00:00:00 --- log: started forth/06.09.04 00:03:59 % sudo postsuper -h ALL 00:03:59 postsuper: Placed on hold: 159068 messages 00:04:02 oog 00:04:30 What's postsuper? 00:10:24 --- quit: segher_ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 00:11:31 Quartus: maintenance command for postfix 00:12:10 some smartass decided to open a mail relay on one of the computers I manage 00:12:12 * fission sighs 00:12:47 Ah. 00:32:49 Yikes i've been working on Glypher documentation and missed snowrichard. 00:33:41 * crc is slowly getting BeOS R5 (Max) to work fully under VMware 00:34:21 Neat. 00:45:58 once I get a network card driver; I should be good to go :) 00:56:23 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.181) joined #forth 00:56:50 hello 00:58:30 Hello snowrichard. 00:58:52 how are you? got a new computer, just installed Mandriva Move on the hard drive 00:59:57 How much did that cost you? 01:01:09 $424 with printer, 17 " crt, usb cable 01:01:45 and it had speakers, keyboard, mouse 01:02:14 mornin 01:02:35 Liking it so far? 01:02:49 now that I got linux on it :) 01:02:59 and dual boot with the XP 01:03:13 Ah, similar situation here: XP & Ubuntu. 01:04:16 I didn't have a legal copy of XP and I priced it best I could would have been over a hundred bucks. maybe 2 01:04:26 --- quit: crc (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 01:04:27 this came with XP home, which is ok 01:04:56 you can get a refund from ms 01:04:59 * Anbidian dreams of the day of a forth OS (or non-OS as it may be). 01:05:13 if I delete it? :) 01:05:14 it's mentioned on one of the papers within hte box 01:05:37 you have to invoke the clause with the /com that you bought the comp from 01:05:44 .com 01:06:43 I've seen a bootable cd with just linux kernel and gforth.... 01:06:57 glibc too of course 01:07:31 I was thinking more along the lines of ColorForth or SEAForth with an included software suite. 01:07:48 snowrichard i came across a page from a guy in .oz who wrote about his venture down there; it was an ordeal because it appeard that no one had invoked the clause; but he HOT his refund. 01:09:23 Anyone good with CSS? 01:12:51 --- quit: snowrichard ("Leaving") 01:16:03 crap, i'm reading someone's explanation of some code using ANS wording and it just dawned on me what he said in terms of C-ism; why the hell is people always interestd in redefining the meaning of words and making up new words!!! 01:17:11 People tend to accomdate everything in terms of what they know rather than putting aside what they know. 01:18:52 true 01:27:19 Anbidian, you colorforth? 01:30:55 Raystm2, unfortunately not. I have just been a lurking forth observer for many years. 01:33:59 --- join: crc (n=crc@pool-70-110-129-33.phil.east.verizon.net) joined #forth 01:34:16 --- mode: ChanServ set +o crc 01:39:48 --- quit: segher (niven.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 01:39:48 --- quit: Anbidian (niven.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 01:39:48 --- quit: k4jcw (niven.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 01:39:48 --- quit: nighty (niven.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) 01:40:24 --- join: Anbidian (i=anbidian@S0106000fb09cff56.ed.shawcable.net) joined #forth 01:47:53 --- join: segher (n=segher@dslb-084-056-166-018.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 01:48:26 --- join: k4jcw (n=jcw@adsl-065-006-151-062.sip.asm.bellsouth.net) joined #forth 01:48:26 --- join: nighty (n=nighty@66-163-28-100.ip.tor.radiant.net) joined #forth 01:51:02 --- join: nighty_ (n=nighty@66-163-28-100.ip.tor.radiant.net) joined #forth 01:51:44 wb 01:54:55 --- quit: nighty (Connection timed out) 02:01:08 --- quit: Anbidian () 04:37:25 --- join: virl (n=virl@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth 04:41:52 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool46-175.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 05:31:55 Quiznos: humph.. I've found myself an interesting document.. 06:49:05 --- join: nighty (n=nighty@CPE00119576a9c5-CM0012c90d36fc.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 07:24:19 --- quit: PoppaVic (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 08:14:42 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool74-244.nas24.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 08:15:30 what doc? 08:16:01 oh.. somehow losened the phoneline... Sorry 08:16:06 s'ok 08:16:21 ecma-335.pdf 08:16:30 is there a table leg near the the fon outlet? 08:16:43 well, nah, not a good idear 08:16:45 skip that 08:17:03 ecma, that's the new javascript definition, right? 08:17:14 nah, I got one line - mainline - that has a broken tab. I must have brushed something whil entertaining. 08:17:22 ah 08:17:29 ecma is Yet Another ISO wannabe' 08:17:45 yea 08:17:56 this is the std/definitive "portable language" baseline, like for ,net and whatnot 08:18:08 oh 08:18:18 they also have a js spec too 08:19:13 Yeah, they would - same with other stuff 08:19:26 I was more interested in the terms and order and defs 08:19:56 some 350+ pages, and I got into about 30 by just overreading 08:20:26 heh 08:21:11 It seems to at LEAST mention a lot of the ideas and concepts we've batted around.. Not sure I'd adopt it, but the overview is sorta' useful. 08:21:27 in -335? 08:21:50 cascading of sections/subsecs and terms/concepts/etc 08:22:22 It also seems to phrase somewhat like virl. 08:23:00 ..I was going to ask him if he'd seen it when a gal arrived to chat. 08:23:35 k 08:23:56 BTW.. I also glared at gforths "vmgen" lex/yacc files.. Interesting. 08:25:05 ok 08:25:06 Quiznos: you might want to find and DL that doc, at least as a "oh, really?" doc. 08:26:11 There is never a mention of RTTI, but it seems to speak a lot in terms a forther and C/asm head might understand.. I was sorta' intrigued, although I think they are getting too deep again. 08:26:33 gforth? 08:26:35 ..Not suprising though - since they want a std for all platforms and all languages. 08:27:01 i have it locally already; i'll look into the docs 08:27:28 It took me a few pages of scanning, but yeah.. It was interesting in some decisions, before it went off on a tangent. 08:27:55 heh 08:28:20 They seem to want to spec a few things ala' stdint.h, and some higher, more esoteric stuff - and then they want to dip deeper. 08:28:37 k 08:29:13 In fact... And don't laugh ;-) It seems there is an IEEE std for 32 and 64-bit floats, and THAT iswhat they use.. Which sorta' makes me ponder. 08:30:11 Also, reviewed some AVR "opcodes" and was rather amused to see they deal with signed, unsigned and fractions - rather than floats - for numbers. 08:31:06 well, i dont have a problem with standards that seek to do something worthy of portability; but some languages arent worthy, ANS, based on what i'm reading on google.groups, is not working out at all. 08:31:24 I'm beginning to think we may want a portable Metacompiler/lib, and everything it generates or loads, etc - is all PIC 08:31:30 but for floats, numerical standards, other HLLs, it does seem to work 08:31:51 Quiznos: yes, all ANS ever did for me is _suggest_ some words, and poorly. 08:32:16 yea, it should be stripped down to word names and stack comments; then let's see how useful it is 08:32:18 IMO 08:32:25 as for a portable metacomp 08:32:36 i seem to recall something using those words 08:32:40 I'm beginning to wonder if we should _consider_ a low-level lex/yacc filepair. 08:32:42 camelforth comes to mind 08:32:51 yeah.. 08:32:56 mxforth 08:33:10 I don't have a tarball of it 08:33:17 Can't tell if it matters 08:34:04 squat on tv 08:34:10 well, a mash marathon 08:34:12 but that's it 08:34:30 yeah, fuck that - I got some chores done.. But, mash is always worth chuckling with 08:35:19 yea, especially the old epi's 08:35:45 the 10.30 episode was about Flag and Trapper's spook friend descending on the camp 08:36:09 the one where Flag crushes his arm with the xray machine 08:37:13 flag was always a hoot 08:37:19 heh, yea 08:37:28 what would be the porpose of a lex/yacc pair? 08:37:35 Actually, so was Frank Burns 08:37:41 def. 08:37:51 "life in front of a firing squad!" 08:37:53 lol 08:38:10 Quiznos: I'm pondering the essential/basic TOOLS or at least "outer interp" 08:38:25 k 08:38:58 For example, the doc seems to love something like . 08:39:11 it gets deeper, but that's akin 08:39:12 i categoraise essential to be, vm-regs (ip, rp, sp, accum), memory/port, stack, math, word-building 08:39:30 yea but how do we parse that easily? 08:39:41 I keep thinking we should NOT allow direct access to vm-regs or any other regs 08:40:18 oh, it's the mash epi where the chinese call, frank takes a cereal box gun and the chinese commander's went to uni in Indiana 08:40:19 lol 08:40:30 Quiznos: in the usual forth, I'd do , etc 08:40:38 oh, you wanna do that ans-style 08:40:43 oh, lord - frank is a hoot 08:40:48 well that's just vocab switching 08:40:59 no, I was thinking lookups 08:41:11 yea, "when are you gonna learn about chinese treachery? didnt pearl harbor teach you anything?!?!" 08:41:12 lol 08:41:46 question is, can we codify it well for lex/yacc basics, or do we want to suffer lookups and multistacking primitives? 08:41:50 well yea for lookup, for defining 08:42:07 i cant remember 08:42:11 well, PH is japan 08:42:19 yep 08:42:32 and he/character saus it in '53 08:43:16 so, ``vocabulary '' defines a new branch 08:43:19 I'm beginning to think the outer should deal with a source-stack and traditional "words", but there is something more involved. 08:43:40 and, makes it the branch to search for interp 08:43:51 source-stack of what? 08:43:54 here is a "word" - who can break it out best and first, etc 08:44:19 whoever calls parse/Parse/PARS 08:44:22 one of those 08:44:22 source fp or fd, whatever - an object that handles a file, socket, etc 08:45:03 yeah, but think about it... parse is called by "words" - "words" are just gathered - not broken out. 08:45:10 if forget was more flexible, then a voc could be used as a stack to hold libc.style structures 08:45:43 yeah, I miss the ancient forget - but then, we are dealing with a real Clusterfuck here. 08:45:53 ok, input is read, then parsed into spaced, quoted and ('d tokens 08:46:09 I'm even considering a sexpr parser for the vmgen stage 08:46:10 by whichever word calls for a nexttoken 08:46:30 Quiznos: it's even worse than that 08:46:36 stop that! :) 08:46:46 how? 08:46:52 ...words are sets of delimiter/tokens/delimiter 08:47:00 i just said that 08:47:10 delimiters dont mix 08:47:24 why not? Are delimiters racists? 08:47:38 oh btw, did you ever see .( called `dot banana'? i read that a few days ago and gave me a chuckle 08:47:39 No, it's worse because "words" can change shit on the fly, and they do not set/class/subset the lil' buggers 08:47:55 ayrnieu: yes, delimiters are indeed racist 08:47:58 ayrnieu delims are matched 08:48:08 Quiznos: or not 08:48:23 sometimes doing multiple-duty; which is a prob if the end-delim is made into a word 08:48:31 delims COULD be nested/matched - but the way everything is written, they also might NOT 08:48:46 not matching is an unwarranted complication that i'd resist specifically 08:49:05 you can't - all you can do is resist 08:49:12 specifically 08:49:14 :) 08:49:22 (foobar) might be 1, 2 or three words 08:49:31 ..could be more, too 08:49:32 not in forth 08:49:43 unless you're writing a forthy RE 08:49:54 Quiznos: I already said, that traditional - which you have mentioned - has issues. 08:49:57 i'm stull trying to wrap around that 08:50:01 k 08:50:18 one thing tho 08:50:34 COuld be ( foobar) or even ( foobar ) or break out all the letters of foobar as well 08:50:54 we need to tokenise "early and often", heh, to lift forth up and out of that char-at-a-time conciousness 08:51:15 I've oft felt folks should deal in pairing and nesting/unnesting as well 08:51:21 i like ( foobar) because it's clear that ) is not a special char 08:51:24 Quiznos: I'd agree 08:51:35 \ is good too 08:51:45 otoh, no - the ) _is_ special - in that case 08:51:57 the () are PAIRS 08:52:22 yes but only within `char ) parse' 08:52:26 so are {} and [] and THEN you start getting into repeated-pairs 08:52:34 I say ( foobar ) because I think it looks nice; I don't need to be reminded that ) is not a word. 08:52:48 Quiznos: you have no real sensible control over it. 08:52:53 too bad there's no concept of ({[]}) in forth as there is in C 08:53:00 too bad? 08:53:16 ayrnieu i mean matching braces with levels, as in ic 08:53:19 s/ic/c 08:53:22 one time, it's a word yer running, the next it's a NEW word, etc 08:53:51 i'm tired of char-at-a-time processing. i wanna move up higher already 08:53:57 yeah 08:54:11 or at least simplify the former 08:54:21 and i really wanna incorporate what Backus said 08:54:40 I can often say what I _want_ with sscanf or lex 08:54:42 which is why i'm so excited about the lispy code i wrote 08:54:48 yea 08:54:51 ..where shit GOES, is the issue 08:54:54 5 simple words 08:55:12 "who does what to whom" 08:55:21 your post to me a few weeks ago about namespaces/vocs still resonates with me 08:55:24 thanks for that. 08:55:40 Quiznos: yeah, they are a mess, but goddamnit: they need work 08:55:42 vocs/word-lists, whatever one calls them, they are the key 08:55:46 nah 08:55:48 sure are 08:55:51 not a mess-, just untamed 08:55:56 under utilised 08:56:33 like i said, consider a forget that did TheRightThing, and a vocab as a stack of semi-persistent data 08:56:43 that would be perfect for your file-stack 08:56:44 LIFO 08:56:47 a natural 08:56:48 vocs are controlled wordlists.... Maybe (as I thought awhile ago) wordlists are controlled as well? By some sorta' parser-engine? 