00:00:00 --- log: started forth/06.09.10 01:33:55 --- join: Cheery (n=Cheery@a81-197-19-23.elisa-laajakaista.fi) joined #forth 02:02:50 --- join: neceve (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 02:33:03 --- quit: Raystm2 (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 02:35:42 --- join: Raystm2 (n=NanRay@adsl-68-93-123-207.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 03:01:47 --- quit: Raystm2 ("Should have paid the bill.") 03:02:29 --- join: Raystm2 (n=NanRay@adsl-68-93-123-207.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 03:05:29 --- quit: Raystm2 (Client Quit) 03:06:14 --- join: Raystm2 (n=NanRay@adsl-68-93-123-207.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 04:37:07 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-1pool46-166.nas30.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 05:24:22 --- join: astrobe (n=fred@c-real.rouen-wireless.net) joined #forth 05:52:57 --- quit: uiuiuiu (Remote closed the connection) 05:52:59 --- join: uiuiuiu (i=ian@dslb-084-056-216-158.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 07:16:55 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 07:18:31 --- join: PoppaVic (n=pete@0-2pool236-219.nas22.chicago4.il.us.da.qwest.net) joined #forth 07:36:21 --- join: snowrichard (n=richard@12.18.108.232) joined #forth 07:37:12 hi 07:37:28 howdy 07:45:15 --- quit: astrobe ("Lost terminal") 07:46:23 --- join: astrobe (n=fred@82.67.86.119) joined #forth 08:27:15 --- quit: virsys (Remote closed the connection) 08:28:08 --- join: virsys (n=virsys@or-71-53-74-48.dhcp.embarqhsd.net) joined #forth 09:20:02 --- quit: astrobe ("Lost terminal") 09:21:43 --- join: Topaz (n=top@spc1-horn1-0-0-cust255.cosh.broadband.ntl.com) joined #forth 10:30:30 --- quit: snowrichard ("Leaving") 10:32:00 --- join: AI_coder (n=AI@ip-209-124-242-76.dynamic.eatel.net) joined #forth 10:32:50 Where can one find a good implementation of linked lists for forth? 10:34:22 --- quit: PoppaVic ("Pulls the pin...") 10:41:17 linked lists are really trivial in Forth; slightly larger if you build them with allocate instead of using dataspace. 10:43:11 anual 10:43:20 ? 10:43:46 Somehow that didn't go into my webbrowser when I typed [gforth m]anual 10:45:17 Quartus: Do you use the gforth struct.fs for your linked lists? 10:45:29 No. I suppose you could. 10:51:19 --- quit: AI_coder (Client Quit) 10:52:20 Oh, you're welcome. Come back any time. 11:13:40 --- join: swsch (n=stefan@pdpc/supporter/sustaining/swsch) joined #forth 11:13:59 --- part: swsch left #forth 11:22:53 --- quit: Topaz (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 11:34:27 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-177-038.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 11:41:35 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Nick collision from services.) 11:42:10 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 12:29:53 --- join: vatic (n=chatzill@pool-162-84-156-148.ny5030.east.verizon.net) joined #forth 13:06:29 --- quit: Cheery ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/") 13:20:43 --- quit: Raystm2 ("I've embarrassed my self enough for one day.") 13:22:15 --- join: Raystm2 (n=NanRay@adsl-68-93-123-207.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 13:27:05 --- join: Topaz (n=top@spc1-horn1-0-0-cust255.cosh.broadband.ntl.com) joined #forth 13:28:59 --- join: Raystm2- (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-62-42.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 13:30:08 --- quit: Raystm2- (Client Quit) 13:31:06 --- join: Raystm2- (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-62-42.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 13:31:15 --- quit: Raystm2- (Remote closed the connection) 13:32:25 --- join: Raystm2- (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-62-42.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 13:34:06 --- quit: Raystm2 (Nick collision from services.) 13:34:41 --- nick: Raystm2- -> Raystm2 13:47:00 --- quit: neceve (Remote closed the connection) 13:52:15 --- nick: Raystm2 -> Raystm2- 13:57:23 --- nick: Raystm2- -> Raystm2 15:41:09 --- quit: Topaz (Remote closed the connection) 15:46:32 --- quit: virl (Remote closed the connection) 17:02:45 --- join: Anbidian (i=anbidian@S0106000fb09cff56.ed.shawcable.net) joined #forth 17:03:30 I managed to join #biz, I removed various bans and limits. Don't know if that helps, but there it is. 17:31:18 --- quit: virsys (Remote closed the connection) 17:37:07 Thanks Quartus. 