:34 it's just that + is not defined 08:54:57 THere is always inner and outer, or you've written no more than 1 interpreter/parser. 08:54:59 nor is dup or drop 08:55:27 JasonWoof: I'm not flaming, mind you - just using terms I learned long, long ago 08:55:40 yeah, well, you're not making a lick of sense 08:55:48 no use using terms if nobody knows what you mean by them 08:56:00 maybe. My bad. Carry on 08:56:06 it's very simple 08:56:11 it reads in characters until it comes to a 10 08:56:22 then it looks that up in the dictionary, if found it executes it 08:56:36 otherwise it tries to interpret it as a number. if successful it puts it on the stack 08:56:57 That's basically the "outer interpreter" aka "text interpreter" 08:57:12 input, lookup, run 08:57:17 yeah 08:57:22 and what's the inner? the VM implementation? 08:57:35 JasonWoof: wait, you're just saying you have barely any words in the new dictionary. 08:57:38 right? 08:57:41 right 08:57:52 well, there's probably 50 08:57:54 yeppers, inner is stepper 08:58:21 once again, PoppaVic has totally missed the point 08:58:33 * PoppaVic sighs 08:58:36 things like + and DUP are immediates in my cross-compiler 08:59:02 OK, that's nice 08:59:02 heh 08:59:03 so I've compiled dup into a bunch of things, but it's not in the mist dictionary 09:00:11 tathi: I had fun writing . again :) 09:00:28 I really like writing forths. It's been a while :) 09:01:27 Yah, I'm looking forward to going back to mine as soon as I stop wasting time on IRC and finish this preprocessor :) 09:01:38 : --. $30 + d0; emit --. ; 09:01:38 : -. 10 /mod d0; -. ; 09:01:38 : . -48 swap -. --. sp ; 09:02:16 oh, and d0; is like herkforth's 0; (exits and drops if TOS is zero) 09:02:31 right 09:02:34 tathi: the preprocessor is almost a necessity, isn't it? 09:03:05 hmmm... might be clearer if I used 48 instead of $30 09:03:24 I doubt it. 09:03:52 PoppaVic: actually the assembler will produce correct output with -Z, but it will bug me until I fix it :) 09:04:27 hmm, never used -Z - but I certainly understand how a new preprocessor can help tons. 09:04:33 JasonWoof: I like $30, but either one requires you to know your ASCII codes 09:04:48 well, it's just that I'm putting -48 on the stack 09:04:54 so when you add 48, you get zero 09:05:05 thus marking the end of the digits on the stack 09:05:14 oh, right 09:05:19 what's the magic-number? 09:05:21 as a rule, I use hex for ascii codes 09:05:29 '0' 09:05:34 then say so 09:05:44 (thought so, but asked anyway) 09:05:56 but in this case I it to be easier to see the -48/48 thing 09:06:01 bad 09:06:10 but, hey Whatever 09:06:19 I don't think herkforth has character literals 09:06:26 nope 09:06:29 "ascii 0" works for me. 09:06:48 I'm thinking about making them, but I can't think of a good key for it 09:06:54 (but doesn't work in herkforth) 09:06:56 I'm already using ' " and ` 09:07:06 which is a colorforth with tokenized source, not actual text. 09:08:55 oh, what am I thinking 09:09:08 I can't use editor keys, like '"` 09:09:19 but I can use a character I use in word names, like # 09:09:23 #a #0 09:09:46 doesn't stop me from writing words like #entries 09:10:15 would be quite easy to add. just have to extend the number parser 09:13:27 PoppaVic: oh, -Z just means to produce output in spite of errors. And this bug just causes the assembler to have an error - it still produces correct output, so... 09:13:30 I advocated this years ago: xXX[XX], bBBBB[BBBB], oO[OO], etc 09:13:41 ahhhh 09:13:59 tathi: trying to pervert the assembler? 09:15:18 I just want my forth to assemble correctly. 09:15:41 yeah, but assemblers - like mc - are platform specific. 09:15:58 I know 09:16:19 I'm working on making a forth that will cross-compile, so I'll get away from this specific assembler eventually. 09:16:28 well, that's the point. The given tool can be a bitch, or just not speak "what you want". 