00:00:00 --- log: started forth/07.01.01
00:38:53 --- quit: virsys ("bah")
01:00:47 --- quit: JasonWoof ("off to bed")
02:15:33 --- join: virsys (n=virsys@or-71-53-68-17.dhcp.embarqhsd.net) joined #forth
02:37:51 --- quit: ASau (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
02:50:11 --- join: ASau (n=user@home-pool-173-2.com2com.ru) joined #forth
02:58:52 --- join: Cheery (n=Cheery@a81-197-54-146.elisa-laajakaista.fi) joined #forth
02:59:47 --- join: Al2O3 (n=Al2O3@pool-71-164-165-172.dllstx.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth
05:06:02 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth
05:06:02 --- mode: ChanServ set +o tathi
06:46:45 --- join: ygrek (i=user@gateway/tor/x-d4d05f229c64138a) joined #forth
07:18:59 --- join: gorgonzola (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
07:20:06 --- quit: gorgonzola (Client Quit)
07:23:57 --- join: gorgonzola (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
07:24:18 --- quit: gorgonzola (Client Quit)
07:24:39 --- join: gorgonzola (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
07:24:53 <ASau> Good evening!
07:25:33 <gorgonzola> It's 16:18:02 here ..
07:25:48 <ASau> 6pm here.
07:33:27 <Raystm2> Good day to all. 9:25 or there about.
07:35:38 <Raystm2> Quartus in today?
07:47:56 <tathi> Raystm2: he doesn't usually seem to be here this time of day; maybe in a few hours
07:48:49 <Raystm2> oh tathi...
07:49:24 <Raystm2> thanks btw. :)
07:52:29 <Raystm2> tathi did you quit?
07:52:53 <tathi> I'm still here
07:53:14 <Raystm2> Burke's work is the history of technology but from the point of view where each invention begat that invention.
07:53:36 <Raystm2> The chat is set up to watch those programs and discuss.
07:53:47 <tathi> I don't have the technology to watch those programs
07:53:53 <tathi> and I'm not much interested in the subject anyway
07:53:54 <Raystm2> Sorry. :)
07:53:59 <Raystm2> ok. :)
07:54:18 <Raystm2> Ignore my last half hour then. :)
07:54:47 <tathi> ok :)
07:55:13 <Raystm2> Quartus has met him.
07:55:35 <tathi> ah
07:58:52 <Raystm2> I know you may not be interested in this but I think that the productions of 3 men can give a person a pretty good handle on all that can be known, and these men are, James Burke, Sience and Technology historian, Joseph Campbell, The history of the transformation of myth thru time, and Carl Sagan, history of the universe. But then, that's all opinion and there is plenty of room for more.
08:00:57 --- join: frunobulax (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
08:08:48 <Raystm2> Btw, none of those guys are an attack on anyones religious beliefs.
08:10:54 --- quit: gorgonzola (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
08:51:04 --- join: madgarden_ (n=madgarde@bas2-kitchener06-1096668571.dsl.bell.ca) joined #forth
08:52:54 <Quartus_> hey
08:57:42 <ASau> Whats up?
09:00:09 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
09:02:38 --- join: Quartus___ (n=Quartus_@205.205.50.2) joined #forth
09:08:16 <Raystm2> Quartus: are you a James Burke fan?
09:09:02 --- join: neceve (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth
09:11:39 --- quit: Quartus_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
09:22:31 <ASau> Who is James Burke?
09:22:43 <ASau> RTWP?
09:23:47 <Raystm2> Technology Historian with a bit of humor.
09:24:26 --- quit: ellisway (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
09:25:00 <ASau> No doubt he has some philosophical background.
09:25:45 <ASau> Technocratic, "luddite" or any other.
09:25:51 <Raystm2> :)
09:25:58 <ASau> Which one?
09:26:58 <Raystm2> More a reporter of events then steering any particular point of view, instead using them all to support the thesis of the connection between events, meaning that invention is concatenative by nature.
09:27:54 <ASau> Invention as product of community not an inventor. Right?
09:27:55 <Quartus___> We talked about Burke, Ray. I met him a few years back.
09:28:44 <Raystm2> Are you away, Quartus? or can you view his movies. Links at /join ##Burke.
09:29:21 <Quartus___> no movies from here.
09:29:39 <Raystm2> Links are there for your convenience.
09:30:08 <Quartus___> I'll check'em out when I can!
09:31:08 <ASau> The problem with all these links is that it is a lot of reading.
09:31:25 <Raystm2> 2 series posted it appears by Burke himself. The day the universe changed and the entire first connections.
09:31:31 <Raystm2> :)
09:32:09 <Quartus___> neat!
09:32:40 <Raystm2> very. I'm starting to sicken of him i've been watching him for hours.
09:35:45 --- join: Raystm2- (n=NanRay@adsl-69-149-34-42.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net) joined #forth
09:37:05 <Raystm2-> Little Kitty likes to eat my net connection.
09:37:54 --- quit: Raystm2 (Nick collision from services.)
09:38:23 --- nick: Raystm2- -> Raystm2
10:14:41 --- join: nighty__ (n=nighty@sushi.rural-networks.com) joined #forth
10:30:57 --- quit: nighty (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
11:23:39 --- join: ellisway (n=ellis@host-87-74-241-174.bulldogdsl.com) joined #forth
11:24:25 --- quit: cmeme (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
11:25:05 --- join: cmeme (n=cmeme@boa.b9.com) joined #forth
11:25:59 --- quit: cmeme (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
11:27:51 --- join: cmeme (n=cmeme@boa.b9.com) joined #forth
11:41:05 --- join: BirdReynolds (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
11:52:23 --- join: arke_ (n=chris@pD9E0786F.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
12:03:05 --- quit: arke (Nick collision from services.)
12:03:08 --- nick: arke_ -> arke
12:03:13 --- mode: ChanServ set +o arke
12:03:55 --- quit: BirdReynolds ("a quit that really quits")
12:04:44 --- join: BirdReynolds (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
12:06:01 --- join: jackokring (n=jackokri@static-195-248-105-144.adsl.hotchilli.net) joined #forth
12:16:09 <frunobulax> Not really Forth related, sorry. Does anybody know how to locate plotter files on the 'net? I need some more to test my Forth vector plot package. Example: http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/deBruijn/grafiek/cocktl.htm . Color would be nice too.
12:32:38 --- quit: ygrek ()
12:50:44 * tathi doesn't know...
12:50:54 <Quartus> what, hpgl plotter files?
12:52:51 <frunobulax> What's ACTION ?
12:53:01 <Quartus> huh?
12:54:12 <frunobulax> Tathi said "ACTION doesn't know..."
12:54:27 <Quartus> no, he didn't. He used /me
12:54:56 <tathi> oh, sorry.
12:55:05 <tathi> forgot you were using nano-irc
12:55:33 <tathi> that shows up as "* tathi doesn't know" on my irc client
12:56:23 <BirdReynolds> Aha. More work to do. I guess non-ascii can be used for commands.
12:56:26 <absentia> action is a programing language?
12:56:45 * absentia says this is an action.
12:56:54 <tathi> absentia: there you go :)
12:59:33 <tathi> http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/rfc/ctcpspec.html
12:59:53 <absentia>  ^Acommand
13:00:04 <tathi> heh.  'This is used by losers on IRC to simulate "role playing" games.'
13:00:08 <absentia> you use to be able to send a message to a channel like that, and people would reply ... ^APING
13:01:25 <absentia> you could cause people to get themselves kicked off for flodding by having then respond to multiple pings... ^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^A^APING .. etc.  irc was such a playground.
13:02:58 --- quit: Quartus___ ("used jmIrc")
13:05:27 --- join: Quartus_ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth
13:05:27 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus_
13:24:23 --- quit: Quartus (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
13:27:53 --- join: Quartus (n=trailer@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM013349902843.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth
13:27:53 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus
14:02:36 --- join: JasonWoof (n=jason@c-71-192-26-248.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth
14:02:36 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof
14:03:38 --- join: Crest (n=crest@p54896A89.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
14:40:22 --- quit: frunobulax ("a quit that really quits")
14:40:35 --- join: frunobulax (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
14:42:11 --- quit: BirdReynolds ("a quit that really quits")
14:42:22 --- join: BirdReynolds (n=mhx@f233149.upc-f.chello.nl) joined #forth
14:43:38 <frunobulax> Could anybody let go of a /me ?
14:48:11 --- quit: Crest (Connection reset by peer)
14:49:59 * crc tests 
14:50:22 --- quit: Cheery ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/")
14:51:24 --- quit: jackokring (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
14:52:41 <frunobulax> Thanks crc. It's almost ok, it's RPN :-(
14:52:44 * absentia is here.