17:40:41 --- join: virsys (n=virsys@or-71-53-74-48.dhcp.embarqhsd.net) joined #forth 17:57:22 --- join: slava (n=slava@CPE0080ad77a020-CM000e5cdfda14.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 17:57:22 --- mode: ChanServ set +o slava 18:27:08 --- quit: vatic (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 18:58:11 --- quit: Anbidian () 20:32:00 hi 20:37:39 Hi slava 20:37:53 i implemented a little hack today: http://factorcode.org/dataflow-ui.png 20:38:02 it still needs a lot of work before i can integrate it into my development environment 20:38:54 I remember, Gordon Charleton did something like this at one point. 20:47:29 do you have a link? 20:47:56 Let me see. 20:52:37 http://www.taygeta.com/forth_intro/stackflo.html but no response from the server right now. 20:54:30 Charton, as it turns out. 20:56:01 i think i saw that -- but his diagrams were hand-drawn no? 20:56:21 I don't know, I thought it was an automated production. But similar diagrams, at any rate. 20:56:21 slava: neat 20:56:29 slava: how does it look for normal words? 20:56:41 normal words being? 20:58:25 it works for any piece of code for which the compiler can infer a stack effect 20:58:55 cool 20:59:00 the rot rot rot thing looked fun 20:59:27 I was just interested to see more definitions of actual useful functions 20:59:36 : tok-set swap 2 * + h! ; 20:59:44 maybe they look booring 20:59:51 mostly they do :) 21:00:21 when its integrated and done you'll be able to click a button in the browser and see the diagram for any word 21:00:32 I find them quite confusing, Charton's included. Doesn't model the way I think about stack/code interaction at all. 21:01:05 how do you think about it? 21:01:29 i mostly implemented this because i wanted to figure out how 21:01:33 I've never tried to verbalize it. I do know whatever it is, it's in sharp contrast to a maze of lines running through boxes. 21:01:35 i don't expect to use it a lot 21:02:10 freezing in here bbl 21:04:41 Quartus: i'd love if it if you could verbalize your ideas 21:04:59 Let me cogitate upon it. 21:10:38 I visualize it as an animation 21:10:41 not something you can map out 21:11:05 Well, that's true for me too; it's a series of successive states, not something suitable for a single static map. 21:11:24 But that's how slava's diagram plays out, left-to-right. 21:11:48 i'm not trying to implement a visual code editor, or anything. 21:12:06 just something to help newbies grasp the stack and postfix notation 21:12:21 I was thinking of making an animator to help teach stack usage 21:12:53 also i think it helps to think of >r and r> as executing code 'under' some values 21:12:58 --- join: segher (n=segher@dslb-084-056-144-086.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 21:12:58 which is how my hack represents that 21:13:08 not to help people understand how a particular word works, but to grasp the idea of these words: dup + * / - swap over 21:13:11 using the stack 21:13:43 slava: yeah, that was interesting 21:13:58 though I'd make it a more distinct area 21:16:18 I suppose these diagrams represent a kind of cross-section of the way I do think about it, which is as an actual stack (or pair of stacks, when considering the return stack). I don't consider each data item as having a linear path through a series of words until it's consumed or altered. I take each step, or abstracted series of steps, in turn as a transformation on the stack's state, with side-effects as appropri 21:21:30 we lose you at "side-effects as appropri" 21:21:38 ate. 21:22:28 --- quit: segher_ (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 21:23:19 --- quit: slava () 21:23:36 He took it hard. 21:24:26 I don't have any use for such diagrams -- harder to follow them than to follow the code and do my own stack management. 