00:00:00 --- log: started forth/05.12.06 00:41:39 --- join: bbls (n=bbls@81.180.7.4) joined #forth 00:41:43 hello 00:41:55 any of you know any other langauge similar in simplicity with forth? 00:42:17 mmmm 00:42:18 lisp? 00:42:30 hmm, it's very large 00:42:38 let me ask something 00:42:46 would a language similar to forth 00:43:05 using automatic parameter namig 00:43:10 would it be useful? 00:43:13 like this: 00:43:25 a,b,c,d, and all single letters are reserved for parameters 00:43:26 now 00:43:36 : power a a * 00:43:46 or 00:44:04 : average a b + 2 / 00:44:32 so instead of using the stack for parameters you use those predefined parameters 00:44:40 what do you think about it? 00:44:48 sounds like locals 00:45:11 not necesarly locals, more like parameters that don't have to be declared 00:45:13 s/power/squared/ 00:45:18 ah, yes 00:45:32 what's the point? 00:45:43 i would find it much easier to use than the standard forth 00:45:47 seems simpler to just do: : squared dup * ; : average + 2 / ; 00:46:11 yes but it's not clear enough for the reader what exactly you do there 00:46:25 it is if they can read forth 00:47:20 stack comments are good 00:47:23 i'm trying to create a very small programming language, based on forth 00:47:30 but more useable 00:47:38 usable for whom? 00:47:57 in what way? 00:48:26 i like forth just that unlike any other language i'm not able to code anything reasonably large and useful with it :) 00:48:28 you may be barking up the wrong tree here, as I find forth to be more usable than any other language I've used 00:48:46 that's odd 00:49:07 bbls: Possibly (like with most languages) how extensible it is depends on how you code with it. 00:49:13 I made a delightfully effecient IDE in it 00:49:35 amca_ it's mostly related to the fact that forth syntax require a very unnatural way of thinking for me 00:49:40 JasonWoof link? 00:49:52 jasonwoof.org/herkforh 00:49:56 oops 00:50:03 http://jasonwoof.org/herkforth 00:50:13 bbls: Ah, I see. Makes sense. It is a very different approach of coding. 00:50:36 bbls: part of the beauty of forth is that it encourages different programming methods and even thinking methods 00:50:46 amca_ so i'm looking for something like forth just more familiar 00:50:51 JasonWoof i don't think so 00:50:52 I find that I have learned to be a much better programmer as a result 00:51:10 forth is a programming style as much as a language 00:51:27 if you try to program as though you were working in C you'll get quite frustrated and write crappy code 00:51:27 just doing things differently is not good if it's done just for the sake of doing it differently 00:51:33 Can you code spagetti code in Forth? I cant think of how. 00:51:53 JasonWoof it's not about that 00:51:55 bbls: it's not different for the sake of different. 00:52:06 it's different because we think this way is better 00:52:07 i understand the reason certain forth features work like that 00:52:15 i've implemented a native forth too 00:52:19 Does anyone in here do substantial X/Win32 GUI coding in forth? 00:52:19 because you can write stuff 10x smaller 10x faster etc 00:52:23 just that i don't find it useful 00:52:38 forth syntax really cumbersone 00:52:48 there has to be a way to get a more familiar syntax 00:52:57 bbls: Have you tried coding practical utils/apps in Forth? 00:53:00 and this is what i'm looking for 00:53:01 amca_: slava is making something vaguely forth-like with GUI support, as am I. his is further along (factor) 00:53:07 amca_ yes 00:53:17 JasonWoof factor is still too forth-like 00:53:34 i would like something with features like factor 00:53:37 but a different syntax 00:53:43 something that can be used easier 00:53:43 so why are you here? 00:53:49 JasonWoof: Ah, yes. Ive talked with slava about Factor. I didnt realise it was going to have GUI support 00:53:51 this is a room full of people who like forth 00:54:07 because i can't find people with the right state of mind elsewhere :) 00:54:13 I didn't realize factor had anything but a GUI 00:54:32 earlier versions had only console 00:54:34 JasonWoof: I just read about the OO features so far 00:54:35 I haven't personally run Factor, just saw it