15:08:25 --- quit: frunobulax ("a quit that really quits")
15:08:48 --- quit: BirdReynolds ("a quit that really quits")
15:29:45 --- join: jackokring (n=jackokri@static-195-248-105-144.adsl.hotchilli.net) joined #forth
16:00:14 --- quit: jackokring (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
16:26:48 --- join: Amanita_Virosa (n=jenni@adsl-70-248-239-251.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net) joined #forth
16:48:32 --- join: Crest (n=crest@p54896A89.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth
16:50:00 <ASau> Hi, Jen!
16:50:10 <ASau> Happy New Year!
16:50:58 <Amanita_Virosa> hiya :)  happy new year to you too :)
16:51:13 <Amanita_Virosa> i've been implementing crypto routines :
16:51:13 <Amanita_Virosa> :)
16:51:20 <ASau> Cool!
16:51:40 <ASau> MDn?
16:51:55 <ASau> Or something more complex?
16:52:03 <Amanita_Virosa> i implemented MD5 ages ago... tho i should add it to my lib soon
16:52:05 <Amanita_Virosa> did SHA1 today
16:52:09 <Amanita_Virosa> ARCFOUR recently
16:52:24 <Amanita_Virosa> today i designed a generic hash interface
16:52:34 <Amanita_Virosa> so i can use any hash function i want, whenever i want
16:52:48 <virl> in forth or C?
16:52:54 <Amanita_Virosa> probably going to write a little program like md5sum that lets me choose the hash type
16:52:55 <Amanita_Virosa> in C...
16:52:56 <ASau> I think, in Forth.
16:53:12 <Amanita_Virosa> with a bit of asm for support
16:53:17 <Amanita_Virosa> i do most of my performance-intensive code that way
16:53:49 <ASau> Well, NetBSD cksum support several hashes.
16:54:03 <ASau> IIRC, MD5, RMD256, SHA1
16:54:13 <ASau> Let me see...
16:54:56 <ASau> MD2, MD4, MD5, SHA256, SHA512, SHA384
16:55:17 <Amanita_Virosa> *nods*
16:55:26 <ASau> Have you seen that?
16:55:34 <Amanita_Virosa> nope, i haven't... but it sounds like what i'm writing
16:56:47 <Amanita_Virosa> my sha1 routine performs as well as sha1sum, which is based on the gpg sha1 routine
16:56:48 <Amanita_Virosa> so i
16:56:58 --- log: started forth/07.01.01
16:56:58 --- join: clog (n=nef@bespin.org) joined #forth
16:56:58 --- topic: 'Welcome to #forth. We discuss the Forth programming language and a variety of technical subjects. Introduction: http://tinyurl.com/kvawv | Starting Forth: http://tinyurl.com/rm7pq | Thinking Forth: http://tinyurl.com/nsy4j | Gforth compiler: http://tinyurl.com/s8uho | ANS/ISO Forth Standard doc: http://tinyurl.com/nx7dx | http://quartus.net/search | Paste: http://forth.pastebin.ca'
16:56:58 --- topic: set by Quartus on [Sat Nov 25 22:45:21 2006]
16:56:58 --- names: list (clog warpzero Crest Amanita_Virosa @JasonWoof @Quartus @Quartus_ @arke cmeme ellisway nighty__ Raystm2 neceve madgarden_ @tathi Al2O3 ASau virsys @crc nighty_ skas_wk virl ayrnieu TreyB Baughn Sukoshi absentia Zarutian ccfg timlarson)
16:57:39 <ASau> And I'm messing with DragonForth sources these days.
16:57:48 <Amanita_Virosa> cool, what's dragonforth?
16:57:50 <ASau> I have to port them to Gforth.
16:57:50 <Amanita_Virosa> dragonball?
16:58:16 <ASau> Originally, it was for PalmOS/DragonBall.
16:58:23 * Amanita_Virosa nods
16:58:41 <Amanita_Virosa> forth has a weird habit of being more portable than you expect, less portable than you desire
16:58:57 <Raystm2> Well put.
16:59:04 <ASau> But since more recent Palms emulate M68K, it works on
16:59:04 <ASau> Tungstens etc.
16:59:59 * Amanita_Virosa nods
17:00:25 <Amanita_Virosa> i know i ported someone's version of Conway's Game of Life to my own FORTH system once...
17:00:36 <Amanita_Virosa> took about an hour, but once the words were substituted, up it came
17:00:38 <ASau> One big disadvantage of RuFIG is it's closely tighten with SP-Forth.
17:01:11 <ASau> It has several extensions which dictate quite another coding style.
17:01:17 <Amanita_Virosa> ah
17:01:56 <ASau> Interpreter searches for "NOTFOUND" word after all,
17:02:23 <ASau> and interpretes it, if found.
17:02:28 <ASau> ...when found.
17:03:09 <ASau> So you don't need predefined hook in your INTERPRET or what
17:03:09 <ASau> you have there.
17:03:48 <ASau> Syntax extensions are easy to define.
17:04:04 <ASau> Now I have a dilemma:
17:04:20 <ASau> a) defint SP-Forth compatible interpreter in Gforth;
17:04:54 <ASau> b) translate (redesign) code so it doesn't use our Russian extensions.
17:05:09 <Amanita_Virosa> sweet.
17:05:19 <Quartus> if all you want to do is add a search for 'NOTFOUND', that's easy.
17:05:23 <ASau> Just to add to all these: code is rather chaotic.
17:05:37 <ASau> Quartus: I know.
17:06:18 <ASau> But if I want to clean the code, see above, it's rather chaotic,
17:06:40 <ASau> I maybe have to redesign it anyway.
17:06:53 <Quartus> oh, you mean your SP-Forth code.
17:07:17 <ASau> DragonForth is target-compiled from SP-Forth.
17:08:14 <ASau> Yes, I mean SP-Forth code.
17:08:49 <ASau> ...SP-Forth-specific DragonForth code, to be precise.
17:09:20 <ASau> Or how is it?
17:09:31 <ASau> Oh, those metacompilers.
17:36:33 <Quartus_> chaotic how?
17:39:01 <ASau> It is not well structured, many long definitions,
17:39:01 <ASau> definitions are scattered without any system.
17:39:11 <Quartus_> ugh.
17:40:08 <ASau> Well, I'm going to sleep.
17:40:15 <Quartus_> I remember two things about DragonForth, one being that the developer stole several Quartus Forth library files, the other being that he would advertise for it on my discussion forum.
17:40:31 <ASau> Good morning.
17:40:40 <Quartus_> I'm not at all surprised to hear it's badly written.
17:40:51 <ASau> I try to fix it.
17:41:01 <ASau> But after I sleep a bit.
17:41:30 <ASau> Sorry, I have to leave you.
17:41:44 <Quartus_> likely a waste of time, 'polishing a turd' as they say. But what the heck.
17:41:51 <Quartus_> ok, bye
17:42:44 <ASau> You may look at CVS source, and write me if you don't want
17:42:44 <ASau> to see particular library file in distribution.
17:43:30 <Quartus_> perhaps I shall. I recall the Doc reader specifically was mine, taken without permission or attribution, with my name stripped out.
17:44:08 <Quartus_> the Doc decompression library, that is.
17:44:19 <ASau> I've written replacement, but not placed it in CVS.
17:44:58 <Quartus_> also the integer trig routines, but I'd have to review it to recall exactly.
17:45:16 <ASau> I remember there was annoying bug, I had to fix.
17:45:30 <Quartus_> he was an extremely unpleasant little man. Dmitry something-or-other I think.
17:46:25 <Quartus_> arrogant, untalented, rude, with a very poor command of English.
17:48:29 <Quartus_> 'Nyet cultura' I think is the phrase.
17:48:56 --- quit: neceve (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
17:49:37 <absentia> Nyet Culpa
17:50:40 <Quartus_> 'ne culturny', rather.  'Uncultured', but it carries more weight untranslated.
17:51:27 <Quartus_> anyway. What are you up to, absentia?
17:51:51 --- quit: tathi ("leaving")
17:53:46 <absentia> reading slashdot to unwind... found the post about the imminent relase of d 1.0
17:54:41 <absentia> came across this line -- so I was looking at it:  http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguagesVersusD
17:54:59 <absentia> you might want to add a column for forth
17:55:08 <absentia> I don't know enough 'bout forth to do so.
17:55:13 <Quartus_> I can't easily bring up that page on this gadget.