08:57:15 no, the outter-interp is enuf, forget just needs to be tweaked 08:57:29 OR< we need 2link wordlists 08:57:34 .prev and .next 08:57:55 reverse.link is good but @L would be so much better 08:58:00 or 08:58:09 no, don't go wild.. unless you are thinking sources/lines/"words" and resolution thru the wordlist-stacks. 08:58:17 a runtime void **words that are stepped to find words 08:58:27 yeah 08:58:35 well, i see possibilities 08:59:03 with lispy, such a **words or ***words would make things very easy 08:59:16 but such a list needs to be semi permanent 09:00:46 for me, i'm thinking that the only way to do this is either, 1. avoid ans constricture and fall-back either to a. redefining core words, or, b. establish new words 09:00:52 Quiznos: I'm of the personal-opinion that we should always think in terms of load-only. Extension w/o 'forget' 09:01:02 generalising find would be necessary 09:01:13 Quiznos: ANS has bugged me since day one 09:01:19 me too frankly 09:01:29 as a GUIDELINE, fine - but it blows 09:01:33 my first read of it made me blink 09:01:37 agreed 09:01:39 yeah 09:01:45 stack comments 09:01:49 for * 09:02:14 `xt's make me wanna build a barn fire 09:02:18 There are at least 3 types of comments drifting around.. SH as one, C++/C99 has 2 09:02:37 sh meaning /bin/sh? 09:02:46 no, I do NOT mind "xt's" - what bothers me is that folks can pervert them whenever they like 09:02:52 ah 09:03:12 yeah.. # or // or /*blocks*/ - and I hate the last 09:03:21 i like being able to think to explain forth in terms of C-isms; 09:03:28 sure 09:03:34 such things congeal so quickly then 09:03:42 try this: 09:03:43 #rem .... 09:04:03 # IS 'rem' 09:04:11 #rem{ 09:04:21 struct _word { *nfa, *lfa, *cfa, *pfa; } **words; 09:04:25 fine - move it to the last } 09:04:35 the nf preceeds nfa 09:04:42 nfa is a true ptr in that case 09:04:46 ok, yeah - yer mixing stuff together 09:04:53 no, separating 09:05:09 I don't want idjits to get 100% direct-access to a ptr 09:05:20 no no, dont go that deep 09:05:28 it's just to illustrate 09:05:44 but, you can use a mask/demask for assembly/.o modules. 09:05:53 a word's name is laid down and then the pointer is stored 09:06:15 OK... that's the first issue, "name" and "laid down" 09:06:31 a word's label begins @ HERE, then the four points, so that >name and cf>* whatevers devolve to simple cell+ and cell- definitions 09:06:50 ..I want it all abstracted enough that the CORE might use RAM, but other modules and such might use RAM _or_ a dbase, etc 09:07:01 kk 09:07:50 Quiznos: we have a ton of code around that all requires RAM and forces us to even build directly into RAM - no PIC. And, I keep asking "why"? 09:07:58 cary your books, carry a torch, ... mash 09:08:11 ok 09:08:14 hairy-carry 09:08:18 hehe, 09:08:20 heh hare 09:08:31 ashed carry, carry me back to old virginia 09:08:48 OD - olivia dehaviland! 09:08:49 lol 09:08:54 otoh, Hawkeye get's me peeved: I like my guns, and I'd pop the threat, rather than suffer his attentions. 09:09:03 stop that 09:09:05 heh 09:09:24 sorry, I like the show and char - but I refuse to hug trees ;-) 09:09:29 sure 09:10:01 betty boop; i like it, an unprententious little thing but it's got sex 09:10:02 lol 09:10:27 oh, and it's the ``Kin Luky day'' 09:10:30 Kim 09:10:36 "this is me!" 09:10:37 lol 09:10:50 Quiznos: here's a good starting point.... Why is a FILE* or handle a necessity? Why is this not abstracted into an RPN mess? Think source, interpreters and macros. 09:11:40 ok, so you're tryin to move towards move of a ``kernel-is-db-manager'' thing 09:11:49 Once you cogitate THAT, tell me why shit feels it can grow CODE, or do a fixed-pt realloc byte by byte. 09:12:03 then a handle is still needed but it's more persistent 09:12:16 `pt'? 09:12:24 point? 09:12:29 Quiznos: yeah, essential-issues make me ask "who made this idiotic decision and why am I listening?" 09:12:39 i think Gosling did 09:12:46 on the glibc 09:13:00 yea i do wanna get away from glibc 09:13:02 Quiznos: yeah, because I fear idiots and realloc - too mant MACHINE PTRS abound. 09:13:21 i've been reading alot of comments that the glibc maintainers wont fix things 09:13:25 mant/many 09:13:39 and those complaints have been around for years 09:13:39 that's true all over - kernel, gnu, etc 09:13:48 yea but it's the lib!! 09:13:53 that's just plain unacceptable 09:14:16 I want to abstract based on linkage to handles/vtables/opaque, etc 09:14:19 which is why i've been flirting with porting libc stuff to forth to make c2forth really easy 09:14:42 oh, and i like forth words like [a-z]? 09:14:44 damn right. wrong idea, but fine goal 09:14:46 i love that 09:14:53 which wrong? 09:15:01 the c2f 09:15:08 well, it's just a tool 09:15:17 to assist 09:15:28 right, but then they ask "why not f2c" - and you need to understand why 09:15:38 there is a f2c i think 09:15:43 id ont have a probl with that 09:15:56 I've seen it, but was not impressed 09:15:56 coders do what they have to do 09:16:12 and users too 09:16:15 and that's fine 09:16:26 I don't MIND compiling taking some time.. I mind it when shit can't port fer shit. 09:16:29 it's all done in the name of problem-solving 09:16:43 yea 09:17:00 I even wonder if the script-folks even realize how much RAM their crap uses - and why. 09:17:11 see now, what if gcc generated forth-code insted of asm or if forth were an optionable switch to do so. 09:17:16 that would be helpful 09:17:43 that's one reason i dont use most of the script langs; too much "margin" to start up 09:17:46 but awk is good 09:17:51 light-weight 09:17:52 yep, and gcc even added the idea of front/back-ends - and they screwed up their ABI files something fierce 09:18:01 they did? 09:18:07 oh, gods 09:18:08 in what version tree? 09:18:17 front/back-ness is good 09:18:33 reminds me of something Wirth wrote in his Oberon book 09:18:35 ..yeah, dude: every gcc platform and CPU screws the files different. 09:18:58 oh, the slant/need/ to run everwhere 09:19:04 yeppers 09:19:06 yea, that's gone off the deep end 09:19:20 gcc runnig on 6811 processors 09:19:58 ok, so... 09:20:16 vocabs are a high level thing to be in extend 09:20:30 kernel needs var, const, :, ; 09:20:51 i really want user in extend too but there are a couple assumptions that kernel.S makes 09:21:02 like, S0 and R0 09:21:10 the vm needs some basic-types, and I agree - which is why I mentioned that doc. 09:21:19 ok 09:21:30 but in kernel, what are "types"? 09:21:33 no, just NO. Folks need to stop thinking registers 09:21:51 I despise inline asm for similar reasons 09:22:09 BUT, we need a basic engine. 09:22:21 well, i'm forced to but to me, abstracting means building the vm to envapsulate them which means generalising 09:22:38 everything should talk to the engine.. Forth talks down to it, C and asm need to talk up to it. 09:22:40 generalising to hide "speeshul" characteristics 09:23:01 yep, but there are a ton of generics out there. 09:23:10 like what? 09:23:18 generics? 09:23:21 yea 09:23:29 C, lisp, sh, etc 09:23:42 C++ and C# even 09:23:52 those are all just different interfaces to one's thoughts 09:23:56 said that yesterday 09:24:03 BUT, we need one place we can see as "generic" 09:24:24 the only commonality in all those languages is the output. 09:24:29 we need one language that is generic AND extensible 09:24:29 the final output 09:24:38 even if the output runs on a vm like Parrot 09:24:39 Quiznos: sure it is 09:25:41 then define your use of the term "generic" 09:25:50 The issue I have with the latest gcc stuff talking front/back-ends is: they STILL let all the languages fuck the format, and mess with interpret/compile, and state 09:26:09 #pragma type things? 09:26:23 java doesnt do pragmas as such? 09:26:24 PoppaVic, want's .net 09:26:28 we need something akin you you, virl and myselfs goals. That anyone can rewrite for machine-issues 09:26:30 scrath the `?' 09:26:52 PoppaVic do you want a better .net? 09:26:56 virl: not really, I already knoiw that doze and M$ went "over the top" 09:27:13 there is Mono which ported .net to linux 09:27:26 yeah, I've heard of it 09:27:39 so check it out then 09:28:03 and Parrot too 09:28:24 No, I think forthish still has something to offer. Just not sure whome, what and how ;-) AND, I *LIKE* extending our PP and interp and compiler and LANGUAGE. 09:28:25 maybe one or both can/will do what you need or provide idears 09:28:36 ok 09:29:39 I think a lot of it may also be "why the fuck are we exposing 'FOO' here?" 09:29:44 brb 09:31:03 Quiznos, are you pukeing? 09:31:28 virl: why would he? Did you mention yer Xell thing? 09:33:41 k 09:33:42 no 09:35:02 No, I think there is a lot of value here.. Just not sure how to flog it well, and I am tired of whacked restrictions where they don't belong. 09:35:34 vic, on your [goals] post above; such a thing is quite doable but as a said recently, certain assumptions are and must be inevitable. 09:35:45 cellsize is one and the primary. 09:35:57 that is the primary issew of portage 09:36:04 yet, CELL means very little 09:36:43 there is a way to leave that til bootup/runtime that i've pondered, but i decided that its use is unwarranted. 09:36:53 so, there needs to be more and not only fixed, but reportable. 09:37:09 the other issew is do i want "this forth" to be portable to other platformes/cpu's 09:37:16 s'ok.. I've seen a lot of weirdness for years 09:37:24 yes 09:37:42 i'm building a long, x86 forth. 09:37:48 that's what i've decided. 09:41:41 brb 09:41:45 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 09:42:19 wah.. such a scumbag 09:43:09 'did you mention your xell thing?' he should die in agony! 09:43:23 such a stupid braindead idiot. 09:45:05 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool46-233.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 09:47:40 Interpreters are fun.. So are translators. 09:57:22 In fact... how do most folks handle callbacks and event-driven, in forths? 09:57:54 --- join: forthlet (n=fox@adsl-75-35-222-99.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net) joined #forth 09:57:56 or interrupts? 09:58:10 or signals? 09:59:14 tell 09:59:35 tell?? 09:59:40 how 10:00:17 oh.. in other words, it's all academic or imp-defined. 10:00:22 k 10:00:36 host-os defined 10:00:37 interesting 10:00:49 and this doesn't bug folks? 10:01:09 duno 10:01:39 Quiznos: I think you and I see more eye-to-eye than most, and I STILL have to ponder suchlike. 10:02:09 i do too 10:02:51 I keep thinking there is an "engine" or app in there, just waiting to burst out. 10:04:16 what does the "engine" do? 10:05:24 Quiznos: above and beyond sysctl 10:05:33 i think your difficulty is in that you switch lexicons to explain or ponder what you want to accomplish 10:06:52 yeah, and the fact dict is a mess, vocs are super "wordlists", and folks don't understand "lexicon" anymore - and that none relate to .src/.o/.a/.shlib/.plugin 10:07:26 I'm pretty sure we can't even all agree on mode and state 10:08:24 vocs and filesystem dirs are all namespaces; Plan9 melds them all together, i wanna study that. 10:08:42 as for not agreeing on things, that's the spice of life: variety 10:08:46 independent thought 10:09:57 spices taste good, and can cause issues with yer guts.. Yeah, plan9 was cute. 10:10:14 it's still being harvested for idears 10:10:19 spaces, sources, sinks, etc 10:13:35 Anyway, I need to call it a knight. Stay well, Quiznos 10:13:38 --- part: PoppaVic left #forth 10:47:41 ugh.. he is gone... wonderful 10:51:30 you need and should be nicer; or atleast not be such an open book with your emotions. 10:51:36 you're being intolerant. 10:51:39 and unkind 10:55:40 virl? virl is fine. 10:56:24 he went overboard 10:57:56 you may not like Vic, but as you can all see everytime he and I chat, he is quite able to be polite, with just alittle uniqness 10:58:10 therefore you owe him just as much politeness 11:03:22 well, he's (at least somewhat) polite if you're polite to him. otherwise he is not. 11:03:42 what one puts into a relationship, one recieves. 