09:16:54 tathi: I agree with the principles 200% percent 09:17:45 bbl, lunch 09:17:50 done 09:17:59 I still think we'd benefit from a minimal TIL semantic that was suitable and portable for "assembly". 09:18:02 herkforth now has char literals like so: #0 #a etc 09:18:38 those are ascii, btw 09:19:16 ..and I have to admit being militant about wanting ascii 09:19:24 in under 10 minutes :) 09:23:20 PoppaVic: "TIL semantic for assembly" meaning a vocab for generating MC or something? (lunch not quite done yet :) 09:24:29 Sorta', yeah.. Wherein we write for a generic assembler in TIL - and the til generates a local-platform of asm. 09:24:44 This is back to C-- and such 09:25:27 Hmm. 09:26:01 I'm still not convinced that there is a useful intermediate level between C-- and local asm. 09:26:02 Basically, the TIL would be a transformer/filter. 09:26:22 sure there is: there are almost too many commonalities to suffer 09:27:08 The kicker would be: the TIL would NOT be JIT/interpretive-compiling 09:27:13 Yes, but if you're abstracting out all the differences, I think you're pretty close to C-- anyway (sans infix syntax, of course). 09:27:20 right 09:27:38 or D 09:27:45 the diff is, we stick to a basic i/o form. 09:28:25 standardize the "universal assembler" semantics and be done with it. We don't CARE how they filter it locally. 09:28:54 I just think that that is exactly what C-- does. 09:29:08 maybe it does, neve gotten it built and running. 09:29:19 Again, with infix syntax, but switching to an asm-like "instruction" syntax seems like a step backwards to me... 09:29:24 yet, why suffer - at this level - a C-variant? 09:29:34 Me neither, just read the docs. 09:30:01 C-- looked cute, and then I noted I was offered a binary-install. 09:30:28 I can't comment on it other than to say: "forth can do it better" 09:30:55 --- quit: crc (Read error: 101 (Network is unreachable)) 09:31:36 OK, but you're not talking about Forth, you're talking about a "universal assembly language". 09:31:51 Which is precisely the stated goal of the C-- project. 09:32:35 I'm not saying you shouldn't do it with a TIL, I'm just saying it *might* make sense to use the already existing syntax, rather than inventing your own. 09:33:17 And again, I haven't looked at C-- that closely; just read some of their docs. 09:33:24 I'd agree, if I had C-- running and experience using it. 09:33:43 But I gather it doesn't have all that much in common with C other than syntax. 09:33:52 OK. I'll just shut up then. :) 09:33:52 Although, I have to wonder why using C-- is preferable to a Forth-- 09:34:04 hehe 09:34:37 never shutup. I don't mind asking/discussing - someone always knows more. I don't, in this case 09:35:12 you don't need an universal assembler, when you can relie on specific services like guis and build handles in a platform specific assembler where the file gets assembled to native code. 09:35:24 I'm totally, 100% sure that a TIL would use a more simple-minded and easier semantic, in any event 09:35:28 My guess about a C-like rather than a Forth-like is that you're already using variables already (which can just map to registers) 09:35:37 You don't have to infer it from the stack (which admittedly isn't hard) 09:35:55 maybe. GNU is starting to talk front/back-ends 09:36:06 I think it's too little, too late. 09:36:08 in GCC, you mean? or...? 09:36:21 yeah, the newer GCC do, iae 09:36:45 AFAICT it's still badly documented, but getting better. 09:36:53 They tend to forget, (of course), that gcc is not quite Universal 09:37:04 I have actually heard of a few people using it, but gcc is too big for my tastes. 09:37:14 tathi: indeed - all those points hilight my issues. 09:37:14 I've been digging up some info on gcc frontends. 09:37:26 Robert: any luck? 09:38:03 Some, yes. I found some interesting documents and examples (and was sent some by email). 09:38:22 why assembler? I try only to throw something new in the discussion. 