17:55:24 <absentia> it's a table.
17:55:27 <absentia> colorful table.
17:56:13 <absentia> this is the column header:  
17:56:15 <absentia> Feature D C C++ C# Java Delphi Eiffel Ada Haskell Sather Lisp/CLOS Smalltalk Perl Python Ruby
17:57:37 <Quartus_> I'm reminded of the Atari vs. C64 ads that had 'number of keys' listed as a feature.
17:58:25 <Quartus_> most of those languages are OO. Isn't D a C++ variant?
17:59:02 <Amanita_Virosa> not quite...  it's closer to a C# variant
17:59:11 <Amanita_Virosa> god, i don't need more drool-worthy languages
17:59:18 <Amanita_Virosa> i hate it when my programming system treats me like an idiot
17:59:19 <Quartus_> so a java variant, once removed.
17:59:21 <absentia> the page was created to show benefits of D, so it has some esoteric / minimal things on it
17:59:27 <Amanita_Virosa> i like my C and my inline asm and my forth
17:59:44 <absentia> ya, atari was way better :-)  1.79 Mhz... that .79 really rocked.. lets not forget GTIA, ANTIC, etc.
18:00:06 <absentia> I looked at it -- I figured I'd rather go C++ than D ....  :-/
18:00:13 <Quartus_> I have no problem with oo as a specific programming technique, but I have very little interest in languages that force it.
18:00:41 <Amanita_Virosa> quartus_ - exactly
18:00:45 <absentia> I also think people give it more value than it should... ie: EVERYTHING has to be OO, etc.
18:00:48 <Amanita_Virosa> i use a lot of OO-like techniques in C
18:00:58 <Amanita_Virosa> but not exclusively
18:01:23 <Quartus_> You can do oo in forth too, pretty neatly. Good fit for some problems.  Some.
18:01:27 <absentia> what's hard ... is to make EVERYTHING oo..  you can make some really good parts of programs have really good object models, but it's difficult to force everything into an "object"
18:01:35 <absentia> and comeout with good object design.
18:02:09 <absentia> although I haven'tgoten into it deeply, it seems that i'll like the LISP OO model the best.
18:02:10 * Amanita_Virosa nods
18:02:37 <JasonWoof> I haven't looked into it much
18:02:53 <JasonWoof> but it seems like there are many, very extensive efforts to make a good OO model/language
18:03:02 <JasonWoof> and mostly people say they are terrible and/or broken
18:03:14 <JasonWoof> so it must be hard! ;)
18:03:19 <JasonWoof> that or people are stupid
18:03:25 <Amanita_Virosa> well, the paradigm is rather broken, to be honest
18:03:33 <Amanita_Virosa> the whole idea of OO is to make stupid people write better code
18:03:35 <JasonWoof> :) could be
18:03:38 <JasonWoof> there are other possibilities
18:03:50 <Amanita_Virosa> that's what java, C#, and most of the new languages are about
18:04:03 <absentia> I mostly use it to provide interfaces -- to keep people OFF (ie: away from) my data.
18:04:28 <JasonWoof> absentia: you don't need OO for that
18:04:38 <JasonWoof> just tell them you'll bean them over the head if they access it directly
18:04:43 <Amanita_Virosa> OO doesn't actually give you any protection for your data...
18:04:53 --- quit: Quartus_ ("used jmIrc")
18:04:53 <Amanita_Virosa> private:  and // private   mean the same  thing
18:04:54 <absentia> right, butt I'm saying -- in OO -- that's what I find valuable... the most.  
18:05:09 <Amanita_Virosa> if you have coders who go around that, you've got organizational problems
18:05:14 <JasonWoof> absentia: and we're saying you can do it just as easily without OO
18:05:20 <absentia> I know you can.
18:05:21 --- join: Quartus_ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth
18:05:22 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus_
18:05:35 <JasonWoof> in most languages, You can make an API, and give it out to people
18:05:57 <JasonWoof> in C you put everything you want people to call in the .h file
18:05:59 <absentia> I'm saying -- I don't use oo just for that -- but I don't always need oo -- but when I do do OO -- I do slam the door shut on public access to what shouldotherwise be private data.
18:06:01 <JasonWoof> and your private crap in the .c file
18:07:13 <Quartus_> in Forth it's as simple as using modules.
18:07:30 <Amanita_Virosa> if you really want to protect your structures, just encrypt your data structure with ARCFOUR
18:07:43 <Amanita_Virosa> :P
18:08:08 <Quartus_> heh. I actually do use that very technique in one Palm app.
18:08:16 <JasonWoof> it's not like you can really FORCE people not to access your stuff directly
18:08:37 <Amanita_Virosa> quartus - i'm not really surprised... it's a technique that actually *does* work.
18:08:38 <JasonWoof> even if you have some kind of language feature that turns off public access, they can just delete that line from your source code
18:08:50 <Amanita_Virosa> JasonWoof - or just use pointer tricks to get around it
18:09:06 <Quartus_> I use arcfour to scramble memory on exit from a password-generating app.
18:09:19 <Amanita_Virosa> why?
18:09:31 <Amanita_Virosa> i'd expect that would be considerably less secure than just blanking that memory
18:10:04 <Quartus_> To prevent another app from determining any clues as to the generated password. Palm apps share data space.
18:10:04 <Amanita_Virosa> because if you had the key, you could recover the data... whereas if you blank the memory, you can't recover anything without sophisticated electronics, and even then it's generally impossible
18:10:18 <Amanita_Virosa> yes, i get that. why not just blank the memory?
18:11:05 <Quartus_> The key is random and wiped. The OS  memory-blanking routine could be intercepted.
18:11:31 <Quartus_> of course I could write my own blanking routine.
18:12:04 <Amanita_Virosa> wouldn't it be like 4 instructions?
18:12:13 --- join: zpg (n=user@81-179-106-187.dsl.pipex.com) joined #forth
18:12:23 <Quartus_> in 68k? Few more.
18:12:30 <zpg> Hi.
18:12:32 <Quartus_> hey zpg
18:12:41 <Amanita_Virosa> probably not many more...
18:13:16 <Quartus_> At any rate this was all Forth.  It works well.
18:13:19 <zpg> hi Quartus_
18:13:40 <Amanita_Virosa> fair enough
18:14:58 <Quartus_> Each run's scramble differs, so the next app couldn't even guess that the last app was the password app.  Overkill of course, especially for a free password generator, but fun. :)
18:15:45 <Amanita_Virosa> hehe
18:16:12 <Quartus_> I use that generator all the time, actually. Very handy.  PassPhrase.
18:17:51 <Quartus_> what's up zpg?
18:18:20 <zpg> not much, about halfway through the king book and just tried my hand at rolling struct{ 
18:18:23 <zpg> very clean stuff
18:18:29 <zpg> messed around with >IN a bit too
18:18:37 <zpg> yourself?
18:18:51 <Quartus_> you can write interpreter loops using >in
18:19:26 <zpg> yep
18:19:39 <zpg> my test code was quite neat -- basically capturing the string that's been CREATE'd
18:19:55 <zpg> : create: >in @ create >in ! bl parse type ;
18:20:14 <Quartus_> 0 1+ dup . dup 10 = 35 and 2 + >in ! cr drop
18:36:37 --- quit: virl (Remote closed the connection)
18:43:19 --- join: slava (n=slava@CPE0080ad77a020-CM000e5cdfda14.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth
18:43:20 --- mode: ChanServ set +o slava
19:12:43 <JasonWoof> Quartus_: I don't get it. you print "1 \n" and set >in to 2
19:12:51 <JasonWoof> Quartus_: how's that a parser?
19:14:02 <Quartus_> did you try it?
19:14:53 <JasonWoof> wow
19:15:44 <JasonWoof> and there I was assuming you were putting that in a definition
19:16:06 <JasonWoof> hehe
19:16:25 <JasonWoof> now I see a totally different meaning of "interpreter loops"
19:16:25 <zpg> it's neat alright.
19:19:45 <Quartus_> heh
19:19:46 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: OO has nothing to do with stupid people writing code
19:20:07 <JasonWoof> slava: sure it does
19:20:42 <JasonWoof> oo attempts to make programming more idiot-proof
19:20:44 <slava> there are various definitions of OO, but usually they include message sending, encapsulation, polymorphism, inheritance
19:20:55 <slava> which of these four have anything to do with stupid people writing code?