11:03:54 or, je's warmed up to me. 11:03:56 he 11:04:09 there is no reason to be rood 11:04:42 he's at least acting that way. hope you can get him to operate on a sane level, that would be very nice. 11:06:35 good afternoon 11:06:41 Hi crc. 11:07:36 cec 11:07:39 crc 11:10:11 lukeparrish sane is subjective; all that's required of a member of Man is to not run amok 11:11:59 i.e. not cause problems for others? 11:14:18 it is an obviously true maxim that "what goes around comes around" 11:14:39 In that case, PoppaVic has a year of incomprehensible blither coming his way. 11:14:50 since some of you have soemthing against Vic then your exhibit "first strike" behavior. IMO quit it. 11:14:58 that is no reason to be rood. 11:16:16 --- join: Quartus_ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth 11:25:37 he's kind of made a laughing stock of himself. nothing personal against him, it's just kind of strange to watch him talk for hours without saying anything. 11:27:18 it's all personal; 11:27:25 forget it, you dont get it. 11:29:38 He gets it just fine. 11:29:53 * lukeparrish has been here longer than you Qu, but not as long as Quartus 11:30:06 *Quiznos 11:30:15 Ya Quiznos hehe. 11:30:19 me too. :) 11:30:44 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-137-106.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 11:31:21 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer)) 11:31:44 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 11:32:02 it doesnt matter how long you've been here; the point is that your behavior towards him is just plain root. 11:32:46 Ok, two things -- 1) Spell properly. 2) PoppaVic gets an astonishing degree of tolerance from this bunch, considering he blithers incoherently and drives newcomers away. 11:33:34 when you insult him and disrepect him, either to his "face" or when he's not present, that's not tolerance. 11:33:36 But even with all that output, the noise to signal ratio in this room is still in tolerant levels. 11:33:48 Raystm2, only when he's not here, in fact. 11:34:09 I'm not usually available when he is so... 11:34:14 You luck out. :) 11:37:43 well, I wonder what would happen if we all started being polite to PoppaVic... 11:37:51 would he become more tolerable? 11:38:03 would he even care? 11:40:08 He might spend even more time here building up the wall of incoherency. 11:41:53 He spent three hours again, today, explaining to Quiznos that everything is incomprehensible and that he understand nothing and that it's all wrong and needs to be replaced with something better and more unified. 11:41:55 Three HOURS. 11:46:50 I'm just polite and respectful to vic as he is to me. 11:49:26 --- join: Astrobe (n=astrobe@82.67.86.119) joined #forth 11:50:09 he is such a pain in the ass. 11:51:33 when you say something like 'xml' which doesn't fit into his irreal world then you get kicked everytime he thinks 'it's time' 11:53:53 so a stupid guy and I don't think I need to support his stupidness and intolerance with 'friendlyness' 11:56:03 is there anybody? 11:56:12 Yikes did I take my pill? 11:56:24 look 11:56:25 Raystm2, ehm, what? 11:56:27 consider this: 11:56:49 you who have something against Vic, you prolaby also think that irc is not real. 11:57:02 --- join: Bushmills (n=l@wpc3131.amenworld.com) joined #forth 11:57:11 prolaby = probably? 11:57:21 irc is real.. 11:57:34 how do you come to that conclusion= 11:57:46 what you have failed to appreciate is that the only uniq thing about irc is that it is only different from other modes of communication in how the words and thoughts are transmitted. 11:58:05 just like, tv, radio, paper, hand writing, cell phone 11:58:06 pv is someone who doesn't seem to realise that irc is real 11:58:10 that's the only diff 11:58:22 sure 11:58:38 well, it's low-bandwidth and low consequence 11:58:57 and if any of you are "christians" then you are hypocrits and I'm tellin. 11:58:57 so if someone wants to abuse it, there's little chance they'll come to harm from it 11:59:26 I'm a christian. I don't know if anyone else here is besides you. 11:59:58 luke in truth, there are several and they have contacted me 12:00:06 cool :) 12:00:22 well actually I know a few 12:00:23 but i'm referring only to those who have said written concerning Vic. 12:00:41 quartus, close your eyes and count to ten. 12:00:58 it's ungodly to be so the way some here have written. 12:01:02 it's unforgiving. 12:01:06 that's very bad. 12:01:30 Quiznos, we are trying to do good here by communicating on meaningful technical stuff. poppavic is causing a bit of static which is limiting our ability there. 12:01:50 luke, you know better. 12:01:56 that's not gonna wash. 12:02:00 about which? 12:02:10 that's just an excuse to dismiss him. 12:02:17 that aint the BIG L 12:02:21 heh 12:02:38 why would I want to dismiss him if he wasn't causing trouble? 12:03:05 why are you accepting "mob" think? 12:03:11 again, you know better. 12:03:13 remember me, poppavic is maintening forth stuff, isn't he? 12:03:48 astrobe, if he writes any forth, I've never seen any hint of it. 12:04:11 I'm not sure what he's maintaining. he has done some c stuff with possible forth in it 12:04:46 Ok, I remember I did discussed with him but don't remember about what. 12:06:36 he is in fact the person here which used forth but likes C more or something like that. 12:08:18 I have my own opinion about such things, mostly gleaned from c.l.f. 12:08:37 Pasting a Forth written in C into a C program or system is not doing Forth programming. 12:09:00 If one uses the Forth in that system as a monitor to debug the C programs that are there then that is using Forth. 12:09:02 there's a time to give people grace, and a time to write them off (at least until they change). that's the only reason I'm going with the group on this one. 12:09:19 grace is not subject to idios 12:09:24 forthlet: it's not that easy 12:09:25 It is using Forth. 12:09:49 luke, it's entirely possible for every member of a group to independently reach the same conclusion. 12:09:55 I think it is the absolute minimal amount of Forth one needs to say one does Forth. 12:10:33 And sometimes people say that they like Forth, but that that is all they see it as. A program written in C that is a handy debugging monitor. 12:11:13 And they may be very hostile to people who say that Forth is both a compile and an OS to them and was designed to avoid things like C. 12:11:34 forthlet, I consider it time wasted to worry whether any particular use of Forth is deemed 'worthy' by some arbitrary judge. 12:12:02 It is more an issue of what 'Forth' 'is' when people use the term. 12:12:10 They talk past each other. 12:12:42 it's pretty easy to define. Whether it's used well, or not, is perhaps worth more consideration. 12:14:02 but what does it mean, "well-used Forth"? 12:14:05 if it's a linguistic problem, perhaps they could be clarified with an adjective? 12:15:00 astrobe, easier to define in the breach than the observance. Good forth has an economy of stack juggling, good naming, good factoring, few variables, fewer locals. 12:15:03 I don't think it is 'easy to define' at all. 12:15:32 We used to say, words, stacks, blocks. 12:15:39 It's definately not easy to describe. 12:15:49 "loose forth" vs "tight forth" maybe? 12:16:33 I don't like any of the classification systems for Forth that I have seen, even those I made up. 12:16:39 but in the context of an embedded language, as stated above, is it 'good' that the Forth uses the garbage collector of the outter language for instance? 12:16:44 too many dimensions 12:16:57 It's not like selling a movie idea, you can't do it in 25 words or less. 12:17:35 it's pretty easy. Forth has been defined by a few informal and one formal standard. It's a typeless stack-based extensible dynamic programming language. 12:18:10 You need a few years of working with it just to mumble to your buddy, "Dude, try it, you'll like it, trust me". 12:18:28 linguistic issues seem to be the plague of forth 12:18:33 --- quit: Cheery ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/") 12:18:55 quartus, except that Forth Inc.'s history page says that Forth Inc. was created to promote Forth "as a programming language and Operating System." 12:19:15 Chuck Moore has said it was more a system for solving problems than a formal specification for a language. 12:19:41 Thirty years ago he talked about implememting it in other languages, in itself, and in hardware. 12:19:44 as an os it has to compete with other os's. hosted, it coexists with them. 12:20:05 sure, because it's interactive and extensible, it can be used as an OS if extended appropriately. 12:20:05 Those sorts of things complicate someone saying, "I have defined Forth and it is what I say it is!" 12:20:54 oh, you may need an extra sentence or two to explain some of the additional advantages, but it's not some nebulous undefinable concept. 12:21:05 It reminds me of what one of my Aikido teachers told us, if you say you do Aikido then Aikido becomes what you do. So you take on a great responsibility. 12:21:59 Forth is not some pseudo-Eastern mysticism handed down by the Colgate Wisdom Tooth, that's for sure. 12:22:24 Forth is what people who say they do Forth do. And many people think Forth is all about kooks and nuts, qwerty, aimind, maw, etc. 12:22:47 nevermind qwerty, c.l.f has Werty! 12:22:55 hehe. 12:23:46 You have those people in every language. just some languages are more population dence. 12:23:50 The original documents about Forth, by its creator, clearly say the whole idea was to escape the 'multi-layer nightmare' and be a one language does all, hosted in Forth environment. 12:24:21 I once asked Chuck if one could paraphrase that as 'Forth means not doing or using C at all.' 12:24:25 And he said, Yes. 12:24:26 Which still has its place in embedded environs. 12:24:49 And I said, "I think that makes it funny when people say that they do C in Forth style after learning Forth. 12:25:05 If Forth style means not doing any C, then how do you do C in Forth style? 12:25:08 Of course. However, using Forth to control C rocks. 12:25:49 How can Forth be hosted if Forth is defined as being the OS and the compiler and the command line soas to avoid having to have a layer to code written in another langauge? 12:25:49 C in forth style means not that this type of style, it means more factoring. so forth style only means more factoring.. 12:25:56 I write in C on occasion. I also write Forth quite a lot. There's no conflict. It's not a competition. 12:25:56 programming style, they mean > 12:26:07 Now people may say that the person who invented Forth didn't understand what it meant. 12:26:21 forth is basically a small base from which the rest of the code can grow indefinately. 12:26:23 People who say that are those that didn't know about factoring. 12:26:25 Some say they understood Forth before Chuck Moore claimed to have invented it. 12:26:29 I speak from experience. 12:26:30 You *can* apply the extreme factoring of Forth to C, and for some environments (ARM embedded work) you can improve code performance by doing so. 12:26:41 But certainly people don't all use the same definition of the term. 12:27:21 'What is forth' and 'does Moore dislike C' are not the same question. 12:27:22 TreyB: yes, but that's not has much convenient. 12:27:35 has/as 12:27:59 virl: yes, I know that 'forth style' means more factoring. And sometimes they say I used to write 1000 line functions, now I write 100 line functions like Forth style. 12:28:25 I say Chuck likes to write 7 character functions. I don't see that a lot in C even when people say they use 'Forth style' 12:28:58 "7 character"? 12:29:00 there are lousy Forth programmers, too. 12:29:01 we also find the opposite quite common in forth code.. lots of code for one definiton 12:29:17 I don't believe that C will allow Forth factoring. 12:29:56 It does, but it's not convenient, and maybe sometimes even inefficient. 12:30:02 forthlet: you can't easily (or even perhaps usefully) factor to the same degree in C, but you can apply the *idea*. 12:30:02 I will admit that the Forthlike kernel written in obsfuscated C is very small. 12:30:14 well C is a lowlevel allrounder, some nice aspects but nothing really ok. 12:30:15 But C doesn't allow Forth style. 12:30:21 --- quit: Quiznos ("[BX] One BitchX to rule them all") 12:30:42 forth changes your C style though. 12:30:44 I did an analysis of some of Chuck's cad code in colorforth. 12:30:57 it's a batch compiler, for one thing; different animal. 12:30:59 well, Forth hasn't really changed my C style 12:31:01 C allows C style. Compare with APL or J 12:31:11 : it blah fo ; 12:31:22 that's longer than the average definition 12:31:33 btw. I'd like to see a real modern forth os sometimes. 