21:24:34 eh, you never know 21:24:55 At any rate -- as a sequence of discrete actions of the words upon the stacks, not as a voyage of stack items travelling eastward through a wonderland of word boxes. :) 21:25:04 and the directionality of having the return stack 'below' the data stack, as slava said, is just weird :-) Like meeting someone who casually refers to the future as 'more within' and the past as 'more without'. 21:25:07 ayrnieu: he said he didn't make it to be useful, more that he was curious how he'd implement it 21:25:23 JasonWoof - oh, I don't care. 21:25:47 I'm just saying 21:25:53 I don't think it'd be useful either 21:26:10 although, slava /did/ posit a use for this: newbie comprehension of the stack. 21:26:30 true 21:26:33 not sure it'd help with that 21:26:40 I probably can't really speak of how well I took to stacks; I'd used the HP48 years earlier, and programmed in UserRPL. 21:27:12 Not something I even thought about, then. It's really hard to talk to these people who suddenly start programming when they head off to college. 21:27:54 We used to complain that they learned Pascal, or Turing or something first. Think how great that was in contrast to new introductory courses in -- wait for it-- JAVA! 21:37:11 I'm only 26, and I'm already bitter about new programmers 21:37:24 I'm 11 years further along. :) 21:37:39 been programming for 10-12 years I guess 21:37:50 what bothers me is that people start programming for the wrong reasons 21:37:54 or at least it seems like it 21:38:00 can't imagine what the reasons are for some people 21:38:02 maybe I should ask them 21:38:05 I've been at it for 25 years. Oh god, I wish I hadn't done the arithmetic on that. :) 21:40:10 I don't know, most people in the CS stream do it so they can get the degree. As to why they enter CS, the cynic in me thinks most of them chose it arbitrarily, figuring it might pay better than air-conditioning repair. 21:45:41 --- join: lolo406 (n=lgomesfr@ALyon-254-1-54-133.w86-194.abo.wanadoo.fr) joined #forth 21:49:03 --- join: neceve (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 21:53:21 --- quit: neceve (Remote closed the connection) 22:14:01 right 22:14:35 I think a lot of people do it because computers are cool or because they figure they can make good/easy money 22:14:50 think I liked it better what computers were not cool 22:15:00 Probably so. Unfortunately the process is not sufficiently rigorous to filter out those without actual ability. 22:15:44 --- quit: lolo406 (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 22:15:55 ability is part of it 22:16:05 but I wish I could filter on interests 22:16:08 --- join: neceve (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 22:16:26 I like the people who are intelligent, and interested in designing well 22:16:34 implementing, figuring out how things work, inventing 22:16:34 I've met many with appreciable interest and virtually no ability. PoppaVic comes to mind. 22:16:39 getting the nitty-gritty correct 22:16:56 not that sort of interest 22:17:04 and I did say intelligent >:) 22:17:25 Oh I see. Well, I suppose being able implies intelligence,yes. :) 22:17:40 I think being a good programmer is more than intelligence 22:17:55 Oh, I don't know. I think it good programming involves more than one kind of intelligence. 22:17:55 I think it is also what you are passionate about / interested in 22:18:28 I am often compelled to research details and fix them 22:18:49 or to spend 2 hours re-writing something so it's "right" even though it already works 22:18:55 OCD may be a common attribute, but I don't know if it's required :) 22:19:27 I write entire programs because I'm curious if some design/coding idea would work 22:19:33 or to see what happens 22:20:12 Yes, intellectual curiosity, and appreciate for detail, both important. 22:20:21 appreciation of detail, rather. 22:20:22 these excursions, while often not "productive" in the short term, turn people into experienced, productive, efficient, effective programmers 22:21:06 the major thing I think PoppaVic lacks (asside from a grasp on the english language) is an appreciation of details 22:21:53 He's a dreadful communicator, and I think that's the key problem. Programming is communication, and if you can't explain yourself to another human being, you're not likely to be able to do any better with a machine. 