19:21:06 <Amanita_Virosa> hehe
19:21:20 <Amanita_Virosa> to be honest, by themselves, nothing
19:21:24 <Amanita_Virosa> but C can do all of those things
19:21:47 <Amanita_Virosa> the idiot-friendly OO also includes many other things...  garbage collection, object management, etc
19:22:02 <Quartus> Encapsulation is arguably a mechanism to protect the programmer from himself.  Polymorphism derives from that.
19:22:10 <Amanita_Virosa> there's some truth there
19:22:13 <slava> polymorphism can be had without encapsulation
19:22:26 <Amanita_Virosa> tho there are also ways of using those things without such protection
19:22:27 <slava> polymorphism is when you can have one word with multiple behaviors specialized on data type
19:22:28 <Quartus> True, but with encapsulation in an OO language, polymorphism becomes required.
19:22:37 * JasonWoof looks up polymorphism
19:22:51 <slava> JasonWoof: eg, a 'draw' word which can receive a rectangle or a circle
19:23:00 <Quartus> JasonWoof, that's where, say, + works on more than one data type
19:24:16 <Quartus> message sending is required after certain kinds of encapsulation are mandatory, as well.
19:24:30 <Amanita_Virosa> i like polymorphism...  but it's just a syntactically sweetened version of indirection
19:24:41 <Amanita_Virosa> i don't care for syntactic aspertame, myself
19:24:56 <Quartus> As I said -- I have no objection to OO as a programming technique, I just don't have much time for languages that require it.
19:25:07 <Amanita_Virosa> i can set up all the virtual functions and derived structures i want in C
19:25:10 <Amanita_Virosa> and i do it, when there's a point
19:25:17 <slava> it takes more effort
19:25:41 <Amanita_Virosa> not really.
19:25:46 <Amanita_Virosa> it takes more thinking
19:25:48 <Amanita_Virosa> but not more effort
19:25:55 <slava> ok, more thinking.
19:26:06 <JasonWoof> qed
19:26:08 <Quartus> Thus the OO languages take less thinking, thus they're dumbed down. :)
19:26:11 <Amanita_Virosa> you need to understand the language and programming better to do it in C.
19:26:15 <Amanita_Virosa> heh exactly Quartus :)
19:26:30 <slava> not really. if you do it in C, you will spend more time fiddling with the language than solving your problem
19:26:31 <Quartus> In fact I think it's a trap.  Good OO design is very hard.
19:26:42 <slava> it is, and so is good functional design, good procedural design, etc.
19:27:05 <Amanita_Virosa> i don't know, i've gotten burned by OO on many occasions...  in C, you have to think about the performance critical aspects
19:27:10 <JasonWoof> I think if you have a good language, time spent fiddling with the language is a very good thing
19:27:10 <Amanita_Virosa> because it doesn't just gloss over them for you
19:27:16 <Quartus> Yes, they all are different kinds of hard.  I've found personally that with OO, you can paint yourself into a corner but not realize it till far later than you would with a procedural approach.
19:27:24 <Amanita_Virosa> sometimes in VHLL's, you just end up writing horrible code because it doesn't TELL you that it's going to be horrible
19:27:32 <Amanita_Virosa> good libraries make C quite easy to write in
19:27:34 <slava> horrible by what criterion?
19:27:52 <Amanita_Virosa> slow.  or bloated.  or high-order.
19:27:58 <Amanita_Virosa> either is bad
19:28:01 <Amanita_Virosa> high-order is worse than bad
19:28:05 <slava> what is 'high-order'?
19:28:15 <Amanita_Virosa> > O(n log n)
19:28:47 <slava> i don't see why
19:29:06 <Amanita_Virosa> you don't see why what?
19:29:20 <slava> a high level language would make it easy to write O(n^2) algorithms
19:29:39 <Quartus> Does pay to know what mechanisms are at work beneath the hood.  I once sped up a report generator by a factor of 60000, correcting for a flaw in the design of the original.  They hadn't taken 'under the hood' behaviours into account.
19:29:49 <slava> sure
19:29:49 <Amanita_Virosa> because a lot of first-class primitives often have routines that are O(n) or worse
19:29:52 <Amanita_Virosa> and they don't mention that
19:30:01 <Amanita_Virosa> quartus - EXACTLY
19:30:08 <Amanita_Virosa> i like C...  i write all my own under-the-hood code
19:30:13 <Amanita_Virosa> so i know how it ALL works
19:30:18 <slava> what kind of things do you program in C?
19:30:22 <Amanita_Virosa> there's never any nasty side-effects that i'm not aware of
19:30:30 <Quartus> The original report took 4 days; my replacement routine took 6 seconds.
19:30:33 <slava> i get the same by working in my own language, i know how everything works
19:30:49 <Amanita_Virosa> slava - you name it, really...  video processing, audio, compression, encryption, network servicves...
19:31:36 <Quartus> Some languages are all hood.
19:31:40 <Amanita_Virosa> err, that should read 'services'.
19:31:41 <Amanita_Virosa> hehe
19:32:10 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: do you program in forth?
19:32:17 <Amanita_Virosa> sometimes
19:32:24 <Amanita_Virosa> i've written a bunch of different FORTH systems
19:32:26 <slava> do you use C most of the time?
19:32:35 <Amanita_Virosa> wrote a complete self-booting OS using nothing but nasm once
19:32:36 <slava> i'm referring to forth applications, not systems (unless you also write C systems)
19:32:38 <Amanita_Virosa> 32-bit protected mode
19:32:49 <Amanita_Virosa> i write applications and systems
19:33:03 <Amanita_Virosa> most of my current C code is in the systems end...  low-level libraries, etc
19:33:09 <JasonWoof> Quartus: I think that's very similar to one of my major concerns with oo programming: often people get caught up in how their objects are going to interract, instead of thinking about what really needs to happen
19:33:09 <slava> so why C and not forth?
19:33:25 <Quartus> JasonWoof, that's another aspect of the difficulty, to be sure.
19:33:38 <slava> JasonWoof: have you written any non-trivial applications in a language which claims to support OOP?
19:33:49 <Amanita_Virosa> i like forth for applications where i need a lot of dynamic coding
19:33:51 <JasonWoof> forth sure seems to "force" me to spend more time on things that I can ignore in most languages
19:33:53 <Amanita_Virosa> lots of flexibility
19:33:55 <Amanita_Virosa> or a small footprint
19:33:58 <Amanita_Virosa> my first OS was in FORTH
19:34:02 <Amanita_Virosa> i've since written a few kernels in C
19:34:09 <Amanita_Virosa> they each have advantages
19:34:15 <Amanita_Virosa> tho i write much better C code after learning FORTH that well
19:34:19 <JasonWoof> but I find that quite offten this pushes me to think about something very important. before I waste time on and implementation/design that in the end I won't  be able to use
19:34:39 <slava> java is not a good example of an oo language
19:34:53 <JasonWoof> sometimes the cushy features make it easy to not think about such things, until it's too late
19:34:55 <Quartus> It sure is prevalent, though.
19:35:26 <Amanita_Virosa> JasonWoof - *exactly*
19:35:42 <slava> JasonWoof: that would be a flaw of the programmer, not the tools
19:35:59 <Amanita_Virosa> well, i heard a statement once
19:36:05 <Amanita_Virosa> C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot
19:36:12 <Amanita_Virosa> C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow the whole leg off
19:36:18 <slava> C++ is terrible
19:36:34 <Amanita_Virosa> really?  C++ is the best of the bunch for OO languages i've used to date.
19:36:43 * zpg shudders
19:36:44 <slava> i don't like languages with complex syntax
19:36:48 <Quartus> slava, you're narrowing the field for OO quite a bit.  Knock off Java, C++, C#, and you're starting to wander into outer darkness.
19:37:02 <slava> i didn't knock off java and c++, i just said they're not among my favorite languages.
19:37:05 <zpg> I still have a lot of time for Smalltalk.
19:37:09 <JasonWoof> there's a lot to be said for being a good programmer in general, but the language generally does effect how you do things
19:37:12 <slava> java certainly is an OO language, but it has other problems
19:37:21 <zpg> Smalltalk having a very simple syntax to boot.
19:37:23 <JasonWoof> in fact, often the best thing to do is to do something in a way that suits the language you're using
19:37:33 <Amanita_Virosa> i started in basic, then moved to C++... got good at programming, and moved to C.
19:37:44 <Amanita_Virosa> and pretty much stayed with C, although i've used a whole ton of other languages for special purposes
19:38:01 <Amanita_Virosa> (FORTH, a whack of script languages, a whack of embedded assemblers and inline assembly on x86... etc)
19:38:01 <slava> common lisp has a very nice object system
19:38:29 <JasonWoof> slava: I'm not sure I've written anything non-trivial in oo
19:38:48 <JasonWoof> slava: I've written non-trivial stuff in languages that support oo, but didn't use much of it
19:38:57 <slava> JasonWoof: no offense then, but you only have anecdotal evidence in this case...