12:31:38 TreyB: Imagine if you will, 24 functions that are the basis of a language. If you gave them a one char name, you could spell words( most unspeakable) that would provide second level function. Most words could be under 7 letters. 12:32:07 ray, minimalism at the cost of comprehensibility. 12:32:25 C makes it hard to write functions in less than 10 characters and make the code more readable and better factored by doing so. 12:32:47 * TreyB 's company has arrived. 12:32:52 Have fun, all. 12:32:59 cya treyb 12:33:09 lukeparish: if you use Chuck's definition of Forth it modifies you use of C by stopping it. 12:33:11 bye TreyB 12:33:23 hehe 12:33:33 Quartus I agree with unreadability, but that was just to make a point. 12:33:36 bye TreyB 12:33:54 why even bring up C when discussing what Forth is? 12:34:04 readability is in the eye of the reader. Again, look APL for instance 12:34:15 virl: "real" "modern" "forth" "os" is a lot of qualifications. I doubt if we mean the same thing when we use those terms. 12:34:18 I thought it was brought up when someone mentioned forths written in c 12:34:31 if C had never been written, Forth could have been. One is not the ancestor of the other. 12:34:59 Quartus_: agreed. If we want to compare, we should compare with other interpreted languages, perhaps scripting languages. 12:35:26 a real modern forth os would be a forthOS which has the things which support me in working. 12:35:45 like a textprocessor, a webbrowser and such stuff.. 12:35:46 * lukeparrish does perl 12:35:55 astrobe, I fail to see the point of any such comparison, unless you are benchmarking generated code speeds & sizes, or trying to teach Forth to someone versed in another language. 12:36:18 it does seem to have trained my mind to do things in shorter segments. 12:36:37 4os ? 12:37:25 why should one compare forth with other interpreted langs only? isn't there a tendency towards native-code compiling forths? 12:37:39 Quartus_: in order to evaluate how good it is, and at what. 12:37:55 most commercial forths i know about today do at least support native code generation 12:38:16 boot code, self-decompressing boot code, rtc, cooperative and interupt driven multi-tasker, event driven, long list of net protocols, host for email, web browswer, web host, telnet etc? 12:38:28 bushmills, that's true. I benchmark native code speeds against gcc -O2. 12:39:05 much better grounds to compare against, too 12:39:17 Bushmills: because Forth can interpret at runtime and compile, which most compile-only langs can't do. 12:39:53 quartus: from my point of view gcc comparisons are difficult. 12:39:59 I think it's a bit more fair to compare Forth with Lisp for instance. 12:40:04 Astrobe: comparing interpreter against interpreter is a bit like, comparing run time error checking against lack of run time error checking 12:40:28 so what do you really compare? 12:40:29 You shouldn't compare a Forth hosted on a C OS on a C chip unless you are going to compare it to GCC hosted on a Forth OS on a Forth chip. ;-) 12:41:08 why not? you should compare the options available for the target platform. whether "fair" or not 12:41:17 better yet, gcc compiling gcc on a chip desinged for gcc vs forth compiling forth on a chip designed for forth. To me that's a reasonable comparison. 12:41:19 it's simple enough for me to compare the speed of a milllion-integer quicksort algorithm in C and Forth; such comparisons guide me in further optimizing Forth compilation. 12:41:48 Bushmills: One wants to compare forth vs. others. The fact that Forth has no types can be questionned. 12:41:48 comparing c in c on c to Forth glued to C isn't fair. 12:41:56 what does it help me if i know that some forth code runs much more efficiently on a forth cpu if an app is specified to have to run on more conventional hardware 12:42:13 if I have two compilers that generate an executable for a given target, they can be compared for speed and size. 12:42:33 quartus: that all depends on how much you define Forth as Forth(c) 12:43:17 understand, I'm not running benchmarks so I can wave the results in the air and say 'See! Forth wins! Forth wins!'. It's with a specific purpose, improving forth native-code generation. 12:43:44 The problem I see is that people often compare 100% C to 99% C and 1% Forth and think it is a Forth to C comparison. 12:44:50 it is not dependent on definitons. If I have two compilers for the same target, whether they're both the same language or both different, if I can implement the same algorithm in both, I can compare size and speed. 12:45:21 Bushmills: okad2 is an example of an application factored in Forth based on the factoring for a Forth chip. It runs on a Pentium and provides features not available in the C based software we use. 12:45:26 I do this quite often, and without checking definitions. 12:45:51 Understanding how Forth is different than C makes this other tool available and different. 12:46:29 so... forth on a forth chip beats c on a c chip? 12:47:14 Well, the first problem is that targets are not langauge independent. What langauge was the target designed for, COBOL, Fortran, C, Forth, Lisp, Prolog? 12:47:48 Many tiny embedded computers were just designed for their native language and never took very well to hll because they didn't fit. 12:48:17 aren't PC processors more generic? 12:48:19 some machines were designed for COBOL, or Fortran, or C and the hardware was designed to that. 12:48:42 Just level the playing field when making comparisons. 12:49:05 forth on a forth chip is different than c on a c chip. 12:49:06 Gcc is clever enough to optimize code for a variety of different target architectures. Forth is, too. 12:49:12 lukeparrish: if you mesure genericity by bloat, well, yes. 12:49:13 now what do what you want to run? 12:49:32 If you want to run an app written in C then the C chip will probably be more cost efficient. 12:49:52 If you want to run a Forth app then Forth will be more cost efficient. 12:50:00 So it depends on what you want to do. 12:50:26 gpc is an acronym for gpc means pcs are not general purpose 12:50:45 general purpose computers 12:50:48 they are pcs 12:51:12 this seems to be going off in a poppavic direction. 12:51:13 "personal computers" designed to run legacy software. 12:51:45 that was the discussion, why poppavic problems 12:52:30 well that's the thing. if the new system doesn't support legacy stuff, it can be *very* inconvenient. 12:52:32 I figure it's organic brain damage, but that's a layman's diagnosis. 12:52:48 gpc's are what people want. The funny thing is that gpcs tend to include more and more specific processors: GPU, sound chip. And the CPU to make the pace. 12:53:01 anyway, my personal view of Forth is that it has 100 sides or dimmensions. Those who paste a Forth written in C into a C app to 'use Forth' along with the other 30 languages that they use can say that they use Forth. 12:53:23 I think they use using about 1% of 1% of Forth. But that is Forth. 12:53:42 you have a bone to pick with C, and feel that anyone who uses other programming languages is misguided. 12:54:19 And when defines Forth as what someone else defines as .01% of Forth then there will natually be differences of opinion about what the word 'Forth' means in the first place. 12:54:25 forthlet, well that depends.. 12:54:26 its just context 12:54:27 you also think some uses of Forth shouldn't be called such, so you narrow the field of 'Forth people you approve of' still further. 12:54:46 forthlet, so define 100% of forth 12:54:59 what 'uses of Forth' do I think should not be called 'Forth' ? 12:55:23 well I would call factor not a forth.. 12:55:23 Forth on a Forth chip programmed by a forth programmer. Easy 12:55:24 I have not said I 'approve' or 'disapprove' of anyone. 12:55:46 this channel has a lot of drama. ;) 12:55:48 scroll back, you opened with it. Somebody using a forth engine in c, as I recall, should not in your opinion be said to be 'using forth'. 12:55:59 Where have I ever said that 'Forth on a Forth chip programmed by a Forth programmer' should not be called Forth. 12:56:06 ;-) 12:56:44 I said 'pasting a Forth compiler written in C into a C program or system is not Forth programming.' 12:56:58 ok. There you go. 12:57:02 True. That's C programming. 12:57:04 Some would say it' sci-fi :) 12:57:12 If it is compiled by a C compiler it is a C program. 12:57:24 If when you run it is says 'ok' and you respond, then 12:57:30 at that point you may be programming in Forth. 12:58:14 pasting a c program in a c application to be compiled by a c compiler is C. ;-) 12:58:16 It has to be. 12:58:17 on a forth chip, I have never ever saw a buyable forth dev board, so it's really difficult to code this way. 12:58:26 If the source code can be compiled by a C compiler, its C. 12:58:59 something can be both forth programming and c programming, can't it? 12:59:02 if the best you can do to promote Forth, or even to define it, is to bash programmers who work in another language -- even those who also use Forth! -- I suggest you change tack. 12:59:08 I mean, programming is what gets the job done... 12:59:20 virl: anyone can close their eyes and say they never saw this or that. 13:00:03 virl: novix, harris, shboom, john hopkins, p21, f21, and dozens if not hundreds of others were real and could be purchased. 13:00:04 we're all waiting for the wonderful vaporware forth chips to come out so we can throw away our obsolete PCs... 13:00:26 forthlet, that's past all of them. 13:01:38 forth in it's ideal configuration doesn't exist and even in it's main purpose as being the OS isn't achieved. 13:01:43 luke: "something" I don't know how you define you terms. If you accept the original defintion of Forth as being mutually exclusive with a different langauge like C then the answer would be no. If you reject the inventor's definition as stated in 1970 then perhaps. It depends. 13:01:44 Forth chips are not toys. 13:01:57 Some people say it isn't Forth if it isn't written in C. ;-) 13:02:27 you have a handfull of forths which can be really called forths in it's original definition. but they are more experimental and not really useable(imho) 13:03:02 Shenanigans. I've never seen or heard anyone contend that Forth must be implemented in C in order to be called Forth. 13:03:03 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.181) joined #forth 13:03:09 luke: I have quite a collection of 'vaporware' chips. ;-) But ok, if you just want to be nasty and insulting I will assume you don't want dialog. 13:03:22 Astrobe: there exists no Forth for x86? 13:03:23 I apologise 13:03:36 didn't mean to come off that way, I'm sorry. 13:03:59 hi 13:04:06 Bushmills: i don't get it? 13:04:07 virl: you introduce the term 'ideal' with your own defintion, but no one else could know what ideal means to you in this context. 13:04:10 why did C.M. call his first Forth "Forth" if it wasn't for and on a Forth chip? 13:04:14 hi snowrichard. 13:04:30 having sound driver problems 13:04:48 "Forth on a Forth chip programmed by a forth programmer" 13:04:57 Bushmill: no, the idea of a Forth chip came later. See HOPL 13:05:24 thus the notion of what Forth is has changed when there were Forth chips? 13:05:39 Bushmill: that was the definition of 100% Forth. Or an attempt to 13:06:06 serves to demonstrate how useless such a definition is 13:06:06 Bushmill: sort of 13:06:19 virl: millions of RTX were used in products and went into many famous space missions you may dismiss Forth chips and be insulting, but some have been rather sucessfull. ;-) 13:06:45 Chuck improved his Forth to a point were problems had to be solved in the silicon. 13:06:50 forthlet, I'm not insulting, I only see the reality. 13:06:56 Of course no matter how many millions you make someone will say that you were not a sucess compared to Bill Gates. ;-) 13:07:26 Bushmill: the idea of Forth chips didn't come until the mid-70s. 13:07:30 a Forth chip isn't a Forth system. It's a cpu that provides a Forth-like VM. It isn't interactive, it isn't a compiler, it doesn't have a dictionary. It's a hardware implementation of a VM. 13:07:37 .. that I don't have a forth chip and it seems that it will ever be. 13:07:46 When he switched to hardware, AFAIK it changed his view of forth 13:07:54 forthlet: i worked with the nc4000 when it came out. 13:08:06 actually, the nc4016 13:08:09 Astrobe: to where there wasn't much room for improvement in the software, just in the hardware. 13:08:25 bushmills: you had a point there... it's not forth if it isn't programmed by a forth programmer 13:08:35 Quartus_: it's no VM! how can you say a chip is a VM? Pentium excepted. 13:08:49 Quartus: but its not a Virtual machine, its real. 13:08:52 .. intellasys doesn't update it's websites 13:09:30 i remember that often it is said "a forth programmer writes forth style in any language". therefore i'm a bit confused by the requirement to be pure in all respects, to call it forth. 