running, and it was graphical 00:55:01 crc: With the Win32 access in rf, you could write Win GUI apps with the Win32 API couldnt you? 00:55:21 (except crc isnt here) 00:55:43 amca_: I wrote a virtual machine in C using SDL for input and graphics support 00:55:52 amca_: and compiled and tested it both on Windoze and ppc linux 00:56:08 amca_: And I'm writing a colored forth for it 00:56:33 amca_: I got the compiler and bootstrapping stuff done, now I'm starting on the editor 00:57:04 I'm hoping to have it at a state where it can sustain it's own development in a few months 00:58:02 bbls: I find forth to be pretty close to ideal as far as the syntax and the way you express stuff 00:58:03 Cool 00:58:09 called mist 00:58:19 doesn't really do anything atm 00:58:23 Ah, yes. I have sen mist on your site 00:58:31 s/sen/seen/ 00:58:32 you can execute stuff but not alter definitions or add new ones 00:58:37 oops :) 00:58:43 it's coming along quit equickly 00:58:59 JasonWoof the postfix notation is reall cumbersome 00:59:19 bbls: it takes some getting used to, I'll give you that 00:59:30 bbls: If you find the postfix notation cumbersome, then I dont think Forth is the lang for you. 00:59:38 but after a while it's quite natural, and to me much clearer in some cases 00:59:43 as i said i've already coded a forth system 00:59:47 amca_: Myself I dont so much find it cumbersome as just different 00:59:57 and i'm quite convinced now that postfix is not usable enough 01:00:05 Interesting 01:00:30 the problem is that it doesn't allow you to observe in one sight the flow of computation 01:00:34 --- nick: amca_ -> amca 01:00:45 C: 1 + 2 * 1 + 2 01:00:45 forth: 1 2 + 1 2 + * 01:00:55 personally, I find the latter to be easier to read 01:01:08 Me too. You dont haved to worry about precedence 01:01:10 in C you have to scan the whole expression to devine the structure 01:01:14 for example (1 + (3 + 4)) will allow you to see instantly the flow of computation (how each value participates in the computation) 01:01:17 in forth you can read it left to right 01:01:48 3 4 + 1+ 01:02:54 wow 01:02:59 yes but it doesn't allow you to you the visual part of the brain to *see* the computation 01:03:02 see, there's a bug in the C version above, and I didn't notice it until now 01:03:12 Myself, I wish postfix, not infix notation was taught in math at schools 01:03:36 bbls: it uses the symbolic logic part of your brain to _read_ what it does 01:03:53 in fact prefix is actually better than postfix since natural languages grammar favour verb first rather verb last 01:04:08 bbls: Your brain is just not trained to read the postfix pattern. It is too used to the infix pattern 01:04:14 bbls: I dissagree 01:04:21 i don't want to read, i want to *see* 01:04:27 Not all languages. Use LISP then :) 01:04:50 i want it to jump in my face 01:05:04 [i don't know the english translation for above :)] 01:05:09 bbls: Retrain your brain so that you see, instead of read, postfix then. :) It is just a cultural thing, not an inate thing. 01:05:15 again 01:05:26 using visual clues is much better 01:05:34 since the brain is optimised for this 01:05:40 ?? 01:05:43 How do you mean? 01:05:55 Having brackets etc means more for the brain to have to process 01:05:59 the brain is optimised to *see* things, not to *read* things 01:06:00 bbls semes to be very right-brain dominant 01:06:12 JasonWoof: Ah, I see. 01:06:16 :) 01:06:51 Again, whether you "see" or "read" something is a matter of training, not instinct. 01:06:54 I'm not sure I totally even follow your point about seeing program flow 01:06:54 amca brackets act as visual walls, they don't require that much processing 01:07:06 in forth you don't need to see it because it always goes straight to the right 01:07:10 no bipping around 01:07:15 well that's the problem 01:07:25 bbls: Proper white space can fulfill the same job (eg Python) 01:07:27 the brain uses another method 01:07:27 not for me, I love that 01:07:51 * amca shrugs 01:07:51 it doesn't use a linear approach in computation but more a top-down view similar more to functional programming 01:07:55 Different strokes.... 