09:38:29 tathi: bear in mind: even their platform/cpu interfaces are a jumble of disassociated gibberish 09:38:30 It looked do-able to me, just a bit tricky. 09:38:31 But like tathi says, it's huge, and I wouldn't use it unless you need/want to be compatible with dozens of platforms. 09:38:41 oops, lunch for real now. 09:38:59 Robert: yeah, *almost* a no-win situation. 09:39:05 ok, tathi 09:39:37 It has a good optimiser and outputs code for almost any platform you can think of. So there ARE a few advantages. 09:39:55 oh, hell... optimizing is i/decisions/o 09:40:13 Yes, and I still hug tight to gcc and C 09:40:44 ..But, so far anything I've seen has whacked idosyncracies and pain/blood involved. 09:41:53 Robert: on the whole, C and C-- basically typify "portable assembler": and I've never even SEEN efforts to redirect||steer this from the forthish universe. 09:42:27 It's not all *BAD*, but it really remains irksome. 09:43:17 We already _know_ that a really elaborate TIL can emulate C 09:43:20 I admit I've been lazy, but I was thinking of writing up some tool to efficiently compile a subset of Forth to machine code, and try it out as a variant of portable assembly. 09:43:31 but, that C can't well emulate a TIL 09:44:06 yeah, there are a lot of ideas that have way-sided for TILS and forth over the years 09:46:37 ok, nobody is interested in my view of it, fine. 10:10:02 damned vacu-suck machine *sigh* 10:10:24 ANyway, Forth is more like "asm" than C is. 10:12:13 actually... forth is more like super-cpp AND c OVER asm. 10:13:48 wow. The C-- mailing list is totally taken over with spam. 10:14:08 I'm not surpised, I saw very little interest/activity 10:15:19 I think it's another of those "gee whiz!" things that dies an ignominious death 10:15:38 I just meant that they need a different listserv program, so they wouldn't get spammers registering so much. 10:15:55 I didn't even notice any activity. 10:17:07 yeah, looks like about 10 messages this month. 10:17:42 Frankly, I believe forth-ish TILS have it all beat - if you can get past folks over the idea of generating a file for further interp/compilation 10:18:59 Writing one single, unified "lexer" and "parser" is just a dead, DEAD end. 10:19:57 otoh, writing an extensible interpreter, and vectored interp - and pcode/bytecode "compiling" - yeah, this will be around for a long, long time. 10:37:42 Well, I don't think C-- is dead. Looks like it's just kind of a low-key project. 10:38:00 tathi: we used to call that "grass-roots" ;-) 10:39:22 and if nothing else, forth had better lead the universe in "grass roots" ;-) 10:39:28 heh. But looks like it is mostly folks involved in academia. 10:39:54 So that may kind of put you off it. ;-) 10:39:58 ok, then it is uninteresting to me: acadamia has a special axe to grind. 10:42:14 I can't say I understand that attitude, but whatever works for you. 10:42:45 academics are like folks in a pressure-cooker. 10:42:59 how so? 10:43:03 ..Plusm they have axes the rest of us could care less about. 10:43:23 "publish or perish" is a std. dictum of academics 10:43:56 The rest of is just want to get something done - and lack insurance or tenure 10:44:00 Oh. Yeah, there are those folks. But not everybody is like that. 10:44:03 of is 10:44:11 US, damnit 10:44:53 I've also seen a lot of people who do good stuff at universities, because it frees them up a little bit from the constraints of having to get something practical done NOW. 10:45:08 Hell yeah, I agree - some "academics" are going to fizzle and croak... ANd be "right". 10:45:41 And...for instance, it sounds like a bunch of the C-- folks are students working on some aspect as a special project. 10:45:43 anyway, this has no bearing on us - beyond the concept of "C-- is academic". 10:46:15 I fail to understand why the task is beyond forthish volken. 