13:09:43 I have often said that to many Forth enthusiasists, 'Forth' is defined by them as just porting the virtual machine. They don't write apps. And if the machine is already there and not virtual they can't find what they call Forth anywhere. ;-) 13:09:44 right, it's a machine, not a virtual machine, but it approaches the requirements of a Forth VM to one degree or another. 13:10:09 and they say "forth is not a language, but a philosophy, or methology" 13:10:27 Some people in the forth community do no more than implement compilers. 13:10:35 forget about the fanatics :-) 13:10:44 now forth is only when it runs on a forth cpu? 13:11:23 who cares what machine it runs on -- it runs on some forth-ish machine model 13:11:37 Bushmills: besides the inventor of Forth saying that, who are the 'they' ? 13:11:59 my POV is that Forth is an ideal. Something I must work on to improve my skills again and again. 13:12:11 forthlet: those who opinionate what forth is 13:12:39 Bushmills: I guess Chuck should not call his colorforth on Pentium colorforth? 13:13:32 bushmills: everyone who says they 'do Forth' 'opinionates' 13:13:40 colorforth on Pentium is a demo -- no negative sound-byte. 13:13:50 when i read those pseudo-religious threads on c.l.f. "what forth is", i can't stop wonder whether those who require that discussion suffer from experiencing some kind of forth identity crisis. 13:14:40 eh, Bushmills: one point. 13:14:56 astrobe: more than a demo, a working tool meant to fill in the gap until a more powerful computer than a multi-core Intel or AMD processer that uses technology licensed from Mr. Moore. 13:15:08 forth's interactivity makes it a useful tool for experimenting with finding a good-fit solution. That's a pragmatic view of the blithery 'it's a philosophy" nonsense. 13:15:36 Astrobe: but yes, Chuck hates pentium and sees it only as pale stopgap used because it has been readiy available. 13:15:50 create new machines takes a lot of work. 13:17:12 would be really cool to have a chip you could slip into a pentium slot and boot into an os based entirely on forth 13:17:13 creating new machines is a pretty trivial job really. making something good is harder; making something way better than everything else is really hard 13:17:32 I don't know if designing Forth chips is Forth, or if solving problems outside of programming using Forth methods and Forth philosophy is Forth. But I accept that the person who invented the word should have right to say that if he wants to. 13:17:46 and then encouraging everyone to port their software to it, harder yet. 13:17:58 segher, That all depends on the complexity. Implementing an ARM in VHDL is comparatively easy to trying to do that with a Pentium. 13:18:31 I don't claim that I know so much more than the inventor about what 'Forth is' that I would call what the inventor said 'blithering.' 13:18:38 k4jcw: easy really. *really*. any university student can do it in six weeks. it'll perform shit of course. 13:18:42 But I know many people do say such things. 13:18:44 Do you want MMUs? Pipelining? 3 layers of cacheing? Async busses? 13:18:54 k4jcw: it's cisc, use microcode, done. 13:19:02 Who said anything about denying Moore's right to hold an opinion? 13:19:25 Actually, I seriously doubt ANYONE can implement a Pentium in 6 weeks. 13:19:38 Sure any student can paste a PD ARM source into a compiler. 13:19:56 When I said 'create a new chip' I meant create a compeditive design and implemenation. 13:20:56 That's what I took it to mean. 13:21:00 I have never heard Moore go on about mysticism or religion in any form in relation to Forth. It's that to which I refer as 'blither'. 13:21:09 k4jcw: pipelining and caching and async stuff just make the chip faster, they're not "needed" 13:21:17 I know that any student can grab a Forth chip description form the web and compile it too. But I am of course talking about optimizing things like performance/cost a few hundred times more than that. 13:21:34 forthlet: yeah that's a different thing, like i said already 13:22:01 what kind of chip designing software is available, I wonder 13:22:16 At what level? 13:22:38 I know people who have silicon editing software for managing chip layout and die editing. 13:22:51 That's not the same as timing analysis of a pentential design. 13:23:23 When people try to explain what Mr. Moore meant when he said that Forth was more a philosophy than a programming langauge they are often insulted. When people don't understand they get insulting and use terms like religion and mysticism to refer to arguements that they can't defeat with logic. 13:23:31 --- quit: snowrichard (Remote closed the connection) 13:23:57 But it is as likely the reason they can't defeat the arguement is that they are wrong. 13:23:58 If you think that's what I'm doing, you misunderstand. 13:24:30 Going off about mysticism of religion is just admiting that you lost an argument. 13:24:49 again, you misunderstand. 13:25:02 o 13:25:04 o 13:25:06 I wonder if Bjarne Stroustrup has these kind of problems. 13:25:07 ok 13:25:22 I know stallman does. ;-) 13:25:28 1; 13:25:39 well, I'm open to anything logical :) 13:26:06 In Chuck's first paper on Forth he noted that half the folks who hear about it are indifferent, that 1/4 love it and 1/4 hate it. 13:26:11 You want logical derivation from sane axioms. 13:26:19 let me simplify. There are kooks in the Forth community who spout off in religious and mystical ways about Forth. To the best of my knowledge, Moore is not among them. 13:26:41 That's unusual. And he points that it seems both an eliteist language and yet a langauge that could be taught to high school students. 13:27:29 Sure there are kooks in Forth, werty, mentifex, maw come to 13:27:30 mind. 13:27:39 I maintain it is entirely possible to describe Forth without resorting to any mention of Zen, God, Enlightenment, Buddha, or other irrelevant concepts. 13:28:19 But I think there are more C biggots who dismiss not only Mr. Moore but many of the top Forth programmers with such insulting nonsense as references to religion. 13:28:35 I know the people who Mr. Moore considers the best Forth programmers in the world. 13:28:51 himself? 13:29:01 perhaps there are. I am not among them. I hope you now have a clearer understanding of my position. 13:29:06 And I know some people hate them and use hateful speech about them. 13:29:06 C bigots are mostly young people who haven't learned enough langugaes, yet. 13:29:15 now... saying "forth gives me a zen feeling" isn't the samy as "forth is explained by zen" 13:29:24 I now it has caused many people many problems including death threats. 13:29:43 death threats? Over a freakin' language? 13:29:49 yikes 13:29:53 forthlet: can you name them? so I can learn from good masters? 13:30:13 forthlet: I mean, the best forth programmers 13:31:08 I don't know what religion you follow if any. But I do know a number of Forth programmers who are Buddhists. Sure religious hatred has become more fashionable in American in recent years, but really, it has no place in programming. 13:31:28 You should be more tolerant of other people's religious views. 13:31:49 No one here mentioned Zen, God, Enlightenment, or Buddha or 13:31:52 heh, I'm christian. zen means inner peace or some such, right? 13:31:55 except you. 13:32:05 religious hatred is actually hatred about something else. Envy for instance 13:32:09 yikes! 13:32:19 buddhism means eating babies! 13:32:40 aha? are you on drugs or something special? 13:32:42 forthlet, I'll try one more time. I wasn't referring to you or anything specifically said here in the channel since this conversation began. 13:33:06 "forth gives me inner peace" != "forth is the same as inner peace" 13:33:29 virl - forthlet is responding negatively to lukeparrish's "zen means inner peace or some such, right?" with that 'eating babies' thing. 13:33:29 doing forth, or bowling, or whatever gives you inner peace is good. 13:33:49 if you persist on attributing motivations to me that I have not only not voiced, but do not hold and have, in fact, explicitly denied, you're on your own at this point. 13:33:54 it's a stupid response 13:34:11 I guess I was just joking about the 'zen means inner peace or some such, right?' comment. 13:34:45 that was me :) 13:35:04 since I couldn't take off a geta to hit you over the head I tried to use a few words that might somehow get your attention! 13:35:25 was what I said somehow anti-buddhist? 13:35:26 lukeparrish - 'geta' means 'shoe'. 13:35:54 lukeparrish - what you said was horribly ignorant, although that's probably easy in a culture where adherents to Zen are horribly ignorant. 13:36:01 forthlet: can you answer my question about the top forth programmers according to Chuck? 13:36:04 It reminds me of the story of tricking lice to crawl on pomigranates and what the Buddha reported did with a she-demon what was eating children. 13:36:31 what do lice and she-demons have to do with zen not being inner peace? 13:36:53 come on... 13:36:59 Astrobe: try later - he's in talking mode, not in listening. 13:37:13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen 13:37:23 Dr. Ting is a buddhist. He is certainly as sincere about it as Christians I know. He wrote an excellent book comparing the teaching of mahayan buddhism and its tradition as apposed to thetharvaveda buddhism. 13:37:40 he used this as an analogy to the teaching of Forth in traditional computer science. 13:37:54 The meaning was that Forth is escape from religious dogma. 13:38:10 But those pushing (c) religious dogma want to call Forth 13:38:15 by couching it in terms of mystical dogma. 13:38:15 religious dogma. 13:38:41 I guess he is one of them. (todo: read More on Forth engines) 13:38:55 I appreciate the Dr. Ting explained the aural tradition in Forth and its analogy to the aural tradition in buddhism to not have to follow traditional religions. 13:39:11 ...moment-by-moment awareness and of 'seeing deeply into the nature of things' 13:39:16 Buddishism isn't even religion in the western sense of the word. 13:39:56 It was nice that Dr. Ting, a buddhist and scollar took the time to try to explain this tradition to others. 13:40:28 basically what he said was that Forth like the tradition of Buddhism was passed from individual to individual. 13:40:50 So if you do Forth you can trace the teaching through a set of teachers back to its inventor. 13:41:45 I'm not sure that model holds in todays mass distribution of information. 13:42:05 in today's culture 'religion' means 'illogical and primitive' and is used to polarize and exploit hatred. 13:42:07 what do you think we are doing now? 13:42:43 I didn't say it didn't exist. But random individual can grab gforth from a distro, start playing, and not have learned from a teacher. 13:42:50 We have tried to cast terrorists as 'religion' 13:43:05 People who don't like Bush say he favors the 'religious right' 13:43:20 only people who don't like Bush say that? 13:43:24 these terms are just there to polarize and insult and divert thought. 13:43:48 * lukeparrish is proud of being a christian. 13:43:50 there is no place for insulting other people's 'religious' ideas. 13:43:53 Hey, you know what I like? Couching political assertions so that they always come directly from adversaries. 13:43:59 no, it's for hiding the real motivations. 13:44:10 can't assume everyone has a negative view of a word because some do. 13:44:25 Had someone told me when I was young that I would get death threats from Christians because of the programming langauge that I used I would not have believed them. 13:44:46 it's always about power, territory, money, or just women 13:45:07 wiat, my lighter is empty 13:46:50 who is such an idiot and sends death threats? 13:47:25 yeah that's really dumb. it's a betrayal of christian principles. 13:47:28 ayrneiu: the pro-Bush folks use a different term than 'religious right' because that term is mostly about the negative connotation of the sound-bite. "My constituency" "my people" sounds better. 13:47:29 and the next funny stage would be programming language wars with real weapons 13:47:47 virl: I'll kill you 13:47:53 finally a decent benchmark 13:47:54 ;-) 13:47:56 you guess they are anonymous :) 13:48:05 Astrobe: you kill me! :P 13:48:15 :) Bushmills 13:48:42 and then programming language caused suicides.. 13:48:43 There are millions of idiots out there. And some take all that anti-religious rhetoric quite seriously. 