22:22:04 hehe :) 22:22:08 probably true 22:22:51 agreed 22:23:02 He's clearly motivated to communicate, or at least to type into the channel, but he uses words randomly, speaks in a private dialect of English, and refuses to clarify when asked to so do. 22:23:39 the process of breaking down a software idea into small enough bits that you can write code for them is very much like the process of organizing your thoughts about a topic/idea/concept in such a way that you can describe it to someone 22:23:45 So while he may have some idiot-savant talent wherein he turns to the computer to program, and suddenly the fog lifts and he writes brilliant code, I wouldn't bet on it. 22:24:02 lol 22:24:25 maybe we could find out by pretending to be an interpreter 22:24:35 I think you mean 'social worker'. 22:25:09 I have become extremely wary of programmers who can't spell, and don't read. 22:25:14 I mean responding with "bad command or filename" whenever he talks, unless by chance you could understand him 22:25:18 oh I see. :) 22:25:20 or "syntax error on line 1" 22:25:39 why spelling? 22:25:42 yes, "ambiguous syntax in clause 2 of sentence fragment 1." 22:25:49 Attention to detail. Effective communication. 22:25:49 very nice :) 22:26:06 good points 22:26:13 "autoshit: word not found" 22:26:25 perhaps you will make an exception with me because of my dyslexia 22:26:53 We all make typos. But of all the people who might have access to a spellchecker, do programmers have an excuse? 22:26:56 I have pretty good grammar though, and I am working on spelling. it does improve over the years 22:27:22 I spellcheck e-mails, and definitely websites 22:27:25 but not chat 22:28:23 This is informal communication, so some leeway is necessary, but there are many who step well over the line. They don't speak their native language properly; I can't imagine they've learned any second language any better than that. 22:28:33 Be it a computer language or not. 22:29:07 yeah 22:29:10 makes me wonder too 22:29:20 I think programmers should be able to touch type too :) 22:29:31 I agree. That comes down to being able to competently use the machine. 22:29:39 right 22:29:54 I don't mind some cut corners in the name of speed 22:30:06 such as not capitalizing the first word in a chat line, or using a period at the end 22:30:14 as seen in exhibit A 22:30:43 but replacing "you" with "u" bothers me, or leaving out quoting so that it's tricky to see what they're talking about is annoying 22:30:45 Sure, those are minutiae, and again this is informal communication. 22:31:18 Yes, I'm more concerned with tremendous grammatical errors, or a fundamental lack of vocabulary. 22:31:19 the "u" thing is perhaps a personal thing 22:31:28 it's just that I associate it with people being both annoying and stupid 22:31:38 And that's usually the case. 22:31:54 right. all the more reason not to type like that 22:32:05 Some people take pride in not being able to communicate well, though they phrase it differently than that. 22:32:22 It's a bit like corporate managers boasting that they know nothing about computers. 22:32:22 "idle hands"... 22:32:39 "congradufuckinglations" 22:32:57 "why not? are you stupid?" 22:33:40 I suppose if you thought computers were a complete waste of time that might be something to put some pride in 22:33:44 small amount 22:34:06 eg I sometimes have a tiny twinge of pride at knowing virtually nothing about popular sports figures/teams 22:34:14 I wouldn't equate the two things. 22:34:24 although I do sometimes enjoy guessing which sport a team name belongs to 22:35:24 If you were a sportscaster, I doubt you'd be claiming pride in knowing nothing about sports. Likewise someone in a modern corporate environment shouldn't boast at his incompetence at being able to operate the most fundamental and pervasive piece of office equipment. 22:37:18 hehe 22:37:31 rather like saying you don't know how to work the stapler 22:37:48 I have wondered why people say that sort of thing 22:37:54 perhaps they think it will amuse 22:38:10 or perhaps it's an involentary expression of who they are 22:38:38 I think they're taking on lofty airs, of being someone so far elevated above the petty activities of those who 'do' that they're worth the extra bucks. 22:39:25 weird stuff 22:39:36 I notice Quiznos rolled up his prayer-mat and left since telling us our failings yesterday. 