10:46:55 I don't think it is. I just think that most of the folks who have bothered to do serious stuff have gone commercial. 10:47:03 If it really means "forth is not up to it, but C is" - then we have a whole universe of issues. 10:47:27 tathi: I agree on that, and disagree much as I did 20 years ago 10:48:26 I keep meaning to put together a nice free source compiler, but keep getting distracted. 10:48:28 I keep pondering "wtf?" with the whole forth/til thing. 10:48:48 s/source/forth/ 10:48:48 tathi: I look forward to supporting you as best I can. 10:49:31 I still have no real issue with foo->bar->snarf interpreting/"compiling" 10:49:43 I keep spending time being fascinated by the ideas in Smalltalk, Haskell, etc. :) 10:50:12 Which is why I like "intermediate code" we can compile/run - and damn the "slow" 10:50:57 as a rule, we see in ##C tons of idjits "prematurely optimizing" daily. 10:51:31 Yeah...that's the one thing I don't like about coming from an asm background -- premature optimization is a tough habit to kick. 10:51:34 I think forthers suffer the same 10:52:19 just write the FOO; translate it, (which may optimize some) to run or further xlate (with further optimizing), etc. 10:53:03 A given would be "portable assembler can be optimized". 10:53:27 the corollaries are: every level can optimize 10:54:12 I'm guilty of premature optomization too 10:54:23 the question becomes: who is really an interpreter/JITC - and how much should they understand/xlate? 10:54:44 eg most of the primitives... I made them all immediates in the cross compiler so they just compile inline 10:54:49 but now they're not in the dictionary 10:55:07 JasonWoof: the only "guilt" is: does it block your thinking/discussion? 10:55:13 it would be a piece of cake to make them immediate later in mist when I have the editor going 10:55:29 in the mean time the slowdown of having all that stuff be calls would probably not be noticeable 10:55:36 sure, as in (basic concept) "What is an 'immediate'?" 10:56:26 I'm pretty sure that 'immediates' are nothing more than a word in the "operator vocabulary". 10:57:03 But, this is open to debate - and there are few folks we can debate WITH. 10:57:32 (no, I have no thesis to write) 10:58:30 so, just for the days record: I do not try to flame you, JasonWoof - I merely want some ideas tossed around. 10:59:23 I think we - in C - expect too little from interpretation; and (in forth) too much from "compile and run". 11:00:19 it may well be that every 'word' has a "Compile" and "Running" behavior - I am not sure. 11:01:12 Or maybe we need to consider: "Interpret" versus "Compiling" versus "Executing". 11:01:13 most don't need it, if the default compile behavior is to compile a call to the runtime behavior. 11:02:14 tathi: sure, but the concepts are mostly in-the-air because of the bailout of folks from grass-root - and committees - to "product-for-sale". 11:02:51 I don't think I see the concepts as being in-the-air. 11:02:56 Afaik, even the FIG newsletter is nearly beyond most folks for readability/costs. 11:03:26 Sure they are. Most forthers EXPECT immediate;y extension and execution 11:03:47 oh, you're including non-forthers. ok. 11:03:55 there is something between interpret/emulate and native 11:04:16 right. YOu can't help it: there is no forthish OS/kernel 11:04:23 but... I still don't think there is much ambiguity to terms like "interpret", "compile", and "execute 11:04:46 the ambig. is mental and "what is laid down/run" 11:05:03 who cares? 11:05:17 tathi: I think yer FOVIUM has the handle, but we need to twist it. 11:06:04 we care only in terms of "make it portable, smash the fuckers" 11:06:25 ..and, I've always been in favor of smashing folks fixations 11:07:27 I just think you're making a big deal about things that aren't important. 