01:08:06 I was thinking that I may at some point add little lines in my editor that go from the begining to end of control constructs 01:08:30 as they are the exception to the dead simple straight to the right control flow normal to forth 01:08:42 Interesting 01:09:18 : foo 1 2 + if 4 + then . ; 01:09:18 ----------- 01:09:25 using a linear flow control like forth requires you to remember the state of the machine 01:09:42 bbls: yep 01:09:45 this is very difficult 01:09:55 bbls: and understanding complex expressions requires you to remember that stuff too 01:09:58 using a visual structure doesn't require this 01:10:08 at least you can see where thigs go in (1 + (3 + 4)) 01:10:25 bbls: Yes it does. Your brain has to sort of cache" the bracket expressions. 01:10:37 I don't think tehre's anything more to remember in that than in: 3 4 + 1 + 01:10:38 yes but it' 01:10:53 JasonWoof: So use lines to underline parsing expressions? 01:10:57 it's optimised to cache visual data rather than symbolic state data 01:11:09 not parsing 01:11:25 control constructs 01:11:27 Sorry, misread it and forgot my Forth >.> 01:11:42 there's no parsing in my compiler 01:11:52 I like that idea 01:12:14 amca: I don't think the notation you use effects whether the number seven is visual data or symbolic stata data 01:12:23 either way you have to remember that there's a seven there 01:12:54 JasonWoof: Do you know if factor is a type of forth? 01:13:26 amca: depends totally on your definition of forth 01:13:53 Is it a type of Postscript? ;) 01:13:53 I lean towards "no" personally 01:14:03 Why do you lean towards "no"? 01:14:04 certainly not postscript 01:14:19 hehe, yeah, that was supposed to be me joking about PS 01:14:23 because of all the lists and datatypes and stuff 01:14:28 well it's a stack based postfix with 2 stacks in core and 2 other as libs 01:14:32 different syntax 01:14:51 I call it forth-like 01:14:57 but whatever 01:15:09 all this means is that my definition of "forth" is a bit more specific than others' 01:15:48 bbls: yes, that's another reason. iirc it's postfix syntax. whereas forth is not, it just looks like it sometimes 01:16:16 factor has some sorts of syntax checking 01:16:19 JasonWoof: What is your definition of Forth? 01:17:11 stack-based lang with the standard words like : ; if then dup drop swap >r r> etc 01:17:24 compiler/interpreter reads words in one at a time and dispatches them 01:17:32 two integer stacks 01:18:12 and you can write words that read in the next characters/word(s) from the code 01:18:53 that's what comes to mind atm 01:19:16 factor differs in at least the middle two 01:19:36 well, it's nice chatting, but I plan to get up in 6 hours, so I think I'll be off 01:20:05 hmm 01:20:19 do you think if it would be possible to create some kind of visual forth? 01:20:25 oh, and the immediates bit 01:20:39 Ok. Cya JasonWoof ! 01:20:45 bbls: How do you mean? 01:20:45 bbls: no idea what that means to you 01:20:54 some sort of very simple and intuitive flow-like language 01:21:04 * JasonWoof waves and wanders off 01:21:04 (using graphical representation) 01:21:08 bye JasonWoof 01:22:39 bbls: Like have boxes that represent specific words that you graphically connect? 01:22:58 something like that 01:23:35 do you run windows? 01:24:16 i've found some time ago a such program but it's not developed enough and it's slow to work with 01:24:22 http://mindscript.sourceforge.net/ 01:25:06 +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +-----+ 01:25:06 | 1 |<---| 1 |<---| + |<---| . |<---| bye | 01:25:06 +---+ +---+ +---+ +___+ +-----+ 01:25:13 Something like that? 01:25:30 And you could double click on a box to access its definition 01:25:38 check mindscript 01:25:44 * amca looks 01:26:13 you could mouse over a box and a small window would appear next showing that part that contains the definition 01:29:41 So if it was more like mindscript it would be like: 01:29:42 +---+ +---+ +-----------------+ +----------+ +-----+ 01:29:42 | 1 |<---| 1 |<---| + |<---| . |<---| bye | 01:29:42 +---+ +---+ |-----------------| |----------| +-----+ 01:29:42 | ( n1 n2 -- n3 ) | | ( n -- ) | 01:29:42 +-----------------+ +----------+ 01:29:44 ? 