00:00:00 --- log: started forth/07.11.14 00:10:23 --- quit: Quartus (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:13:39 --- join: tgunr (n=davec@70-41-240-186.cust.wildblue.net) joined #forth 00:19:43 --- join: ecraven (i=nex@eutyche.swe.uni-linz.ac.at) joined #forth 00:21:41 --- nick: arke_ -> arke 00:21:46 --- mode: ChanServ set +o arke 00:54:45 --- quit: arke ("leaving") 01:34:43 --- join: arke (n=arke@x153.vpn.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de) joined #forth 01:34:43 --- mode: ChanServ set +o arke 02:19:21 --- quit: arke ("teh tits") 02:26:44 --- join: arke (n=arke@x461.vpn.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de) joined #forth 02:26:44 --- mode: ChanServ set +o arke 03:07:05 --- join: Crest (n=crest@p5489FB03.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 03:11:10 --- quit: crest_ (No route to host) 03:27:47 --- quit: Crest (No route to host) 03:35:27 --- join: ygrek (i=user@gateway/tor/x-67219cf37f2a85e4) joined #forth 04:57:59 --- quit: ygrek (Remote closed the connection) 05:10:26 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 05:10:26 --- mode: ChanServ set +o tathi 05:11:27 --- quit: tathi (Client Quit) 05:25:52 --- join: timlarson_ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #forth 05:52:30 --- nick: TreyB_ -> TreyB 05:58:04 --- join: AJC (n=alexjc@chello213047059068.25.11.vie.surfer.at) joined #forth 06:00:40 hey, I have a style question... how do you guys go around the problem of creating procedural functions that take many parameters? stack languages don't seem designed for this, but i don't have that much experience in how to do it elegantly... 06:04:51 the usual answer you'll get is "rethink your problem" :) 06:04:56 :P 06:05:08 do you have a particular example? 06:05:10 well, i'll give you a bit more context. 06:05:13 yes, sure. 06:05:15 aah, yes :D 06:07:19 basically, it's not forth but a game AI language heavily inspired by it (with the difference that it executes latently)... think of it as a behavior tree. so for example, a MOVE-TO behavior would take many different parameters like speed, style, target point, facing direction, etc. 06:08:01 the way I currently solve this was a bit of a hack, which is to separate certain parameters that are likely to be used dynamically, and build them in to the compiled behaviors. the rest is on the stack. 06:08:23 erm, replace "dynamically" with "statically" 06:12:18 hmm 06:12:22 * arke ponders 06:12:31 so you have something like 06:12:56 * arke ponders 06:13:37 MOVE-TO is supposed to turn and accelerate/decelerate the ship as needed to get to some point (x, y) based on the current speed, direction, location? 06:21:28 it's for animated dogs and stuff, so MOVE-TO takes lots of parameters which it passes on to TRANSLATE and ANIMATE for example. 06:21:37 (not as simple as the ships, more parameters :-) 06:22:46 i mean, what i do essentially is have a separate way to create many variations of MOVE-TO, e.g. MOVE-TO-WALKING-SLOWLY 06:23:19 by compiling the static parameters into the tree. i can't do it dynamically very easily because there are too many parameters and it'd get confusing. and that's why I'm here :-) 06:23:52 i guess i need a way to build these parameterized behaviors within Forth, using some kind of meta or functional programming... 06:24:12 I think you're on the right track 06:24:31 How about passing pointers to structures instead of the entire state on the stack? 06:24:53 put away an array somewhere, then define words that modify this array. Finally, MOVE-TO simply uses that array. This will be syntactically pleasing as well 06:25:14 interesting approach, sounds nice. 06:25:37 It *sounds* a bit like you haven't factored the components thoroughly enough. 06:26:04 Arrays, structures: same trick, essentially. 06:26:57 TreyB: it's well factored bottom up, so for example, the ANIMATE behavior takes the name of an animation, the speed of playback, wether it loops or not, etc. for MOVE-TO it takes a 3D vector and a speed parameter... these settings/parameters are in static data-structures. 06:27:47 but the problem is when i build composite behaviors with custom parameters, it works as long as the settings are static, but dynamically it gets ugly. 06:28:36 but having a meta-behavior that modifies the settings of behaviors at runtime isn't a bad idea... 06:29:09 Ah, you want the rough equivalent of a closure. 06:29:46 a closure to pass on a stack? 