13:49:19 Fortunately only a few write hate mail or send death threats and even fewer act out on them. 13:49:28 I imagine that recieving death threats isn't funny, even when you know it's vacuum 13:49:29 ah.. well that's true, one moment I thought we live in a world which isn't formed by humans(tm) 13:49:30 Only takes 1 to make you dead. 13:50:42 I recall at an Embedded Systems Conference that SVFIG had a booth and I was there one day when this guy walked up and started screaming about how he hated Forth because it was really a religion not a programming language. 13:50:43 retry: forthlet, can you name the top forth programmers according chuck (or you)? 13:51:20 He actually looked like he might get violent and I wondered if a security guard a the show was going to escort him out. 13:52:07 But some of the countless idiots out there who read newsgroups or go to chat rooms get all worked up when other people use hateful anti-religious rhetoric. 13:52:20 And they act out. 13:52:31 well.. well .. well ... well .. oh well.. 13:52:41 I get all worked up when people use pro-religious rhetoric. 13:52:45 --- quit: nighty ("Terminated with extreme prejudice!") 13:52:48 s/o please rephrase "worked up", my english is weak 13:52:54 forth is really a religion? ehm.. 13:53:10 astrobe, "agitated" 13:53:17 I think the people who invite the hate mail and death threads are just being caught up in mob mentality. 13:53:23 thanks Quartus_ 13:53:37 "Let's all open our copy of Thinking Forth to chapter 1, verse 16. Thou shall not dup thy neighbor." 13:53:48 lol.. 13:53:56 k4jcw: you are against all pro-religious rhetoric? 13:54:15 When people start preaching it's their way or the battlefield, yes. 13:54:17 :) k4jcw 13:54:26 I am, in a technical context. It has no place there. 13:54:38 so kill religions and be happy. 13:54:49 You'd have less sheeple, that's for sure. 13:55:06 well, sometimes I reread "thoughtful programming" sort of like a bible. sort of. 13:55:11 Too may religions encourage people to not think for themselves. 13:55:20 Yes, references to religion were always well intended in the old days. From "may the Forth be with you" to "the Tao of Forth" to "eForth and Zen" 13:55:46 But then they were discovered by the Forth haters to be the most effective ways to get other people to 'hate' Forth. 13:55:55 k3jcw: some have tried, theydeclined quickly.... 13:56:01 John Dvorak was paid for years to this. 13:56:20 oh, I'm offensive there. Sorry. 13:56:43 He used to regularly publish his hatred for Forth, "Forth is not a programming language, it is a religion." "Forth stinks" "nothing good has ever been written in Forth" etc. 13:56:45 paid. Ok. Any other conspiracy theories you'd like to expound on? 13:56:49 You know, this is a pretty stupid conversation. I jus thope everyone realizes this. 13:56:50 He had millions of readers. 13:56:58 So that's what most Forth haters repeat. 13:57:08 ayrnieu, it'd be hard not to notice. :) 13:57:21 I get paid by the Perl Foundation to bash Python. 13:57:27 But I don't have millions of readers :( 13:57:47 Those who hate Forth say Forth sounds like religion because it is the quickest way to divert from logical discussions into emotion and hate and no more discussion of Forth. 13:57:54 yeah, I get $3.48/month to shout down SNOBOL. 13:58:13 forthlet - OK, so what? 13:58:41 k4jcw: ;-) Well there's that too. People really do get paid to promote their language, their standard, their version, or whatever else they are selling and to bash the competition. 13:58:55 It makes sense to me. Dvorak was/is writing in a big paper, does he? 13:58:59 Much of what is said about Forth falls into that catagory. ;-) 13:59:21 But mostly people love to hate Forth. ;-) 13:59:36 They define the term as something absurd and thus hate it. ;-) 13:59:46 Forth *does* sound like a religion, when certain people expouse on it. 13:59:49 But I think Ting was right about one thing. 14:00:00 Whether that's good, bad, or doesn't matter depends on who is listening. 14:00:08 It still is mostly an aural tradition. 14:00:13 As soon as you say "religion", some people get all upset when it's anything not like theirs. 14:00:27 Like martial arts when someone says they do Forth I want to 14:00:45 know who was their teacher and their teacher's teacher etc. 14:00:49 Because putting the connotation of "religion" on it suddenly makes it personal. 14:01:17 forthlet: can you name the top forth programmers according to Chuck or you? 14:01:20 Forth like all traditions develops schools that fragment. 14:01:29 Religion is far too much the core of what some people are. Without their personal deity to handle all their decisions and make excuses for them, they have nothing. 14:01:34 And it can be a bit like the telephone game that children play. 14:01:39 Astrobe, give it up. He's not going to tell you, and he shouldn't. 14:02:00 No, Forth is not mostly a tradition and Forth does not have schools that fragment. 14:02:10 Astrobe: I could but I won't. 14:02:25 forthlet - nobody cares if you 'could'; we only care if you 'will'. 14:02:26 forthlet: ok. too bad. 14:02:29 I did a survey a dozen years ago in c.l.f about opinions on Forth. 14:02:54 One of the questions, and one which it was most interesting to correlate to the other answers was the level you saw youself at in Forth. 14:02:57 Also, just because Chuck considers them the best doesn't necessarily make it so. 14:03:12 Heh, the answer to that one is easy. 14:03:20 On a scale of 1 to 10, somewhere around .3 14:03:27 know nothing, beginner, average, expert, master 14:03:44 k4, .314 :) 14:03:49 heh 14:03:57 forthlet - where is this survey? 14:03:58 and there really were not that many people who considered themselves 'masters' of Forth 14:04:58 at the time the experts and masters were pretty much split on the value of ANS and the beginners were convinced it was the best thing ever. 14:05:11 There was a study published a couple years ago, and I wish I had a link to it. Generally, it shows that higher a person ranks them self on a scale of personal knowledge or skill, the more inept they are. I think the summary was basically that the smartest people recognize their own limitations. 14:05:26 I think things have fragmented much more since then. And I think more people would consider themselves masters. 14:05:41 I would consider more people masters than I did a dozen years ago. 14:05:53 More user base. Bound to happen. 14:06:09 k4jcw - you should distrust a study that claims results in line with what you believe, and whose results are fun to repeat without investigation. 14:06:22 forthlet - so, where is this survey? 14:06:39 ayrnieu, you know where it is :) 14:06:47 I don't know if it is in the google archives for c.l.f. 14:07:03 I originally intended it entirely as a joke. ;-) 14:07:10 but I didn't put in a happy face. 14:07:14 You should have an easy time finding it, however. 14:07:18 k4jcw: more user base? Is it true? I mean with all other languages around.... 14:07:36 astrobe, larger than it used to have. 14:08:05 I carefully choose the questions so that even I could see a case for the extreme opinions on both sides. 14:08:50 I was really just trying to show that there were a dozen questions that would never be answered definitevely in Forth and on which people would never agree. 14:09:00 astrobe, I recommend Wil Baden for study, and Bernd Paysn, and Len Zettel, and Brad Eckert. To name four. 14:09:16 0. I hate it. 1. dislike. 2. neutral 3 like 4 I love it 14:09:18 etc. 14:09:24 Quartus_: ok, noted 14:09:50 but about 100 people actually took the time to fill out the whole form and email me results! 14:09:59 5. hate to love it :) 14:10:11 all very good Forth programmers. Baden has quite a collection of publishing credits. 14:10:20 So I published the data without the names for those who included their names in the form. 14:10:40 0 it is the best thing about Forth 14:10:48 1 it is ok 14:10:52 2 neutral 14:10:56 3 it is bad 14:11:08 4 it is what ruins Forth for everyone! 14:11:19 sort of like that. 14:11:26 it was suppose to be funny. ;-) 14:12:27 good/bad love/hate will mostly be about context. 14:12:41 We tend to know the context that each player assumes. 14:13:00 The contexts are very different, and the players use the term Forth to mean such different things. 14:13:50 I was not too suprised to see that my opinions were not down 14:14:02 the center 14:15:03 But I knew that. I think it would be fascinating to see how people's opinions had changed since then. I could guess but I wouldn't know the balance. 14:15:59 But I don't think people would play the game and fill out an opinion form the way they did years ago. I didn't even expect anyone to actually fill out the opinion form back then. ;-) 14:19:00 Anyone who reads this group or c.l.f could probably make a list of dozen carefully worded questions about Forth designed to cause endless arguements. 14:19:17 The real trick is learning to avoid such traps. 14:19:30 We don't see to be very good at that. 14:20:40 perhaps because we are masters in Forth and don't need to talk technical; so we have to find other amusements? 14:20:56 And I think we have to blame ourselves for the most effective anti-Forth sound-bites used by Forth haters. They just repeat what Forth enthusiasts say to each other. That's where they get the sound-bites that work the best. 14:21:39 well, certainly usenet and chat rooms are not just about technical stuff, they are about opinion and social interaction 14:22:13 my theory is that people use these forums as a form a therapy endlessly spouting their own personal opinions as if someone else cared! 14:22:35 And on that note... I think I will be off to do some real work. 14:22:42 Been fun, thanks. 14:23:21 I just thought I would stop in an see what things get discussed. 14:23:42 chat room culture and Forth is probably a common topic.l 14:23:49 thanks to you. 14:25:02 thanks to the folks with different Forth experiences and thus different definitions of what Forth means to you than whatever it is to me. 14:25:24 --- quit: forthlet () 14:25:36 Funny, when I came here I thought, who's the a/h who use forthlet as a nick? Then I slowly realize it was you! :) 14:25:53 yes, he was that a/h. :) 14:26:23 THINK! 14:26:36 we are all fools! 14:26:59 It's when he wrote, 'I asked Chuck once' that I got it. 14:27:39 I consider it extremely unfortunate that Fox is effectively Moore's press-agent. 14:27:43 Right clicking on his nick wasn't a giveaway? 14:28:01 k3jcw a confirmation. 14:28:20 k3jcw 1+ 14:28:33 k3jcx ? 14:28:36 --- join: Anbidian (i=anbidian@S0106000fb09cff56.ed.shawcable.net) joined #forth 14:28:38 k4jcw - no, my IRC client doesn't have a 'right clicking' dealie with nicks. 14:29:17 There's always /whois. I'm sure you could have figured out an analogue for the function. 14:29:43 it's not forths best time 14:29:50 of course I could've. I only care to berate you for pretending that all the world is your graphical IRC client. 14:30:02 Actually, you just like to complain. 14:30:08 No, that was a 'berate'. 14:30:29 Time to add you to the PoppaVic/Quiznos list. 14:30:31 Quartus_: he has a strong personality at least. 14:31:40 k4jcw, you ignore them? 14:31:47 yup. 14:31:55 Continual antagonism does not constitute 'strength of personality" to me. 14:32:13 k4jcw, where you the guy who has written a script which substitute their saying with 'blabla'? 14:32:25 I suggested it. I did not write it. 14:32:33 ups.. sry 14:32:37 that was fission, I think, with JasonWoof 14:34:52 well he fights for what he believes is right. Perhaps a bit touchy, but OTOH I find he detects sometimes your own contradictions. 14:35:21 I have not found that about him, Astrobe. 14:35:39 the fighting and the touchy, yes. 14:35:47 yeah, fission wrote it 14:36:06 I put in a quick hack to substitute "blah blah blah [...]" 14:36:13 instead of just blanking the message 14:39:01 who would be a better 'press agent' for Chuck Moore? somewhat from the sails dep? Gandhi? 14:39:27 Moore himself? 14:39:42 It would be preferable that he had none rather than this one. Better yet that he would publish, and speak for himself. 14:43:14 Zettel said it best: "I can find better ways to improve my skills than trying to follow the obscure thought-processes of an eccentric genius wh doesn't care to teach." 14:44:11 But that's about public relations, as your word "press agent" says. 14:44:37 I'm sorry, what do you mean? 14:45:13 Many kinds of learning are not the results of teaching. Moore doesn't employ mechanical strategies as his methodology, rather he creatively explores and investigates and uses the particular insights for each particular instance. Learning by perceiving new relationships among structures observed is not a methodology that can be taught. 14:46:03 Zettel talks about improving his skills, when we are talking about Fox as a "press agent". 14:46:06 at the very list, my IRC client should append notes to /ignore ; I just realized that I'd already ignored k4jcw -- as k4jwc 14:46:22 anbidian, and that's fine -- for him. Moore's efforts are for Moore. He doesn't publish or teach, 14:46:59 anbidian: yes, sort of someone introducing you to a great painter. 