11:07:47 So "interpret" is ambiguous? Fine, pick a definition, use it for your system, and document it. 11:07:57 If someone else wants different semantics, they can implement it on top. 11:08:07 (Or convince someone else to do it for them) 11:08:59 Sure, Turing completeness is too weak a criteria for a usable programming language, but for an extendable system, I don't think it really matters all _that_ much what the core assumptions are. 11:09:15 Maybe. I think all the variants and divergence is a bigger issue, and Turing isn't my issue. 11:09:34 Anyway.. I'm gonna' call it a Knight 11:09:38 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 11:32:54 --- join: OrngeTide (i=orange@rm-f.net) joined #forth 11:34:07 Hi. 11:37:02 * JasonWoof removes his blinders 11:37:05 hi robert :) 11:37:09 Heh, hi. 11:50:32 --- join: Quartus (n=trailer@ansuz.pair.com) joined #forth 11:50:41 Hey all 11:51:51 --- quit: madwork ("?OUT OF DATA ERROR") 11:52:56 Hi Quartus 11:53:01 --- join: madwork (n=foo@derby.metrics.com) joined #forth 11:53:01 Hey. What's up? 11:54:07 Not much. 12:08:49 hi Quartus 12:09:45 I'm working on a new logo 12:10:19 LOGO? :) 12:11:06 yeah 12:11:13 got a website and business cards, and I'm working on a flyer 12:11:16 gotta have a logo 12:11:53 been using "herkamire" but it's hard to remember for many people 12:13:48 Yes, and it conjures up strange images. 12:18:42 http://jason.herkamire.com:2201/jasonwoof.png 12:19:40 Neat. 12:20:53 JasonWoof, reminds me of this: http://www.1067theend.com/system/sitecache/c4ca4238a0b923820dcc509a6f75849b/images/TrainwreckieWinners/Hooters_logo.jpg 12:21:38 oh dear 12:22:13 The two O's as eyes are going to remind a lot of people of that, in North America anyway. 12:22:42 rrr 12:22:49 so hard to resist though 12:23:35 Unless your marketing campaign uses large-breasted women in tight silk shorts -- well, that might work. :) 12:50:51 hmm reads like hooters 12:53:24 Quartus: this any better? http://jason.herkamire.com:2201/jasonwoof2.png 12:53:50 Jason, a bit. 12:54:04 Still kind of in the same ballpark, though. 12:54:11 bugger 12:54:14 Enough to be sued? ;) 12:54:15 You'll never escape the Hooters comparison if you keep the pupils in the Os. 12:54:59 Sued? I'm not talking about infringement, just association. 12:55:22 I'm not being very serious, although people probably have been sued for less. 12:55:49 I doubt Hooters would sue because someone else notice that two round objects with spots in them vaguely resembled, um, eyes. :) 12:56:38 thanks for testing guys 12:57:05 The second one is a definite improvement. 12:57:06 anybody know how to raise by powers in gnuplot by chance? 12:57:50 Not me, JasonWoof. 13:07:14 here's another go at it: http://jason.herkamire.com:2201/jasonwoof3.png 13:07:42 That looks a bit like a beak, and you're back in owl territory. 13:08:26 yeah 13:08:49 maybe I can make the nose look like the wet dog/cat/bear sort of nose 13:09:20 Is it 'cute' you're going for? 13:10:26 I want it to be just a tiny bit silly 13:10:39 but I guess my lettering will have to be enough 13:10:52 As it stands it looks like it might be the logo of a toy company. 13:11:14 "JasonWoof Pre-School Toys and Chewable Books" or something. :) 13:12:02 yeah, it's too much 13:12:07 Yes, the font by itself has some small amount of silliness to it. 13:12:34 Maybe leave it as just the font, and add seasonlly-relevant whimsical things to it the way Google does. 13:14:50 hehe 13:14:58 I'm more into friendly than silly 13:15:05 just so long as it's not cold corperate 13:16:05 I went with a Roman font on marble, because of the Latin origin of Quartus. 13:17:31 Cold, by definition, I guess. :) 13:17:40 But full of Roman goodness. 13:18:38 :) 13:19:15 I'm into black and white for businesscards 13:19:29 I like the smoothe curves 13:19:39 and corners 13:20:47 For business cards I've used the cursive Quartus logo, the one I use in Quartus Forth. But these days business cards aren't in too common use, at least not here. 13:28:25 I give mine out a fair amount 13:28:50 well, probably 2-3 times per week 13:29:03 usually just to give someone my phone number 13:29:47 so, how near is forth as an active programming language which isn't rotating around oldness and so deathness? 