19:38:59 <Quartus> I've written OO solutions, but I try to avoid OO languages.
19:39:15 <JasonWoof> my first major programming project had some C++ object
19:39:18 <JasonWoof> which I later regretted
19:39:43 <slava> to me, polymorphism is the most important aspect of OO and its the only one i really use
19:39:50 <Amanita_Virosa> i've written at least one MAJOR OO solution and spent many years with C++
19:39:51 <JasonWoof> slava: what I've done a lot of is try to find bugs in OO code
19:39:52 <slava> i like writing generic code
19:39:54 <JasonWoof> slava: which is a nightmare
19:40:07 <JasonWoof> perhaps this is only C vs C++
19:40:12 <Amanita_Virosa> i actually ended up finding bugs in gcc on a relatively regular basis
19:40:18 <Amanita_Virosa> (i tended to push C++ to the limits...)
19:40:22 <slava> i've found a small handful of bugs in gcc
19:40:26 <slava> the C compiler, though
19:40:32 <slava> they're all fixed as of 3.4
19:40:39 <zpg> The OOP model didn't really make that much sense when I looked at C++ -- not aided by a bad source-book no doubt, which left me wondering why any of the examples were being implemented as classes when they clearly needn't be. C written in C++.
19:40:51 <JasonWoof> but, in my experience. C++ is 3x harder to debug, takes what? 6x longer to compile, and has 9x more bugs
19:40:52 <Amanita_Virosa> i've not found any in the C compiler, but the C++ compiler is under such active development that it's like swiss cheese in places
19:41:00 <Amanita_Virosa> the templating engine took a long while to stabilize
19:41:25 <slava> JasonWoof: did you implement the exact same program in C and C++ to compare bug counts?
19:41:32 <Amanita_Virosa> i guess after learning minimalism in FORTH, i just moved to C whole-heartedly
19:41:40 <Amanita_Virosa> i didn't bother with C++ again after using FORTH
19:41:47 <Amanita_Virosa> well after writing my FORTH OS anyway
19:41:47 <zpg> Amanita_Virosa: why FORTH -> C?
19:42:05 <Amanita_Virosa> zpg - FORTH taught me several useful design techniques that have helped me a lot in C
19:42:13 <Amanita_Virosa> but FORTH is also a bit slow to develop large applications in
19:42:19 <slava> why is that?
19:42:19 <JasonWoof> slava: no, as I said, I've not done anything extensive with OO
19:42:30 <Quartus> I have a strong C background, but I find C astonishingly arcane after spending appreciable time with Forth. 
19:42:31 <slava> JasonWoof: so where did you get your 3x, 6x, 9x figures from?
19:42:33 <JasonWoof> firefox is a good example of a C++ program though I think
19:42:39 <JasonWoof> slava: I made them up
19:42:42 <slava> Quartus: i agree. i wouldn't call C 'minimalist'
19:42:44 <zpg> slava: yeah, CLOS is rather nice.
19:42:55 <TreyB> Templating sucks differently on different C++ implementations.  Just try getting anything using lots of template features to compile on MSVC, GCC, and ARM CC simultaneously.
19:42:59 <slava> JasonWoof: firefox is a rather bloated C++ program
19:43:00 <Amanita_Virosa> why wouldn't you call C minimalist?  i'm not talking about libc, just the language itself
19:43:00 <zpg> generic functions/methods and all that jazz.
19:43:12 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: the language itself has a rather extensive grammar
19:43:13 <Quartus> The whole CPP thing, the weird syntax, the randomized precedence rules, the infinity of special cases and exceptions relating to the C abstract machine.
19:43:19 <JasonWoof> slava: not sure I've seen any C++ that didn't look bloated
19:43:31 <slava> JasonWoof: small C++ applications certainly exist
19:43:38 <JasonWoof> slava: all these classes and syntax garbage everywhere hiding the actual functions that do something
19:43:54 <JasonWoof> ok, there it is
19:44:01 <JasonWoof> I figured out what really kills me about crappy oo code
19:44:07 <zpg> yes?
19:44:07 <JasonWoof> it's when they abstract things that should not be abstracted
19:44:13 <zpg> like?
19:44:29 <JasonWoof> like having a class that represents the terminal
19:44:37 <JasonWoof> it's not like you can have more than one
19:44:45 <Quartus> what if another one springs up? :)
19:44:47 <slava> why not?
19:44:57 <JasonWoof> slava: because that's not the way terminals work
19:45:01 <zpg> you could also have an inheritance tree for different types of terminal.
19:45:03 <slava> what if you open two xterms?
19:45:10 <JasonWoof> your program runs in a terminal
19:45:23 <JasonWoof> you can't type a program name in two terminals at once
19:45:25 <TreyB> You mean more than one stdin?
19:45:26 <Quartus> it's not like creating a terminal class automatically confers to your app the ability to manage dual displays.
19:45:42 <slava> JasonWoof: in the factor ui for example i can open two windows, and type code in both. each one has its own stack
19:45:52 <JasonWoof> maybe that's a bad example
19:45:58 <zpg> it was your main one.
19:45:59 <slava> JasonWoof: this is because the notion of a terminal/stdio is abstracted out into an object
19:46:12 <slava> JasonWoof: sure, if you run it in a tty, you only have one io stream, but you could have more than one
19:46:14 <JasonWoof> slava: but it's an abstraction that you are actually using
19:46:17 <slava> yes
19:46:22 <JasonWoof> slava: it's something you need to provide your features
19:46:24 <slava> i don't write code i don't use, that would be silly
19:46:31 <JasonWoof> what bugs me is people introducing abstractions that they don't need
19:46:35 <Amanita_Virosa> heh
19:46:38 <slava> that bugs me too, it can happen in any language
19:46:45 <JasonWoof> for example making this whole database accessor abstraction that's all complex and spiffy
19:46:45 <Quartus> But it's not uncommon to find either inappropriate, or unneccessary abstractions in OO.
19:46:46 <slava> although perhaps it happens more in java and c++
19:46:54 <zpg> well, i have a substantial number of abstract classes in my oop code
19:46:58 <JasonWoof> and then only using to access mysql, and hardcoding all sorts of mysql stuff into their program
19:47:14 <JasonWoof> and then it ends up being a nightmare to find out how to fix some bug with it
19:47:20 <TreyB> You can write bad software in any language.
19:47:26 <zpg> very true.
19:47:38 <JasonWoof> because you have to dig into this weird db abstractor thing, that's not being used for what it was (apparently) designed for
19:47:44 <Quartus> That's kind of what I was saying.  Create a bad abstraction, and by the time you figure out it's bad, you're so ensconsced in it that the best you can do is try to work around it.
19:47:47 <JasonWoof> they didn't code for their actual requirements
19:47:54 <slava> if i was writing code to access a db, i wouldn't hardcode a specific db
19:48:00 <zpg> i'll grant that with a large inheritance tree you can get lost quite easily in where exactly your bug lies. having said that, knowing how to read, say, a smalltalk walkback is pretty simple once you get the knack of it.
19:48:18 <Amanita_Virosa> i just find too much syntactic sugar gets unnecessarily complicated and full of nasty implicit rules
19:48:18 <slava> especially since smalltalk supports fix-and-continue after an exception
19:48:26 <slava> smalltalk has very little syntax, though
19:48:27 <JasonWoof> slava: I meant (tried to say) that the mysql-specific stuff was in the app, not the db api
19:48:28 <zpg> Quartus: sure, it's no accident that the refactoring browsers emerged.
19:48:38 <slava> JasonWoof: oh, that defeats the purpose of the abstraction layer then
19:48:40 <JasonWoof> like passing in special mysql SQL functions
19:48:42 <slava> and the code should be refactored
19:48:48 <zpg> slava: exactly.
19:48:51 <Quartus> zpg, which is to my point.  I prefer to use a language that does not require the Jaws of Life to get me out of programming situations. :)
19:49:05 <zpg> :) 
19:49:42 <Quartus> damn it, I've forgotten to watch Life On Mars again, now I have to wait until 1:00 am. 
19:49:50 <zpg> documentary?
19:49:57 <JasonWoof> slava: isn't that what I've been saying?
19:50:00 <TreyB> Quartus: mostly one uses the Jaws of Life to get ones self out of other people's bad programming situations.