01:30:03 --- quit: JasonWoof ("off to bed") 01:30:25 the definition would appear only when you mouse over 01:30:36 * amca nods 01:30:39 otherwise the view space would be too polluted 01:30:47 have you checked mindscript? 01:30:52 yep 01:31:19 In mindscript, it seems to have the list of parameters below the name of the function 01:31:19 just checked the site or also tried it? 01:31:24 yes 01:31:30 So I was emulating that with stack diagrams 01:31:38 just checked screenshots 01:32:50 you should run it too to see what i mean by slow 01:32:55 Could you do an ascii diagram on a nopaste site showing more how you would see the Forth words rendered? 01:33:01 I believe you about the slow part 01:33:10 not that it runs slow 01:33:13 something else 01:33:38 too much mose->keyboard->mouse switch 01:34:01 mose = mouse? 01:34:05 there should be a way to do this thing either using only keyboard or using mouse + WASD keys 01:34:09 yes, mouse :) 01:34:27 w,a,s,d and keys around 01:34:28 You cant type in with only wasd :) 01:34:37 since that's very handy to most users 01:34:42 (many quake players :)) 01:34:48 yes 01:34:59 hehe. otherwise all your forth words will be wasd, wdas, dsaa etc :) 01:35:00 so the interface has to be somehow made faster to work with 01:35:16 for example using INSERT to insert a new node 01:35:29 or ctrl+ins and ctrl+del 01:35:55 but not needing to insert a new node for each token 01:36:25 it would be cumbersome to have to insert manually 4 nodes for 1 1 + . 01:37:41 Show me an ascii diagram of how you think it would work, please. 01:37:53 well this is what i'm trying to figure out 01:38:05 maybe do something in ms paint :) 01:38:14 it's hard to do an ascii diagram 01:39:17 just that i'm not sure yet how it should look 01:39:29 well do it in mspaint then :) 01:40:37 This is the best I can come up with that blends Forth and Mindscript: http://www.rafb.net/paste/results/f7Yhrr49.html 01:41:22 well that's more or less forth 01:41:33 it adds no extra useful things from basic forth 01:41:48 Visual interface? 01:42:03 It looks pretty much the same as what mindscape does 01:42:33 Anyway, think on it and get back to me with a diagram of how you would like to see a postfix/forth language coded visually. 01:42:33 yes but it's just same as "1 1 + . bye" 01:42:57 hmm 01:43:32 i've just got one idea 01:43:36 wait to draw it 01:44:12 how is http://mindscript.sourceforge.net/screenshotÊ0040731-1.gif different from "frrgg(String, Integer); jhmmjjhm(String);" ? 01:44:15 I will 01:44:23 how is http://mindscript.sourceforge.net/screenshotÊ0040731-1.gif different from "frrgg(String, Integer); jhmmjjhm(String); ... etc" ? 01:45:27 rather ""jhmmjjhm(rrgg(String, Integer));" 01:45:45 s.rrgg/frrgg/ 01:45:49 s/rrgg/frrgg/ 01:48:06 does dcc works for you? 01:49:27 amca ? 01:51:49 sorry - distracted 01:51:53 try it 01:52:22 tIf not Ill notice you my email 01:53:00 have you accepted? 01:53:07 oh 01:53:08 Nada 01:53:10 wait i have to login 01:53:15 lol 01:53:29 now? 01:53:57 Ive accepted 01:54:08 ok it doesn't work 01:54:10 give me email 01:57:19 still here? 01:57:22 yep 01:57:32 Ill let you know when I go permanently 01:57:56 ok 01:58:01 but where to send it? :) 01:58:38 this is some sort of evrika :) 01:58:50 really good idea of display (in my opinion) 01:59:18 Sorry, Im not sure what yuou are saying 01:59:28 Did you get my /notice? 01:59:29 give me that damn email address! 01:59:31 no 01:59:32 i haven't 01:59:33 ah 01:59:39 you have to be logged in order to send 01:59:41 a message 01:59:49 I know. Im identified 01:59:52 hmm 01:59:59 give it on private 02:00:18 actually I may not have been >.> 02:00:24 oh :) 02:00:25 get it then 02:00:26 now i see 02:00:26 ? 02:00:46 i see the message 02:00:51 * amca nods 02:00:56 it's interpreted from top to down, from left to right, the rectagles can be divided in any way 02:01:05 I actually identified just then >.> 02:01:23 Could you please try dccing it again to see if that works or not on Freenode? 02:01:36 ok 02:02:13 sent dcc file 02:02:25 Nope, dcc doesnt seem to be working 02:02:33 ok, i've sent email 02:03:11 tnx 02:03:17 got it? 02:03:24 Ill let you know when received 02:03:31 receiving it now 02:04:01 you have to read it from top to down and from left to right 02:04:42 Dont you mean first read it left-to-right, then top-to-bottom? 