13:31:22 and anybody who wants to discuss about xell can join #xell 13:32:04 What's xell? 13:33:11 I troll 13:33:33 ...OK 13:40:35 hae? what? 13:40:54 'I troll'? what do you mean? 13:43:23 Robert, xell is a platform for portable embedable programs(in short) 13:48:10 virl: I mean asking a question that contains the presumption that our opinions are wrong 13:48:44 virl: you just majorly insulted forth, in #forth 13:50:04 ah, really? only because I say that I think/see that forth isn't the language which is populate today? and where could be more? 13:50:59 no, not only because you think that, but because you ask a question which presumes it. even though you must realize that we dissagree 13:51:17 I cannot answer your question, because I disagree with it's pressuppositions 13:53:35 virl: if you think forth is an inactive language rotating around oldness and deathness then go knock yourself out with java or something 13:54:15 sry, JasonWoof, but people who say that can't learn and are only stupid of some kind. 13:54:59 virl: what are you talking about? 13:55:20 so, you think that ANS Forth is the best thing which could happen to forth since 30 years? then I would call you stupid, I'm so sorry for that. 13:55:33 --- kick: virl was kicked by JasonWoof (JasonWoof) 13:56:05 --- join: virl (n=hmpf@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth 13:56:43 so, you think that ANS Forth is the best thing which could happen to forth since 30 years. 13:56:55 --- kick: virl was kicked by JasonWoof (JasonWoof) 13:57:09 --- join: virl (n=hmpf@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth 13:57:27 stop telling me what I think 13:57:32 not friendly to somebody who loves forth. 13:57:49 look, you can think whatever you want. stop saying that I think stuff 13:58:23 if you are interested in my opinion, ask me about it 13:59:20 I never said that you think stuff. I only said a assumption which followed by one reaction so -> it was answered. 13:59:40 ok, what's your opinion? 14:00:23 virl: no, you didn't. You made an assumption based on absolutely nothing. You're the only one who said ANYTHING about ANS Forth. 14:01:12 "so, you think that ANS Forth is the best thing which could happen to forth since 30 years." 14:01:12 I don't want to discuss that. 14:01:59 take a good look at that sentence. 14:02:04 you typed it to me 4 minutes ago 14:02:13 just before I kicked you the seccond time 14:02:57 virl: what's my opinion on what? 14:03:09 virl: I've got a lot of opinions 14:03:32 I've even got enough about forth that I'm not just going to sit here and try to rattle them all off 14:03:35 as a reaction of a stupid answer, completly logically and for me it wasn't trolling. 14:04:12 virl: still... no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall giving any answers 14:04:35 oh, I did answer your question about trolling 14:06:53 I only asked a completly neutral question about forth, ok it was a little bit critical but that is good, because a community needs to selreflect the things which they want, only to turn perhaps forth into a little bit another direction where it could be more accessible. 14:07:27 JasonWoof, my initial batch of business cards were for a PalmSource conference. They had me listed as "Emperor". :) 14:07:42 Quartus: emperor? 14:07:49 Well, in keeping with the Roman theme. 14:07:50 and I assumed nothing if everybody is an idiot or something like that. 14:08:03 With a marble pillar. 14:08:16 Piller? I must need coffee. I can't remember which it is. 14:08:17 oh.. how I hate that. 14:08:21 virl: you're queston contained the following presuppositions (all of which I dissagree with) 14:08:26 1) forth is inactive 14:08:42