06:30:00 or to dump into the array? 06:31:26 In Forth terms you want something like : 123doit 1 2 3 doit ; 06:31:54 Or perhaps : XYZdoit X @ Y @ Z @ doit ; 06:34:36 If your low-level routines take parameters on the stack, you need to get the instance-specific parameters from wherever you've cached them - a struct, some array, wherever - and then unpack them to the stack for the appropriate call. 06:42:15 If you go with the approach of keeping semi-initialized argument structures lying around, you can name them and override only those bits that need to be in each particular instance - basically you're talking about creating a domain-specific vocabulary for dealing with your class of movement problems. 06:42:44 --- quit: Deformative (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 06:44:38 ok, that's making sense. 06:44:56 i guess that's how forth "supports" named-parameters 06:45:02 in the most elegant way... 06:47:09 I think that BigForth may hold some inspiration, here. The Win32 API is chock-full of library calls that take huge numbers of parameters, and BigForth - I *think* that's the right system - takes a very similar approach to dealing with those calls. 06:48:12 * arke thinks of CreateWindowEx and shudders :) 06:48:41 gnomon: as in packing and unpacking tables? sounds like it's what I need... 07:23:27 --- join: Quartus (n=neal@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM001947482b20.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 07:23:27 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus 07:23:39 --- join: Quartus__ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.1) joined #forth 07:55:10 --- quit: arke ("leaving") 08:19:58 --- quit: ecraven ("bbl") 09:27:25 --- join: arke (n=arke@p54A7D326.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 09:27:25 --- mode: ChanServ set +o arke 09:36:34 --- join: edrx (i=edrx@189.25.156.72) joined #forth 09:38:43 --- part: AJC left #forth 10:35:47 --- quit: tgunr (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 11:18:33 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-181-098.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 11:26:33 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 11:26:45 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 11:59:08 --- join: snoopy_1711 (i=snoopy_1@dslb-084-058-116-070.pools.arcor-ip.net) joined #forth 12:03:44 --- join: ygrek (i=user@gateway/tor/x-2aabad03eff28bfd) joined #forth 12:04:49 --- quit: Snoopy42 (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 12:04:52 --- nick: snoopy_1711 -> Snoopy42 12:10:59 --- join: Deformative (n=joe@c-68-61-240-49.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) joined #forth 12:11:19 --- join: tgunr (n=davec@70-41-240-186.cust.wildblue.net) joined #forth 12:16:21 --- quit: Quartus (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 12:16:33 --- join: Quartus (n=neal@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM001947482b20.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 12:16:33 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus 13:07:35 --- join: doublec (n=doublec@202.180.114.137) joined #forth 13:09:03 --- join: cmeme (n=cmeme@boa.b9.com) joined #forth 13:13:35 --- quit: cmeme (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 13:14:18 --- join: cmeme (n=cmeme@boa.b9.com) joined #forth 13:25:04 --- quit: tgunr (Remote closed the connection) 13:25:18 Hey. 13:29:25 --- quit: timlarson_ ("Leaving") 13:38:57 --- quit: ygrek (Remote closed the connection) 14:08:36 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 14:08:36 --- mode: ChanServ set +o tathi 14:36:15 hi tathi. 14:39:57 hi tathi, Quartus__ 14:44:20 --- join: crc (n=crc@pool-70-110-143-33.phil.east.verizon.net) joined #forth 14:44:43 --- mode: ChanServ set +o crc 14:50:30 Hmm, I wish there was some way to combine features with lisp and forth, but they are completely incompatible it seems. 14:59:12 which kinds of features? 14:59:34 I don't think any of their features are even compatible. 14:59:36 :/ 15:00:00 You haven't defined any features yet :-) 15:00:28 The stack. 15:00:36 All forth's features are rather dependent on the stack. 15:00:54 --- quit: Quartus__ ("used jmIrc") 15:01:02 And lisp cannot really use a stack, it is against how it works. 15:01:08 --- join: Quartus__ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.2) joined #forth 15:03:30 From an implementation point of view, a Forth word takes a list of inputs and mutates it into a list of outputs. 