00:00:00 --- log: started forth/06.01.04 00:35:38 --- quit: JasonWoof ("off to bed") 01:26:45 anyone using forth.el? 01:44:38 --- quit: nballen () 03:23:46 --- join: segher (n=segher@dsl77-24-100.fastxdsl.nl) joined #forth 05:05:49 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool73-175.nas24.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 05:38:11 --- join: BrianB04 (n=bbommari@pcp0012141516pcs.newhav01.mi.comcast.net) joined #forth 05:38:20 Morning all. 05:58:20 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 06:03:45 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@adsl-69-155-177-154.dsl.lgvwtx.swbell.net) joined #forth 06:25:21 good morning. 06:26:02 hi 06:27:07 Hello 06:39:44 --- quit: BrianB04 () 06:49:47 --- join: PoppaVic_ (n=pete@0-1pool66-195.nas22.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 06:50:06 --- quit: PoppaVic (Nick collision from services.) 06:50:07 --- nick: PoppaVic_ -> PoppaVic 07:11:53 --- join: Ray-work (n=Raystm2@adsl-68-89-124-83.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 07:26:56 --- quit: Ray_work (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 07:29:05 --- quit: segher (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 07:46:00 --- join: sproingie (n=chuck@64-121-2-59.c3-0.sfrn-ubr8.sfrn.ca.cable.rcn.com) joined #forth 08:35:51 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 08:49:46 --- join: segher (n=segher@dsl77-24-100.fastxdsl.nl) joined #forth 09:16:11 --- join: JasonWoof (n=jason@pdpc/supporter/student/Herkamire) joined #forth 09:16:11 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof 09:38:42 --- join: OrngeTide (i=orange@rm-f.net) joined #forth 09:45:04 --- quit: Ray-work ("User pushed the X - because it's Xtra, baby") 10:34:50 --- quit: swalters_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 10:35:19 --- join: swalters_ (n=swalters@6532183hfc82.tampabay.res.rr.com) joined #forth 10:45:47 --- quit: swalters_ ("User disconnected") 11:16:22 --- join: nballen (n=nballen@ppp-69-227-157-124.dsl.renocs.pacbell.net) joined #forth 11:30:21 --- quit: Quartus (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 11:37:46 --- join: Quartus (n=trailer@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM013349902843.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 11:39:08 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-109-022.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 11:41:49 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Nick collision from services.) 11:41:56 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 13:23:13 --- quit: nballen (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 13:24:04 when is something useable for big applications? 13:24:47 eh? 13:25:11 when it has GC :-P 13:25:33 I don't think that is a qualified answer :-P 13:25:46 virl: can you be more specific? 13:25:53 virl: you talking about languages? 13:27:00 I don't talk about languages, I talk about concepts, so I'm very abstract, so when is a concept useable to big applications like SAP or Word? 13:28:09 I only want to know, why some concepts 'aren't' useable for big applications. then others like GC should be soo good for such applications, and that is something which _really_ don't understand. 13:29:00 still makes no sense 13:30:11 eh? for me it makes sense 13:32:03 which part isn't understandable? 13:32:04 what are you asking about specifically? why people say GC is suitable for large applications? 13:35:58 yes, I'm asking about that categorie concepts like GC belongs to, why are such categories so good for large applications? 13:36:35 because GC centralizes memory management, so you don't have to hunt all over the place in your application to find out where something is deallocated 13:39:23 when that isn't understandable, then: Why is {GC, scripting languages, OOP, runtime not compiletime philosophy, everything is a client/server even when it's useless, xml} good for large applications 13:40:15 the items you list in brackets are totally disinct 13:40:38 XML has nothing to do with garbage collection, or anything else in your list 13:41:40 it has something todo with the other elements, because they are concepts which are heavily used in large applications 13:41:57 and most large applications like to use xml 13:42:09 small applications also use GC, OOP, and XML 13:42:41 applications which use them aren't small 13:42:49 why? 13:43:01 are you talking about code size? 13:43:45 handling xml does require quite a bit of code 13:43:50 horrid thing, xml 13:43:54 I'm talking about bloat and why this listed concepts are used in large applications so that they produce that bloat 13:44:13 virl: bloat is not caused by GC, OOP, or XML 13:44:25 you can have bloated procedural programs written in COBOL 13:44:35 virl: not sure I can answer your question. None of thethings you listed I think are particularly good for large applications (or applications of any size in some cases) 13:44:50 also I'm not sure I think people should go about making big applications 13:45:01 Factor has an XML input and output library, its 429 lines of code 13:45:30 --- join: nballen (n=nballen@ppp-69-227-157-124.dsl.renocs.pacbell.net) joined #forth 13:46:54 I only want to understand why static memory shouldn't be used with large applications, I only want to understand some persons which I would declare as stupid. 13:47:27 i gave you a reason, because GC centralizes memory management and makes it easier in a large app 13:47:50 or any size program, for that matter 13:50:03 and other concepts? there isn't only GC out there 13:50:22 each concept has a use-case 13:50:39 i don't like XML myself 13:51:37 xml is only a data presentation language 13:51:52 yes, but i only use it to exchange data with other programs 13:52:06 not for native storage 13:53:33 --- quit: snowrichard ("Leaving") 13:55:45 I would say, that xml is somehow nice in it's concept, but it's too big. 13:58:15 xml is not hard to parse 13:58:20 its just a pain to write out by hand 13:59:41 it tends to produce big files 13:59:57 or specify an imagefile with xml, have a lot of fun. 14:00:22 and not vector, pixels. 14:00:31 SVG? 14:00:36 oh, bitmap graphics? 14:00:40 well obviously you don't use XML for that 14:01:48 --- quit: Cheery ("Leaving") 14:10:25 --- quit: nballen (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 14:15:25 --- join: nballen (n=nballen@adsl-69-111-249-96.dsl.renocs.pacbell.net) joined #forth 14:21:53 hmm, I'm interested how good my xell concepts scale, when they don't work with games, puh then I need to redo it. 14:23:10 what are your xell concepts? 14:28:02 1) to support problem specific solutions, 2) to support 'I don't care' behaviour, 3) specialization, 4) distributing&reuse of patterns 15:53:25 --- quit: segher ("Leaving") 16:40:40 I'm so tired of the buzzword world where we are living. it doesn't produce this nice fuzzy and warm feeling compared to the idea of the C64 years 17:16:49 --- quit: virl (Remote closed the connection) 18:25:11 foo 18:31:29 then use a C64 18:31:42 he's gone 18:31:43 jesus, he wasn't even *born* in the C64 days 18:31:57 plenty of 8 bit chips still kicking around too 18:32:07 or is "slow as fuck" also part of the charm? 18:32:51 * sproingie had a c64. it was a toy. 19:01:06 hey, is anyone using gforth.el? 19:01:44 an emacs mode for gforth? 19:02:02 yes 19:02:20 no, I haven't used emacs in a while. 19:02:24 distributed with gforth if I'm not mistaken... 19:02:27 are you having trouble with it? 19:02:28 ah... 19:02:29 thanks 19:02:52 well, stuff like PAGE and at-xy, etc doesn't work 19:03:28 in the forth repl 19:03:33 or whatever you call it... 20:17:02 --- quit: tathi ("leaving") 21:54:05 --- quit: sproingie (Remote closed the connection) 22:51:47 --- join: Cheery (i=Henri@a81-197-18-99.elisa-laajakaista.fi) joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/06.01.04