22:39:41 I don't work for companies with such people 22:39:56 yeah? think he's gone for good? 22:40:22 Time will tell. 22:40:25 heh 22:40:49 I wouldn't be supriesed either way 22:41:17 we quite firmly told him he was wrong, then ranked on him for a while for being so close-minded/judgemental 22:41:40 Perhaps it'll do him some good. 22:42:02 you never know 22:42:08 there's always hope 22:42:21 "This lesson will be repeated until learned." 22:42:50 he will likely get that same sort of reaction most places he goes until he stops behaving like that 22:43:20 Which may be never, but I suppose there's always hope. 22:45:27 http://www.bartleby.com/66/48/24648.html 22:48:59 how odd 22:49:12 what's the context/attitude? 22:49:15 was she serious? 22:49:22 Yes, extremely serious. I agree with her. 22:50:35 huh 22:51:09 I came across it in looking for quotations surrounding the notition of programming standards. 22:51:12 notion, rather. 22:51:33 I think people should question all conventions, morals, beliefs, and thoughts 22:52:05 I think this is a good part of how people become wise and intelligent 22:52:55 Thinking about them, questioning them, all well and good. Avoiding them without understanding them -- acting before grokking, this is a cardinal intellectual error. 22:53:48 --- quit: virsys (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 22:53:49 in some cases yes 22:53:55 depends on how it's done 22:54:09 Acting in ignorance is always done the same way. :) 22:54:15 if you break the convention as an experiment, and pay attention to what happens, then this may be a quick way to learn the values of the convention 22:54:49 Oh, perhaps, if you understand it's an experiment, and it's not just simple arrogance at assuming your own assumed genius will prevail. 22:55:16 right 22:55:26 all in the attitude and perceptiveness 22:55:38 a lot of my most prized learnings about programming come from such experiments 22:56:17 but I program in a style I'm more confident about when I'm doing payed work 22:56:51 the quote makes a lot more sense to me in the context of computer programming 22:57:16 I was thinking about social customs while reading it 22:57:40 She's speaking of convention, and not custom, but I see what you mean. She wasn't a computer programmer, by any means. 22:57:55 I think a great first step in handling a custom that doesn't make sense to you is to ask people why 22:59:40 Here's a good one: http://www.bartleby.com/66/22/21022.html 22:59:53 just read up on the difference between "convention" and "custom" 22:59:59 this also makes the quote make more sense to me 23:02:17 strange wording 23:02:23 but I like the jist 23:03:25 I was re-reading the notes made in, I think '89, of Moore's talk to the Forth Standards committee, after he'd walked out during an earlier meeting. 23:03:29 basically: Being brave is not mean that you feel no fear, it means you act anyway. 23:03:51 Did I send the wrong quote? The one I intended was about inventors knowing there's more and better where that came from, from Emerson. 23:04:10 didn't see that 23:04:20 http://www.bartleby.com/66/22/21022.html takes me there 23:04:22 saw the definition of "undaunted" and a quote about bravery 23:04:42 NUMBER: 21022 23:04:44 ohh 23:04:46 well, there is brave-in-the-process-of, and brave-in-the-telling-of. People generally prefer the latter over the former, as these are boring: bravely getting slaughtered; deciding with perfect composure to not rescue the maiden. 23:05:26 Quartus: ahh, that I like 23:05:28 brave-in-the-telling-of focuses more on things like "I rescued the maiden!" and not "I wet my pants when the dragon roared at me!" 23:05:54 It's brave to admit to having wet your pants when the dragon roared. Plus it makes you harder to light. 23:06:19 oh, I didn't get the "l" at the end, and so it went to a totally different place 23:06:28 wish people weren't so affraid of giving 404 messages 23:06:35 still, an observer of in-the-process-of can think you less than perfectly brave. 23:06:50 the dragon, for instance. 23:06:53 hey, you only have to run faster than the other observer. 23:07:08 LOL ("harder to light") 23:08:16 a little bit of extra fire-resistance where it counts? 23:08:20 Right. 