19:50:03 <JasonWoof> I hate people making unnessesary abstractions
19:50:07 <slava> JasonWoof: yes, but its not intrinsic to oo
19:50:14 <Quartus> TreyB, quite so.
19:50:14 <slava> imagine if a c programmer had a whole file of db wrapper functions
19:50:20 <TreyB> JasonWoof: like the one you keep making?
19:50:21 <slava> and then goes ahead and uses mysql-specific stuff anyway
19:50:27 <Quartus> zpg, no, fiction.  British.  
19:50:30 <Quartus> New series.
19:50:34 <zpg> intriguing.
19:50:46 <Quartus> Nothing at all to do with life on Mars, actually.
19:50:52 <JasonWoof> slava: then I think it would be much more clear which code is actually being used
19:50:56 <zpg> bowie reference i take it?
19:50:59 <Quartus> yes.
19:51:08 <slava> JasonWoof: why?
19:51:17 <JasonWoof> also, I think when people think in terms of making an API rather than an object, better designs emerge
19:51:21 <JasonWoof> certainly more clear ones
19:51:33 <JasonWoof> objects are to provide an "abstraction"
19:51:38 <slava> so are procedures
19:51:39 <zpg> so are APIs
19:51:44 <JasonWoof> API's are to make it easy to _do_ something
19:51:51 <zpg> via an abstraction.
19:51:57 <slava> i can give one counter-example, cocoa -vs- carbon
19:51:57 <JasonWoof> they are similar
19:51:59 <slava> the mac os x gui apis
19:52:02 <JasonWoof> but the focus is a little different I think
19:52:07 <slava> carbon is very hard to use, you have C functions taking 10 parameters each
19:52:14 <slava> cocoa is object-oriented and quite intuitive
19:52:23 <Quartus> I think I follow you, JasonWoof.  APIs predominantly present direct verbs as the abstractions.
19:52:27 <slava> i've written non-trivial amounts of code that uses both, OSS and commercial software
19:52:31 * Amanita_Virosa nods
19:53:24 <Amanita_Virosa> i've written considerable volumes of code in both as well...
19:53:35 <Amanita_Virosa> i just found that all the "good coding practices" of OO ended up making really bloated code
19:53:41 <slava> carbon and cocoa?
19:53:42 <JasonWoof> I feel that people often try to think of objects as "thinks" that "take care of something for you"
19:53:42 <Amanita_Virosa> and heirarchial spaghetti
19:53:43 <Amanita_Virosa> no
19:53:46 <Amanita_Virosa> sorry
19:53:49 <Amanita_Virosa> i mean OO and non-OO :P
19:53:53 <Amanita_Virosa> but still
19:54:01 <JasonWoof> not as a set of procedures that do specific things for you
19:54:12 <slava> methods on an object do specific things for you
19:54:15 <Amanita_Virosa> the way i do things now... i use "state sets" and "API calls"
19:54:27 <JasonWoof> slava: all to often, methods do "general" things for you
19:54:29 <Amanita_Virosa> state sets are really the same thing as objects, just done using structs and C functions
19:54:38 <slava> JasonWoof: but you're speaking from anecdotal evidence, not experience
19:54:44 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: so you're doing OOP
19:54:50 <Amanita_Virosa> in one sense of the word, yes.
19:54:55 <JasonWoof> slava: I've seen lots of OO code, I just haven't written much of it
19:54:59 <Amanita_Virosa> there's some good stuff in OO
19:55:19 <Amanita_Virosa> my point is that you can do all those things in any language that supports two main features: structures, and function pointers.
19:55:23 <Amanita_Virosa> that includes C
19:55:38 <slava> i don't disagree with your point.
19:55:44 <JasonWoof> my issue here is not so much the language, but the way it encourages people to think about program design
19:56:17 <Amanita_Virosa> i've also found that the more user friendly, and the more managed, and the higher level the language, the less expressive it becomes
19:56:59 <slava> you mean more expressive?
19:57:05 <JasonWoof> Amanita_Virosa: for the most part I agree
19:57:23 <zpg> Amanita_Virosa: depends on what you're trying to express presumably.
19:57:25 <Amanita_Virosa> slava - no, i mean the less expressive.
19:57:28 <JasonWoof> when things are overly "nice" to me it usually involves makeing some assumptions about what I want that aren't true
19:57:37 <Amanita_Virosa> i find even C gets in my way at times
19:57:40 <Amanita_Virosa> and i drop to assembly
19:58:01 <Amanita_Virosa> shuddering at the "portable" versions that i am forced to write in the #elseif clause
19:58:02 <zpg> Amanita_Virosa: but what problems are you tackling when that situation arises?
19:58:21 <slava> i try to avoid C preprocessor
19:58:25 <Amanita_Virosa> zpg - all manner of things, which are invariably performance-critical.  realtime graphics, data compression, encryption, etc.
19:58:29 --- nick: madgarden_ -> madgarden
19:58:41 <JasonWoof> C would be only about half as useful without the preproccesor
19:58:42 <slava> most code is not performance-critical, you can use a higher level language for that
19:58:53 <slava> JasonWoof: i find it makes code harder to follow
19:59:14 <JasonWoof> slava: sometimes
19:59:14 <Amanita_Virosa> most code is not performance critical; most computers are too slow
19:59:16 <Amanita_Virosa> hehe
19:59:18 <JasonWoof> slava: sometimes easier
19:59:32 <slava> in the factor runtime i break out cpu and os-specific parts into separate source files
19:59:35 <slava> instead of having #ifdefs everywhere
19:59:36 <JasonWoof> slava: like the convention of putting this sort of thing at the top of your foo.h:
19:59:49 <JasonWoof> #ifndef __FOO_H__
19:59:52 <Amanita_Virosa> sure, sometimes you can break them out like that... sometimes not
19:59:54 <JasonWoof> #define __FOO_H__
19:59:56 <slava> JasonWoof yeah, i do that
19:59:59 <JasonWoof> and #endif at the bottom
20:00:02 <Amanita_Virosa> the perfect counterexample is endian
20:00:03 <slava> JasonWoof: but that's just a workaround for the crappy behavior of #include
20:00:11 <Amanita_Virosa> endian is cpu-specific...  but it doesn't require assembly language to work around
20:00:44 <slava> in objective C, #import is like #include with the #ifdef guard
20:00:48 <JasonWoof> slava: yep. much preproccessor stuff is done because the language without it doesn't do what you need it to
20:01:47 <JasonWoof> might be possible to write a INCLUDE_ONCE() macro for C
20:02:20 <zpg> kludges
20:02:21 <slava> my main problem with C is that it doesn't support interactive development
20:02:31 <Amanita_Virosa> in unimake, import is like #include with automatic dependancy generation, #ifdef guard, and a whack of other things
20:02:37 <Amanita_Virosa> which is what i use
20:02:41 <Amanita_Virosa> (because i wrote it hehe)
20:02:46 <zpg> :)
20:03:02 <Amanita_Virosa> it also lets me put both interface and implementation sections in the same .lc file, instead of having .c and .h files
20:03:08 <Amanita_Virosa> which helps keep things modular
20:04:12 --- quit: Al2O3 ("Leaving")
20:04:39 <JasonWoof> I usually just grumble and make my .h files by hand
20:05:00 <JasonWoof> on one project I had an awk script that generated about 4 of the source files
20:05:13 <slava> generating C code is always awkward
20:05:20 <JasonWoof> hehe
20:05:29 <slava> because you're generating strings
20:05:45 <Amanita_Virosa> heh
20:05:53 <Amanita_Virosa> i don't actually generate any of my code itself
20:06:04 <Amanita_Virosa> the build system just takes care of the .c/.h seperation, dependancies, etc
20:07:09 <JasonWoof> cool
20:07:44 <JasonWoof> I don't normally do any of that stuff, but I did the awk stuff to generate the forth dictionary from a source file of C functions
20:08:06 <JasonWoof> for the forth words that couldn't be valid C function names I had a comment after the definition with the forth word name
20:08:43 <Amanita_Virosa> ah
20:08:44 <JasonWoof> the awk script built the initial dictionary for the forth, and a function table for the builtins, and constants for the XTs of the initial words
20:08:52 <JasonWoof> which I used it compiling primimives
20:09:02 <JasonWoof> like LIT
20:09:22 <JasonWoof> and while I was already parsing the file, I spit out function prototypes for the .h file
20:10:16 <Quartus> I do that sort of thing with m4.
20:10:31 --- part: Sukoshi left #forth
20:10:34 --- join: Sukoshi (n=user@user-11faaaj.dsl.mindspring.com) joined #forth
20:10:38 <slava> i've never needed to do that.