14:47:28 by 'press agent', I mean his only public voice (occasional presentations at svfig notwithstanding), 14:47:29 I don't see the relevance of his not publishing or teaching. Even if he did he could never share the act of perceiving something new. That is amethodical. He can only share the frozen byprodcut, the knowledge, of what he has perceived, but to increase ones ability to perceive relationships among structures in unknown territories eludes all teachings. 14:48:05 Anbidian - this isn't about Moore at all, really, but rather about people who speak as if they follow him. 14:48:29 anbidian, there is nothing Moore has done that cannot be explained, described, and reproduced. That's what I mean by 'teach'. 14:48:36 ayrnieu: Hmm. Okay. 14:49:08 Then, does he do wrong when talking about Moore's work? I hope not. The only little problem is when he addresses other issues. 14:49:35 Anbidian - so I'd expect that Zettel didn't so much say "I don't want to sit at Moore's feet" as he said "Y'all are wasting your time." 14:49:38 Quartus: of course, nothing he has done, but to be able to do comparable things is a totally different story. Once a new relationship is perceived it becomes knowledge and can be dealt with. 14:50:07 ayrnieu: I see better now what you are saying. Your last comment helped me. 14:50:15 right, learn and teach are different words. 14:51:33 I highly doubt that Fox's re-transmissions of Chuck's comments are uncoloured by Fox's own personal agendas. I take them with substantial salt. 14:52:01 obviously. I see this situation as Socrates by Plato :) 14:52:38 what do you think Fox' personal agenda is? 14:53:16 --- mode: crc set +i 14:53:30 he's a common or garden-variety troll. I refer you to c.l.f, the record speaks for itself. 14:54:25 --- mode: crc set -i 14:54:38 he enjoys argument and inciting agitation. He is intermittently raving and abusive, with occasional periods of rationality. 14:55:24 I've followed c.l.f. for many years. Of all the posts of Jeff Fox's I've read I do not recall ever thinking he was trolling. 14:55:25 I make it a point not to respond to him; today I blew it. 14:55:48 I hope he enjoys, given the time he spends in these fights. 14:56:03 I could select a dozen such without any effort. If you wish I can do so when I'm back in my office. 14:56:08 But he's not a troll. Trolls die by starvation. 14:56:29 There is always someone feeding them. 14:57:30 Quartus: you used that word abusive; how has he been that? 14:58:32 I once picked an post from in in an endless dogfight thread; I thought they were arguing about minor points. But looking closer, this point was important. 14:59:05 I'm hampered by this device; I will provide refernces when I'm back. 14:59:43 he is an uber-troll :-P 14:59:57 Don't. We're just talking. 15:00:16 ok it wasn't for me. 15:00:41 well.. 15:01:25 paraphrasing, "I once ran this online poll where everybody wrote to me and proved I was right." was one of today's gems. 15:01:33 --- quit: Quartus_ ("used jmIrc") 15:02:47 no, he said soemthing like "my opinions weren't down the list" 15:03:04 Down the list? What does that mean? 15:03:19 astrobe - 'down the middle', he said. 15:04:00 yes ayrnieu. down the middle. 15:04:30 It's easy to make any claim about private communication. 15:04:32 Does that mean he meant that it proved he was right to him? 15:05:04 Astrobe, I'd need to re-read it, which prospect I don't relish. If I misread it, it was the first time I ever heard him put any notion forward that didn't support his position. 15:06:52 "it's easy..." If you think he is a liar, then I understand your POV that Chuck would be better off without such a "press agent" 15:07:55 Quartus - the trick here is that he didn't have a position. He just expressed bemusement that he didn't come out with the median position in all categories. 15:08:15 It's unverifiable. Even if what passes through is 100% accurate, he's contentious, argumentative, and apparently paranoid. Chuck may be aware of this, hell, he may agree with him for all I know. In which case he makes a great press agent. 15:12:17 You guys. You don' t let a human be. Humans are fallible, have agendas, and wine about being correct even when they know they are wrong. You gotta take the salt with the sugar. 15:12:50 Trust be verify, I can't believe i'm say that but there ya go. 15:12:54 we're not proposing to give him death threats, Raystm. 15:12:55 be=but 15:12:55 I can say without fear of contradiction that I'm glad I don't have somebody like Fox acting as my public voice. 15:13:54 Noted. 15:14:28 when you're old and senile I'll step in for ya :P 15:14:48 For a brief time, Mentifex had a Palm PDA, and started mentioning Quartus Forth in his insane rants. I was glad when that passed. 15:14:52 Maybe Moore takes the sugar and give away the salt... 15:19:02 There is evidence to that fact Astrobe. colorforth ships out of context. 15:20:10 does anyone know what the Portland State Aerospace Society is busy with, in relation to Forth? 15:20:17 Jeff Fox stopped in the colorforth channel recently to say that a new colorforth release should come out soon 15:20:21 All of this controversy over forth makes it better for niche players to make a living. I'm certain of it. 15:21:06 Ray mentioned. Are the chartreuse constants going to be delivered as promised? :) 15:21:12 he said: "And we have had several [people] assigned to a colorforth upgrade." 15:21:21 Talk about marginal. colorForth is to forth as forth is to c in respect to respect. 15:21:36 cause i just came across their version control system, but can't make much sense from it yet. seen links to forth though. 15:21:50 * JasonWoof tips his hat in respect to respect 15:22:11 --- join: nighty (n=nighty@CPE00119576a9c5-CM0012c90d36fc.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 15:22:29 I wanna see puce ;) 15:22:49 Bushmills, no idea. None of the obvious searches turns up anything. 15:23:01 http://svn.psas.pdx.edu/trunk/other/redDwarf/TODO?rev=2859&view=markup that's one of the pages with clear forth references 15:23:09 Puce is for POSTPONE. Chartreuse is for constants. Vermillion is for variables. 15:23:58 Brown is for bullshit. 15:24:00 Bushmills, that looks like somebody in the early stages of implementing his first Forth compiler for an ARM. 15:24:06 here seems to be the whole thing: http://svn.psas.pdx.edu/branches/ 15:24:07 Chartreuse... what color is it? 15:24:15 Greenish-yellow, Astrobe 15:24:43 On the green - to yellow boundry variables values are entered on the stack during compilation. 15:24:51 sorry yellow to green that is. 15:25:07 and Puce? 15:25:10 So chartreuse would be the interim stage, when they're halfway to the stack but haven't made it yet. 15:25:21 chartruse makes an execllent collor for ...yeah thats it exacly. 15:25:25 for now I stick with red, green, yellow and white 15:25:25 Bushmills - http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/pipermail/opensource_gps/2003-July/000008.html 15:25:30 Puce is a pale brownish-purple. 15:25:36 though I will change it at some point for all those red/green colorblind folks 15:25:53 Glypher uses orange to inline macros. 15:26:04 purple and blue look similar to me... 15:26:07 Did they hire a programmer from Quebec or something? 15:26:24 Astrobe, we're all making jokes about colorForth. 15:26:55 Well, as relates to puce and chartreuse, anyway. The remaining colors are jokes built right into colorForth already. :) 15:27:19 black is the absence of code. the potential that all code has already been written and it is up to the programmer to define the proper pixel colors and fonts around those portions of the display where the cool software lies. 15:27:42 :) Raystm2 15:27:55 And he must do it with a chorded keyboard, and at no time work on commodity hardware! 15:28:09 that's only half true. 15:28:15 the black is the chi 15:28:50 there is no keyboard requirement. Seven pieces of copper and some wires from fingers to serial port are just as handy. 15:29:06 When he gets it down to black code on a black 0x0 screen with no CPU at all, he'll have reached the ultimate in minimalism. 15:29:21 :) 15:29:31 I like my keyboard 15:29:39 Moore does not like your keyboard. 15:30:17 And like the ( what was that drive system in HHGG? ) improbability drive, it will just appear in his lap. 15:30:18 good, wouldn't want him taking it ;) 15:31:07 Infinite improabability drive, created as I recall by working out exactly how improbable it was, feeding those figures into a finite improbability generator, and switching it on. 15:31:19 yeah 15:31:27 no you forgot the electrodes in the cup of tea 15:31:36 someone calculated how improbably it was for the iid to just materialize 15:31:41 The tea was the source for the random input, as I recall it. 15:31:49 Brownian motion. 15:31:53 yeph 15:31:55 I'm certain you are correct hahaha 15:32:32 I reread the trillagy recently 15:32:41 All four parts? 15:32:50 I think I read all five 15:33:09 Were there five? I lost count. I don't count "Young Zaphod Goes to Space" or whatever that was. 15:33:14 no 15:33:21 "so long and thanks for all the fish" is 4 15:33:26 JasonWoof packing? going where this time? 15:33:28 Oh right. Then "Mostly Harmless". 15:33:34 then iirc "the resteraunt at the end of the universe" is 5? 15:33:38 not sure 15:33:41 maybe that's 3rd 15:33:58 yeah, sorry, "mostly harmless" is #5 15:34:03 No, Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy, Restaurant at the End of The Universe, Life the Universe and Everything, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish, Mostly Harmless. I think. 15:34:15 2nd... 15:34:17 ahh well 15:34:22 that sounds right. 15:34:23 never was any good at remembering numbers 15:34:27 :) 15:34:56 Dirk Gently's Wholistic Detective Agency is great :) 15:35:09 better than the hhg books if you as me 15:35:18 Yes, one or two subsequent Dirk Gently books in the series as I recall. 15:35:19 ah.. yeah the beef which kills itself is a cool scene in the guide 15:35:35 hehe the dinner virl? 15:35:48 yep 15:35:53 ya. 15:35:57 that was good. 15:36:09 well I'm off now 15:36:25 my favorite part is the babel-fish as proof that god does not exist. 15:36:28 --- quit: virl (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 15:36:32 Interestingly Peter David played the animal in the TV version. 15:37:01 Sorry. Peter Davidson. The Doctor Who guy. 15:37:24 I never knew that. :) 15:37:38 So, I powered on to work on my forth, launched irc, and here I am, 0:35 am reading .... and talkng with .... with .... I hate that. 15:37:47 Heh. 15:38:04 I've been working on mine in-between contradictions. 15:38:19 ooh Quartus what are you working on? 15:38:31 A book on Forth. 15:38:47 Raystm2: yeah, I like that line at the end that is something like: "oh, I hadn't thought of that" said god who instantly dissapeared in a puff of logic. 15:38:53 * Raystm2 was defining folendar to a couple guys in another chat, all with there papers trying to fold along with me. 15:39:01 I feared forthlet would see the C source in the other window... :) 15:39:29 yes JasonWoof thats the one. Funny stuff there. 15:39:45 Douglas Adams was a staunch atheist, in fact. 15:40:01 He effected my bent as well. 15:40:43 I suppose 5 guys I aim at for that distinction. 15:41:20 Addams, Heinlein, Sagan, Joseph Campbell, and James Burke. 15:41:41 Adams? Or do you mean Charles Addams of the Addams Family? 15:41:51 thanks, Adams. :) 15:41:57 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/mithrastheprophet/forum/god-v-satan.png 15:42:12 my 2 cents to the religion debate 15:42:18 You really talk about religion here don't you? 15:42:52 Really don't care to, Astrobe. Sorry if I brought it in. It's not an appropriate subject to discuss here. I mentioned Adams' leanings only in regard to his humour about the subject. 15:43:26 no problem. The expression "staunch atheist" amazes me. 15:43:37 It's been anything goes here, for as long as I've been a member. I have the logs to prove it. 15:43:58 By which I mean he was radically outspoken about it, Astrobe. An advocate. 15:44:27 foody brb. 15:44:31 thank god quiznos isnt here. ;) 15:45:03 Ray, to open the floor to religious debate is to open it to religious proselytization, which is unwelcomed by many and has no place in a channel ostensibly about programming computers in a given language. 15:45:22 There are other places for that, and that's where it should happen if it must happen at all. 15:45:26 the point that surprises me is that atheism needs advocacy. 