23:09:46 --- join: virsys (n=virsys@or-71-53-74-48.dhcp.embarqhsd.net) joined #forth 23:10:30 Chuck said: "I think ANS Forth will become the dominant dialect. Computer 23:10:31 Cowboys will not follow it. Shboom will likely be F-PC. cmFORTH is likely 23:10:31 to be peculiar." 23:10:45 Where are my plastic undies. 23:11:00 And we can look back. cmFORTH wasn't peculiar. ANS Forth is very much like F83 (and thus like F-PC). 23:12:15 guess I'm a Computer Cowboy 23:12:22 That was the name of the company. 23:12:27 or is that referring to a specific group? 23:12:37 ahh, that explains the capitalization :) 23:12:54 In Texas you'd be a chip roper. That is even funnier then you know. hehe :) 23:14:43 apparently 23:14:48 I don't know it's funny at all :) 23:15:44 Drugstore cowboys in Texas are known as ropers. Chips are what cattle leave on the ground. Computer Cowboy is a chip roper. 23:16:12 No matter how good a roper you are, your still dealing in computer shit. 23:17:09 autoshit? You are PoppaVic, and I claim my $5! 23:19:06 * Raystm2 counts out five hundred pennies... :( 23:23:33 My point is that Moore was rejecting, in advance, that which he (at that time) embraced fully. 23:24:12 I have no doubt the standard meetings were exasperating at times, mind you, especially in the early days. He didn't stay past BASIS5, I don't think. 23:26:17 he fully embrased what? when+ 23:26:31 he fully embraced what? and when? 23:26:46 F83, F-PC, and the subsequent implementation of a very straightfoward native-code compiler in cmForth. 23:28:23 He agreed fully that a standard was a good idea, mind you, but he'd decided as of basis5 that it wasn't going to work out in a direction he approved of. It did in the end, but I don't believe he ever revisited it. 23:29:09 --- join: AI_coder (n=AI@ip-209-124-242-76.dynamic.eatel.net) joined #forth 23:29:10 oh 23:29:30 you think the standard ended up doing what chuck wanted it to? 23:29:37 Anyone have an opinion on the joy programming language? I just found it here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_programming_language 23:30:05 AI_coder: I've heard some opinions around here, can't remember though 23:30:31 JasonWoof, yes, it reflects very well Chuck's work in Forth spanning two decades. He's gone on to other things that excite him, of course. 23:30:43 ai_coder - I don't care about it, but #concatenative does, and slava's Factor may be a more palatable version of what it offers. Also, UserRPL. 23:30:44 they were positive if iirc 23:30:54 --- quit: Raystm2 (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)) 23:32:20 From the Joy wikipedia page: "For instance, the number 5 is not, as it might appear to be, an integer constant, but instead a short program that pushes the number 5 onto the stack." That's true of Forth, as well. 23:33:44 also, Rebol. Indeed, the world has very many languages superficially but pleasingly familiar to Forth. 23:33:59 a bit like Prolog and Mercury/Erlang/Mozart, really. 23:34:52 people talked about Erlang in comp.lang.prolog for a while, actually, as if that made any sense. 23:36:19 --- join: Raystm2 (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-62-42.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth 23:37:49 ayrnieu: Erlang's antecedent was prolog. 23:37:52 I see werty in comp.lang.forth appears to believe he has invented direct threading. 23:39:24 ai_coder - yes, I was aware of that when I said what I just said. 23:41:02 ayrnieu: Which language do you code most in or enjoy most? 23:41:49 --- join: N-Dex (n=kevin@c-67-182-180-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 23:44:18 --- part: N-Dex left #forth 23:49:29 AI_coder: I code most in PHP, because it pays 23:49:33 I enjoy forth the most. 23:49:40 specifically my own forth 23:50:03 but it only runs on very odd machines 23:50:14 so you'll probably have to wait until my rewrite is finished 23:50:20 which should run on just about anything 23:50:36 ie an early test version was shown to work on even winblows 23:55:01 ok, that's all the work I'm doing. back to http://www.chroniclogic.com/index.htm?triptych.htm 23:55:18 JasonWoof: What language are you writing your own forth in? 23:56:29 You do the php for triptych? 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/06.09.10