20:10:52 <slava> if i ever feel like parsing C for meta-programming purposes, its a good sign C is the wrong tool
20:11:40 <Amanita_Virosa> i only wanted a bit more intelligence in my build system... i got sick of make, and automake is revolting
20:11:54 <slava> again, if make is insufficient, then i don't use C.
20:11:59 <Quartus> I havent done so with C, as far as I can recollect.  But I've used M4's divert to build a static dictionary.
20:12:19 <Amanita_Virosa> um, make has nothing to do with C :P
20:12:28 <Amanita_Virosa> and actually, my system works alongside make
20:12:31 <Amanita_Virosa> and works quite well
20:12:33 <slava> typically make is only used with C.
20:12:44 <Amanita_Virosa> not even remotely true
20:12:49 <Amanita_Virosa> i use it for all sorts of strange tools
20:13:03 <Amanita_Virosa> gpasm, nasm, ld, OS buildsystem tools...
20:13:06 <slava> squeak, common lisp, factor all have their own build/module systems.
20:13:12 <slava> java has ant.
20:13:23 <slava> *asm, ld fall under "C".
20:13:31 <slava> even though you'll disagree, they're part of the C toolchain.
20:13:35 <TreyB> We use ant to build our C/C++ stuff :-)
20:13:44 <Amanita_Virosa> gpasm isn't part of any C toolchain
20:14:19 <slava> its part of the C mindset. typically lisp programmers, for instance, don't write assembly in their programs.
20:14:32 <Amanita_Virosa> and lisp programmers apparently also never program pics.
20:15:05 <slava> they do, at which point they cease to be lisp programmers and use another tool.
20:15:12 <Amanita_Virosa> hehe'
20:15:22 <Amanita_Virosa> generally assembler.
20:15:28 <slava> or forth
20:15:29 <slava> or C
20:15:41 <Amanita_Virosa> true, both of those exist for pic
20:15:43 <Amanita_Virosa> or basic, sometimes even
20:15:52 <slava> yuck
20:16:12 <Amanita_Virosa> i didn't say *i* use basic... i write all my pic code in assembly
20:16:28 <Quartus> yes, I don't think I've ever heard of 'embedded lisp'
20:16:34 <Amanita_Virosa> on systems that tiny, you need all the power you can get
20:16:36 <slava> it exists
20:16:57 <slava> typically you end up with essentially a C-level language with lisp syntax.
20:16:59 <Quartus> As does almost everything.  But it's never come up for me.
20:17:33 --- join: vatic (n=chatzill@pool-162-84-209-238.ny5030.east.verizon.net) joined #forth
20:19:17 <Quartus> Perhaps 'embedded common lisp' is the truly rare animal. :)
20:19:42 <slava> such a project exists, but its embedded in the sense that it compiles your code down to a .so or .o which can be linked with C code
20:19:54 <Amanita_Virosa> one of these days, i'll get it set up so that when assembly isn't low level enough, i can drop into verilog
20:20:30 <slava> you could forgo the whole concept of a computer, even.
20:20:36 <Quartus> Join Werty.
20:20:37 <slava> pen and paper is even more low-level.
20:20:46 <Amanita_Virosa> Werty
20:20:46 <Amanita_Virosa> ?
20:20:55 <slava> i guess you don't read comp.lang.forht
20:21:04 <Amanita_Virosa> slava - well, i do my analog design with pen and paper
20:21:06 <slava> basically werty is a loon who posts incoherent rants about how his Forth PDA will take over the world
20:21:15 <Amanita_Virosa> i usually don't even use my calculator
20:21:18 <Amanita_Virosa> ah hehe
20:21:23 <vatic> I've enjoyed the recent conflation of colorforth and New Forth...
20:21:28 <Quartus> he says software is obsolete.
20:21:29 <slava> i haven't used a calculator for a long time.
20:21:37 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: he is very quotable.
20:21:38 <Quartus> He also says he's the world's greatest systems developer. 
20:21:40 <slava> FOOLS!!!! LUDDITES!!!!
20:21:47 <slava> I am the world's greatest systems programmer !! !
20:21:54 <Amanita_Virosa> hehe
20:21:58 <Amanita_Virosa> that's kinda funny
20:22:20 <Quartus> he says all future computers will boot into a debugger, and you'll write the software you need as you go. I think.
20:22:32 <slava> and you'll write it by pushing buttons on the screen
20:22:34 <Amanita_Virosa> um...  right.
20:22:35 <slava> keyboard input is obsolete!
20:22:43 <Quartus> And those buttons will all have an LCD screen mapped to them.
20:22:54 <Quartus> And only ARM CPUs will be allowed.
20:23:01 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: here is the canonical werty: once you've read thsi one, you've read them all:  http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/ef86e745bce9602c
20:23:23 <slava> here is an outburst:  http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/8ec6f7839a1e0875
20:23:27 <Quartus> oh, I don't know, that leaves out his views on women, politics, and cooking.
20:23:43 <slava> ah, right. he's a prolific contributor to usenet, not just comp.lang.forth.
20:23:52 <Amanita_Virosa> lol
20:23:55 <Amanita_Virosa> that's...  bizarre
20:23:58 <slava> he posts in over 100 groups.
20:24:34 <slava> 266 posts in december. that's a record, beating his previous 168 posts in feb 2005
20:24:56 <slava> Quartus: that's almost 10 wertys a day. hard to keep up
20:25:40 --- quit: nighty__ ("Disappears in a puff of smoke")
20:26:37 <Quartus> I'll say.
20:29:41 <Quartus> SOFTWARE   Will not exist in the future !
20:29:46 <Quartus> oh and by the way
20:29:47 <Quartus> SOFTWARE   Will not exist in the future !
20:30:04 <Quartus> This message brought to you by Werty, and the letter X.
20:30:24 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: i don't think you'll like his views on women.
20:30:32 <Amanita_Virosa> heh
20:30:34 <Amanita_Virosa> oh?
20:30:34 <Quartus> Plus a generous donation from the Whackjob foundation.
20:30:59 <Amanita_Virosa> i have no illusions about software not existing...  software is with us forever now...
20:31:04 <Amanita_Virosa> i just like being able to be expressive
20:31:24 <Quartus> Well, look out for the future, because SOFTWARE   Will not exist in the future !
20:31:29 <Amanita_Virosa> for me, computer language (or even electronic hardware, for that matter) isn't just a technical craft, it's an artform
20:31:31 <Amanita_Virosa> lol
20:33:06 <slava> "   1 million Asians die each year from Formaldehyde poisoning and nobody cares !!  Asians dont have high regard for human life . "
20:33:51 <Quartus> Such is the cost of the Formaldahyde Wars.
20:34:03 <slava> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.thai/msg/597e044f7e03af13
20:34:46 <Amanita_Virosa> lol
20:34:57 <Quartus> As far as I know, werty is from thailand.
20:35:09 --- quit: vatic ("*poof*")
20:35:24 <Amanita_Virosa> that's... kinda bizarre.
20:35:35 <Amanita_Virosa> odd, i've never been accosted by nigerians in a bangkok airport...
20:35:38 <Quartus> Which is in Asia.
20:36:06 <slava> Amanita_Virosa: lol
20:36:17 <Amanita_Virosa> whyfor laughing?
20:36:34 <Amanita_Virosa> i mean, other than that i'm pointing out how rediculous he is :P
20:36:40 <slava> only reason.
20:36:44 <Amanita_Virosa> oh, okay
20:36:56 <Amanita_Virosa> lovely place, bangkok.  i want to go back some day.
20:37:05 <slava> i hear its polluted
20:37:20 <Amanita_Virosa> hrm... a little grimy maybe...  but i liked it.
20:40:39 <slava> http://factorcode.org/caret-help.png
20:40:49 <Quartus> well, you know, one night in bangkok makes a hard man humble
20:43:58 <Quartus> not much between despair and ecstacy
20:44:07 <Quartus> Tell me I'm not the only one who knows those lyrics.
20:44:52 <Amanita_Virosa> you may be
20:44:52 <Amanita_Virosa> :P
20:45:14 <slava> did that screenshot not make any sense at all? my interpreter now shows the stack effect for the word at the cursor in a status bar.
20:45:16 <Quartus> A whole song called "One Night in Bangkok".  From the musical Chess.  Was in the top 10.
20:46:05 <Quartus> 1984.