15:45:45 Astrobe, there are advocates for everything under the sun. 15:45:59 While I agree with that statment whole heartedly, I've seen the contrary here. 15:47:19 Ray, as have I. I have no particular concern with the mention of religion, for instance as it pertains to the madness of some Forth zealots, but unfortunately a line needs to be drawn, and it's far clearer to draw it on the side 15:47:26 of excluding religion from the discussion whenever possible. 15:48:28 You too are in the US right? I think there is a big cultural gap wrt to religion between the US and here. 15:48:29 Agreed. 15:49:13 I am in Canada. I don't come to #forth to be converted to Christianity; neither do the Christians come here to be sold on atheism. If any particular party wants to involve himself in that kind of discussion, there are many other channels and forums expressly for that purpose. 15:49:20 Astrobe i'm in the US... 15:49:44 I was gonna say, how so Astrobe? 15:50:47 I feel there's some sort of religious presure "over there", I feel it when I look US TV soaps among other things. 15:51:14 Here, religion is rarely mentioned in local TV soaps. 15:51:47 At the risk of turning the discussion toward the topic, I've been considering the best ways and approaches to teach Forth both to non-programmers, and to those already experienced in other languages. 15:52:01 Religous people here are taught to convert as many as possible. 15:52:24 yeah Quartus, what did you have in mind? 15:52:29 * Raystm2 gets chow. 15:52:52 That's the thing; I'm considering various methods. I'd like one approach that scales for both audiences, but it's tough. 15:54:25 Treat everybody like they don't know how to program in forth. I think the real programmers will understand that. You could provide asides for the more initiated. 15:55:05 Yes, but at the same time I don't want to start with "The thing in front of you that looks like a TV with a blinky line on it is a computer", a la Brodie. 15:55:07 This will allow beginners to see how more educated programmers communicate. 15:55:41 The comedic approach helps with that kind of detail. 15:55:58 Harder to do in a 'dryer' format. 15:56:02 I think that explainations may be too fast for one group, and too slow for others 15:56:45 Right. My current approach is to write for a programmer who knows another language to a modest degree, and then to go back and provide a path into that material for novices. 15:57:50 In that way the reader can move to the point appropriate for his level of expertise in any given topic. 15:57:54 Is it a real book? Did you consider an electronic media so that some parts could be folded for instance? 15:58:37 I mean does it have to be a book in paper 15:58:38 It is a real book. I haven't considered distribution media. Whether a reader can collapse beginning sections or just flip past them is not important to me. 15:59:52 I write for the printed page, in terms of ratio and flow. The book is a very old, well-perfected technology for transmitting information. I consider electronic books less ideal, though there's no reason not to also have electronic distribution despite that. 16:01:15 in what way programmers are different from beginners is the first question. 16:01:54 Beginners are new to the basic concepts of programming. Existing programmers are not new to them, but may have difficult-to-break bindings between the concepts, and their particular expression in a given language. 16:02:36 So: beginners have much to learn; programmers may have much to unlearn. 16:02:59 Is it only that? if it is, you could have a first section to introduce beginners with basic concepts 16:03:28 I think that's a key differentiator. Mere introduction of concepts, while important, is not the whole hurdle for beginners, though. 16:04:11 They need to be guided through the process of successfully creating a program: editing, compiling, testing, debugging. 16:04:18 Modifying. 16:05:30 They need to be introduced to data structures, and algorithms. Etc. 16:05:53 I may wind up finding this intractable, in terms of making it one book. It may need to properly be two. 16:06:15 But I'm trying to make it one in the initial design. 16:06:31 This part is common to programmers cause Forth is quite different to others in this field 16:07:09 In fact from my perspective I do not find it to be all that different from many other languages, and I hope to be able to impart both the similarities and the differences in this text. 16:07:15 edit/compile/run -> hello world ? it's always nice to have a program quickly running 16:07:47 Sure, hello-world is a good first step. But it's extraordinarily trivial, and there's a lot more between that and comfort. 16:08:14 different: it depends on the native language, which is a big unknown. 16:08:59 Not that big -- the big ones nowadays are C, C++, Java, VB(.NET) and a pick of the litter for the next couple. 16:09:37 All procedural, structured languages that access memory linearly by address unit. So there's substantial common ground to draw on. 16:10:33 that's true. 16:10:56 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.181) joined #forth 16:11:37 Where real conceptual differences occur is in the fringes: for example, Prolog, or APL (or J or K or whatever letter it's up to now). 16:12:18 Perl. I know someone who came to Forth directly from perl. 16:12:35 Sure, though Perl isn't all that far-flung, conceptually. 16:14:22 hi 16:14:27 Hi snowrichard. 16:14:34 hi 16:14:42 got sound :) 16:14:52 Keen. 16:15:07 realtek drivers from taiwan 16:15:22 The other way round: what prevents programmers from reading a book addressed to beginners? 16:15:34 boredom? 16:16:04 Astrobe: redundancy? 16:16:17 Astrobe, boredom, perhaps. And the text must be limited in how deep it can probe into the subject matter, or it's the beginners you'll lose. 16:16:30 yes, it seems to be the main problem. Can it be fixed 16:16:34 ? 16:18:48 no, not boredom 16:19:08 (it reminds me of old chess computer: when I did a move that wasn't in the opening book, it was much longer to think :) 16:19:10 cause boredom can be experienced only when actually reading the book 16:19:27 but, question was "what *prevents* ..." 16:20:04 more likely, expectation of experiencing boredom 16:20:36 then surprise may be a solution 16:21:05 again, can only be experienced by actually reading the book 16:22:32 oooops 01:22am here. 16:22:39 is it really necessary that experienced programmer and newbie have to read the same book? 16:22:57 difficult to do it right for everybody 16:23:07 maybe better to focus on the target audience 16:23:41 Bushmills, perhaps two books under one cover. 16:23:48 if both newbies and ... 16:23:48 gotta go to sleep. BYE ! 16:23:52 yes, two books 16:24:00 --- quit: Astrobe ("Leaving") 16:24:17 why same cover? 16:25:02 In order that a beginner may work through the first half, and delve deeper into the second half as his needs require. 16:25:04 Two books same cover, great idea. 16:32:54 its about 6:30 PM here. I think I've been trying to get sound for at least 8 hrs. 16:33:05 what? speak up 16:33:32 works now 16:54:40 snowrichard, mandriva giving you problems? 16:54:57 my mom was here 16:55:15 I installed the One CD (2006). had trouble geting sound. 17:09:25 --- quit: snowrichard ("Leaving") 17:45:01 --- join: segher_ (n=segher@dslb-084-056-135-050.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 17:56:28 --- quit: segher (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 17:59:22 --- quit: nighty (Client Quit) 18:06:36 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.181) joined #forth 18:09:25 wb snowrichard 18:25:57 --- quit: snowrichard (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 18:28:36 --- part: ayrnieu left #forth 18:54:27 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.181) joined #forth 18:54:43 hi 18:54:53 Sound still working? 18:57:43 got network reconfigured so the old p4 is a router and my vonage and this machine is up 18:58:48 and yes sound 18:59:23 listening to 80's stuff 18:59:42 8675309 18:59:45 Sorry to hear that :) 19:00:07 Tommy Tutone 19:00:32 k4jcw are you a radio operator? 19:00:38 Yes 19:00:41 ok 19:00:50 I am also the operator of my pocket calculator. 19:01:24 I used to have a HP-41c it used RPN 19:02:04 I had one of those. And damned if I know what happened to it. I don't remember selling it, but I can't find it anywhere. 19:02:22 But I do have two HP-16's and a HP-15 19:04:08 Good Dog. You should see how much a HP-16C is worth on eBay. 19:05:24 we've got a three-legged dog named Bobo 19:07:58 There used to be a guy on Perlmonks.org who claimed to have a two legged dog (right front, left rear) name Isotope. But I've never seen pictures, so I'm not sure I believe it. 19:08:52 Is bobo short one in the front or the rear? 19:09:08 right front 19:11:38 Have you ever played with the Saturn chip on the '41? There's supposed to be some tricks to where you can write low level code on it, or something like that. 19:11:56 no 19:20:01 Somebody gave me an iSeries Type 2611 laptop; I should install an OS on it. 19:21:20 http://www.hpmuseum.org/prog/synth41.htm 19:41:32 hey 19:41:33 still up? 19:41:54 got all the dependencies for the program I was working on installed 19:44:59 --- quit: snowrichard ("Leaving") 19:56:41 --- quit: Anbidian () 21:02:34 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.181) joined #forth 21:03:16 hi 21:10:35 --- quit: snowrichard ("Leaving") 21:12:13 --- join: segher__ (n=segher@dslb-084-056-129-190.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 21:22:38 --- quit: segher_ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 21:40:54 --- join: miguel (n=alpha200@modemcable073.65-200-24.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth 21:42:30 --- nick: miguel -> alpha 21:43:34 hello every one 21:43:40 Hi. 21:43:58 what is the best forth compiler can I use in windows? 21:44:09 Depends on what you mean by 'best'. 21:44:41 the more easyest to understand and the more compact code. 21:44:46 Need it to be free? Need to interface to the win32 GUI? 21:45:18 interface with win32 gui. 21:45:48 Win32Forth is free, and lets you interface with the GUI. SwiftForth is not free, but not expensive, and also does. 21:46:40 I think win32forth is the one done by tom zimmer I think. 21:47:07 Originally. It's being developed by others now. 21:48:00 is forth is useful again today and if so for what kind of program it is usefull. 21:48:23 I consider it quite useful for many types of programs. 21:49:42 does forth can interface with dlls and apis. 21:49:53 yes 21:50:02 many can 21:50:53 Gforth can. Win32Forth can. SwiftForth can. MPE's Forths can. 21:52:39 excuse me because I'm blind and I start programming in forth because the versabraille ii + vbii+ work with and it was not possible to use other languages ofcourse assembler because the forth compiler contain one. 21:52:58 Yes, many Forth compilers contain an assembler. 21:55:13 does gforth contain an editor or you have to use your own editor to make the source code. 21:56:13 I do not think Gforth has an editor. If it does, it is a simple one for blocks only. I use my own editor to make source code. 21:56:57 where can i find a binary copy of gforth for windows 21:57:55 The main Gforth page is here: http://tinyurl.com/s8uho 22:01:49 I saw that it only work with pc cygwin in windows 22:03:42 Gforth does not require cygwin under windows, to my knowledge. 22:03:59 Perhaps I'm wrong about that. It has been a long time since I set it up. 22:05:58 There is a cygwin.dll in the gforth directory, so it probably does need that. 22:07:11 ./retro -f retro-ans.fs -f arcfour.fs bye 22:07:13 oops 22:08:00 I don't think gforth comes with an editor 22:08:12 kc5tja wrote a block editor for gforth called VIBE 22:08:32 (VI-like Block Editor) 22:09:18 not sure it's in great shape though 22:15:17 --- part: alpha left #forth 22:16:17 Oh, you're welcome. Drop by again anytime. 22:18:16 --- quit: virsys (Remote closed the connection) 22:19:09 --- join: virsys (n=virsys@or-71-53-74-48.dhcp.embarqhsd.net) joined #forth 22:48:04 --- join: Cheery (n=Cheery@a81-197-19-23.elisa-laajakaista.fi) joined #forth 22:57:17 pity alpha has left already 22:57:34 because? 22:57:37 i know of braille terminals with forth interpreters inside 22:58:21 multitasker, i.e. interpreter is still available interactively 22:58:46 Interesting. probably not that useful for making win32 gui apps. :) 22:58:55 not as such :) 23:00:10 but still, not requiring a full-fledged computer to learn forth :) (those braille terminals come with rechargable batteries, and are somewhat portable) 23:00:50 keyboard is an issue. would need a keyboard with rs232 23:08:22 --- join: slava (n=slava@CPE0080ad77a020-CM000e5cdfda14.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 23:08:22 --- mode: ChanServ set +o slava 23:11:12 --- quit: slava () 23:14:42 --- part: Bushmills left #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/06.09.04