02:04:56 hmm, you will figure out 02:05:05 it's 1 3 4 + + . bye 02:05:11 : test_word 1 3 4 + + . bye ; 02:05:23 that's what I guessed it was :) 02:05:34 so what do you say? 02:06:00 --- join: swalters (i=swalters@6532183hfc82.tampabay.res.rr.com) joined #forth 02:06:06 this idea comed to me just now 02:06:06 it is better to do it : test_word 1 3 + 4 + . bye ; as it uyses less of the stack and is easier to read 02:06:22 when talking to you :) 02:06:32 I think having it read top to bottom as well as left to right is a bit confusing for me 02:06:43 well just look for how is divided 02:06:46 I would prefer it either left to right, or top to bottom 02:06:56 * amca nods 02:06:56 small rectangles contained in larger ones are parameters 02:07:04 Im just saying my personal prefs 02:07:37 forth doesnt really work like that in my mind. In my mind, each box opperates on the stack 02:07:55 yes but you don't really have to *read* it, it can be *seen* 02:08:17 i understand what you mean, but this kind of view seems more intuitive 02:08:40 Whatever floats your boat. My brain sees linearly, not holistically 02:08:56 hmm, ok but is it usable in general? 02:09:00 compared to mindscript? 02:09:09 How would you do is like : test_word 1 3 + 4 + . bye ; ? 02:09:18 I may understand it better if you do it in that order 02:09:31 ok wait to draw 02:09:49 * amca waits 02:09:58 Can I ask where you are from please? 02:10:14 romania 02:10:20 Cool 02:10:25 Im from Australia 02:10:57 If it is any use, I think you rendered it very cleanly and elegantly :) 02:12:06 let me know when sent pls 02:12:15 ok 02:12:18 still drawing 02:12:20 finishing soon 02:12:26 * amca nods 02:12:28 I guessed 02:15:25 finished 02:15:28 sending 02:16:04 tnx 02:16:59 Ill let you know when Im receiving it 02:17:14 i've sent it now 02:19:02 receiving 02:20:22 the red arrows help a lot with cues :) 02:20:43 sending another one 02:21:07 the 4 box would be better if the arrow was L shaped instead of V shaped 02:21:30 ah, yes, true 02:22:15 like on the Enter key 02:22:50 only mirrored left-right 02:23:05 ok, new message sent 02:23:18 it's same function with some more visual clues 02:23:20 What about trying reversing the top-down/left-right order? 02:24:25 The yellow I understand, but I dont get the significance of the blue boxes 02:24:48 it groups thigs that can be independant 02:24:53 1 3 + 02:24:59 could be a separate word 02:25:14 if you understand what i mean.. 02:25:34 I would have done it: with the 2nd + taking up a whole line, so that you can see the blue boxes are the params easier 02:26:00 ah 02:26:09 and place . bye under 2nd + ? 02:26:15 And you didnt change the 4 arrow to 'L' either 02:26:19 yep 02:26:31 well that thing i read after drawing 02:26:36 ah ok 02:26:55 like have parameters left to right, and next word below 02:26:55 ? 02:27:02 if i change with + tanking whole line the arror doesn't have to be changed 02:27:12 *taking 02:27:16 *arrow 02:27:18 Good point 02:27:19 yes like that 02:27:30 parameters on top 02:27:40 And if you do it like that, you dont need blue boxes 02:27:47 yeah 02:27:52 wait to redraw 02:28:02 ok 02:32:38 --- join: amca_ (n=plump@as-bri-3-64.ozonline.com.au) joined #forth 02:33:00 bbls: sorry, dc'd 02:34:15 --- quit: amca (Nick collision from services.) 02:34:23 --- nick: amca_ -> amca 02:35:22 http://www.rafb.net/paste/results/oeGeaG71.html <-- my go 02:36:53 bbls: Sorry, but I have to hop offline now 02:37:03 ttyl 02:37:06 --- quit: amca (Client Quit) 02:55:31 --- join: segher (n=segher@blueice4n1.de.ibm.com) joined #forth 03:20:52 --- join: amca (n=plump@as-bri-3-132.ozonline.com.au) joined #forth 03:23:31 --- join: amca_ (n=plump@as-bri-3-132.ozonline.com.au) joined #forth 03:23:35 --- quit: amca (Client Quit) 03:23:52 --- quit: amca_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 03:24:03 --- join: amca (n=plump@as-bri-3-132.ozonline.com.au) joined #forth 03:25:26 bbls: You on? 03:25:53 yes 03:26:01 cool 03:26:03 wait to send another 03:26:08 Will do 03:26:19 it's just a small variation 03:26:26