20:51:43 <JasonWoof> reading example werty
20:51:59 <JasonWoof> he apparently thinks this sequences of characters has some meaning: ROM'd
20:52:11 <JasonWoof> not sure what that's a contraction of
20:52:48 <Quartus> er, stored in ROM, one assumes
20:53:03 <Quartus> You have to dig through a lot of insane before getting to that as an issue.
20:53:28 <JasonWoof> very strange use of spaces and punctuation
20:54:20 <JasonWoof> I think it's weird when people put extra punctuation in
20:54:31 <JasonWoof> I understand leaving it out, in the interest of typing faster
20:54:42 <Quartus> he's just broad-spectrum nuts.
20:54:49 <JasonWoof> but it's weird when people leave it out where it should be, and add it in where it shouldn't
20:55:15 <JasonWoof> although weirdest punctuation in that comment has gotta go with ending a sentence with " !."
20:55:37 <Quartus> Still low on the werty scale for nuts.
20:55:50 <JasonWoof> that was nice and quick, I think I'll read another one
20:55:55 <JasonWoof> what's "Op Sys" by the way?
20:56:06 <Quartus> it's what you think it is
21:00:18 <JasonWoof> werty reminds me a little of that whackjob we eventually banned here
21:00:27 <JasonWoof> can you ban people from usenet?
21:00:35 <JasonWoof> PoppaVic that was it
21:00:36 <Quartus> Only on moderated groups.
21:00:37 <slava> did that whackjob ever produce any code?
21:00:43 <Amanita_Virosa> heh
21:00:48 <JasonWoof> not that I know of
21:00:51 <slava> i seem to recall a lot of rambling about autoshit, and levels
21:00:54 <slava> and VMs
21:01:00 <slava> and how people in ##c 'don't get it'
21:01:04 <Quartus> PoppaVic lives in ##c regularly now, spouting off the same crap
21:01:07 <slava> people in #forth didn't get it either...
21:01:26 <Quartus> why he's tolerated there, I have no idea, as he's just as incoherent and offensive as ever
21:01:37 <slava> i think ##c has so much noise it doesn't matter
21:01:39 <JasonWoof> well, I hope the folks in ##c don't let him stay as long as we did
21:02:16 <JasonWoof> yeah, I bet that's part of it
21:02:24 <Quartus> he stands out even there
21:02:25 <JasonWoof> he was probably 1/4 of our traffic, so made this channel look really bad
21:02:43 <Quartus> yeah, he was an enormous lod.
21:02:45 <Quartus> load.
21:02:52 <JasonWoof> that too
21:03:28 <Quartus> "It's all about *layers*, and "context", and "who calls who".  Yer commies and yer autoshit."
21:03:56 <Quartus> The jist of it being that it's too confusing for him to do any actual work.
21:04:02 <Amanita_Virosa> lol
21:04:21 <Quartus> Oh, and his endless discussions of his mother, his inlaws, and his 'sibs'.
21:04:34 <Quartus> "brb, gotta make a beer run" daily at about 11AM.
21:04:47 <Quartus> and "gonna call it a Knight" at about 2.
21:04:58 <slava> lol
21:07:27 <Quartus> Oh, I'm forgetting his endless drone about how old and wise he is.  He's 46, by the way.
21:08:39 <Quartus> Such an advanced age doubtless accounts for his geriatric ramblings.
21:08:57 <slava> how old are you Quartus?
21:09:01 <Quartus> 38.
21:09:15 <Amanita_Virosa> heh
21:10:59 <Quartus> so you can see where I'd find a claim of age and wisdom at 46 a bit of stretch.  He claimed to have worked on hardware that only existed when he was in diapers.
21:11:22 <Amanita_Virosa> i don't know, i've worked on hardware that was designed before i was born
21:11:26 <slava> i bet that hardware didn't have autoshit or levels.
21:11:29 <Quartus> oh, with him, you knew.
21:11:57 <Quartus> Right.  None of that unishit.
21:11:57 <slava> i don't go out of my way to use obsolete hardware
21:12:21 <Amanita_Virosa> slava - oh that's no fun!
21:12:34 <Amanita_Virosa> what kind of retrocomputing geek are you?  (obvious answer: not one at all)
21:12:43 <slava> well, i *do* use unix.
21:13:04 <Quartus> PoppaVic's whole foray into retrocomputing is the fact that he only has a dial-up account, and has to get off the line at intervals so his 'sib' can use the phone.
21:13:17 <slava> haha
21:13:26 <Quartus> I'm not actually joking. :)
21:13:34 <Amanita_Virosa> that's kinda...  bizarre?
21:13:55 <Quartus> Well, you know, he does live in a snowy-white suburb of Chicago.
21:13:56 <slava> its somewhat unusual for a 46 year old to live with siblings, don't you think?
21:14:02 <Quartus> With siblings, and his mother.
21:14:10 <Quartus> And he had 'chores' he did every day.
21:14:15 <slava> haha
21:14:25 <Quartus> I'm not making a word of this up. :)
21:14:29 <slava> i believe you
21:14:33 <Amanita_Virosa> i dunno, there's a half dozen legit reasons...  tho that sounds a bit odd.
21:14:50 <Amanita_Virosa> my mom's ex lived with his elderly mother, until she died...  but that was because she needed looking after.
21:14:56 <Amanita_Virosa> and he was retired, so he had time
21:15:14 <Quartus> He was alternately unmarried and married, depends on which day you asked.  When he was married, he hated his wife.  Claimed to have no children.
21:15:26 <Amanita_Virosa> well now, that sounds suspicious :P
21:15:41 <slava> perhaps his wife was also a 'sib'?
21:15:50 <Quartus> Perhaps.
21:17:05 <Quartus> Anyway, insanity aside, he said bizarre and wrong things to newcomers, clogged every discussion with irrelevancies, misinterpreted terms according to his own private whacked-out dictionary, and generally did no good.
21:17:17 <Amanita_Virosa> heh
21:17:51 <Quartus> I have just noticed that John Doty and John Drake have the same initials.
21:19:06 <Quartus> Coincidence?  Read the book.
21:19:31 <slava> what book?
21:19:59 <Quartus> Sorry, that's me being geriatric again, it's from an olde TV commercial for a Time-Life series of books about the paranormal. :)
21:20:12 <slava> you think they're the same person?
21:20:25 <Quartus> No. Just smoking the same jimson weed.
21:20:32 <slava> ah
21:20:53 <Quartus> Maybe it's just the J that does the damage.  We should watch JasonWoof closely. :)
21:21:24 * Amanita_Virosa hides her name.
21:21:38 <Quartus> I'm not sure which represents the greater folly: LSE64, or colorForth.
21:22:09 <slava> in the interest of removing unnecessary layers, i propose that the next colorforth release does away with the requirement that it be run on a computer.
21:22:21 <slava> i think it can be reduced to a few simple math problems which one can solve with pen and paper.
21:22:47 <Quartus> you do know that Moore spent awhile experimenting with a programming language that had no source code?
21:22:56 <slava> i heard something about that, yes.
21:23:05 <Amanita_Virosa> that sounds kinda cool
21:23:06 <Quartus> So you're joking, but you're not far off.
21:23:08 <Amanita_Virosa> tho forth is pretty close
21:23:18 <Quartus> close? Forth has source code.  So, no.
21:23:58 <Quartus> If you want source density, Forth is downright verbose compared to, say, APL.
21:23:59 <Amanita_Virosa> token-threaded forth really blurs the line
21:24:19 <Amanita_Virosa> but you're right
22:18:33 --- quit: zpg ("night")
22:30:21 --- quit: Amanita_Virosa ("Wewps.")
22:32:15 <slava> "  Its easy to write bug free code , if you are NOT being paid
22:32:16 <slava> for your programs .. "
22:32:37 <Quartus_> hmm.
22:33:38 <Quartus_> I smell a wert.
23:03:31 <Quartus> you know it's probably only about 5 werts a day; he often double-posts.
23:03:43 <slava> yeah, i noticed that
23:06:33 <Quartus> I see he claims his 'bro' worked with Chuck at KPNO.
23:51:46 <ASau> Good morning!
23:52:12 <slava> Quartus: do you think werty is PoppaVic's 'sib'?
23:52:23 <Quartus> in spirit if not in blood.
23:53:29 <ASau> How much you have written this night!
23:56:44 <ASau> Quartus: In this case adjectives are written without space:
23:56:44 <ASau> "nekul'turnyj", "nesladkij", "neizvestvyj" &c.
23:57:04 <Quartus> Whichever ones apply.
23:58:01 <ASau> Resp. "uncultured", "not sweet", "unknown".
23:58:15 <ASau> JFYI.
23:58:20 <Quartus> Ok.
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/07.01.01