15:04:28 * TreyB has to run, but will return later. 15:04:36 Alright 15:04:37 Seeya. 15:04:39 o/ 15:06:46 Lisp can be viewed as a functional(ish) language that depends on function application. 15:06:59 Forth is a functional(ish) language that depends on function _composition_. 15:21:43 Hmm. 15:21:55 Except forth is cooler. 15:21:55 :D 15:22:12 I am not sure why forth is so cool to me. 15:22:24 I guess it is just it's pure simplicity. 15:22:33 I like scheme for the same reason. 15:22:40 Do you know of any other extremely simple language? 15:23:45 Brainf*ck :P 15:23:56 Blarg. 15:23:59 Any other? 15:24:30 Haskell, although probably not simple in the way you mean. 15:24:31 Something with a low floor high ceiling I guess is what I want. 15:24:46 Not haskell. ._. 15:25:59 Io language. 15:26:08 --- quit: tathi ("bbl") 15:26:19 Haskell is about mid-floor, high-ceiling. 15:26:32 I keep hearing about IO. 15:27:10 Io is slow, but combines all the best (IMO) features of Smalltalk, Lisp, etc. into one language. 15:28:46 Ooh, I found a cool little list: macro assembler, FORTRAN, Lisp, APL, FORTH and SmallTalk 15:29:18 For Io? 15:29:29 No. 15:29:32 On some forum. 15:29:55 Some dude says that he believes that to be the list of the only unique languages ever created. 15:29:56 Oh, you mean for a list of languages to learn. 15:30:34 I would have to throw ML in there too. 15:30:42 Deformative: Emacs Lisp byte-compiles functions into a bytecode that uses a stack. 15:30:46 ML gave birth to the whole functional programming industry as we know it. 15:30:57 I guess that other Lisps dothe same. 15:30:57 edrx: As does CLisp. 15:31:04 Lisp was before ml though, no? 15:31:05 SBCL compiles to native code. 15:31:13 I do not like most of the features that ml made. 15:31:21 I hate pattern matching. 15:31:29 Deformative: the first MLs were implemented in Lisp. 15:31:32 I still can't understand why. 15:32:01 I have so far never found a single feature more used in a programming language than pattern matching. 15:32:09 It is the single biggest humanistic feature of FPLs. 15:32:21 Oh, also Prolog. Prolog was and still is quite unique. 15:32:36 My brain does not like pattern matching. 15:33:03 So, you won't consider ML as a unique list member, because you dislike pattern matching? 15:33:18 Functional has been done before ml though. 15:33:34 It just added some syntax sugar the way I see it. 15:33:38 Deformative: Yes. Backus intended Fortran to be functional. 15:33:40 My vision might be blurred htough 15:33:51 But, that doesn't change the fact that ML actually made FPLs what they are today. 15:34:15 I don't really like functional programming all that much. 15:34:25 That's a pity. 15:35:29 pattern matching for the win 15:36:06 Now that I've wrapped my head around functional programming, thanks in large part to Haskell, I _refuse_ to use anything else for most tasks. 15:36:20 Things written functionally have this nasty habit of "just working". I love it. 15:36:21 To each their own. 15:37:22 I will often model a program in Haskell on a whiteboard, then hand-compile it to equivalent Python, Java, or whatever. I find it immensely productive. 15:38:25 Shenanigans! 15:39:54 ? 15:40:22 :D 15:56:11 --- part: edrx left #forth 16:17:01 --- quit: Quartus (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 16:17:13 --- join: Quartus (n=neal@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM001947482b20.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 16:17:13 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus 16:19:14 --- quit: Quartus__ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 16:23:23 --- quit: Baughn (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 16:38:54 --- join: Quartus__ (n=Quartus_@209.167.5.2) joined #forth 16:47:38 --- join: tathi (n=josh@pdpc/supporter/bronze/tathi) joined #forth 16:47:38 --- mode: ChanServ set +o tathi 16:55:33 --- nick: timlarson__ -> timlarson 17:07:34 --- quit: Off_Namuh (Remote closed the connection) 17:18:01 --- quit: Quartus (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 17:18:09 --- join: Quartus (n=neal@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM001947482b20.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 17:18:09 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus 17:34:31 Does anyone know of a good forth interpreter for windows? 17:37:26 win32forth or reva (reva is not ans compatible) 17:38:10 depends on what you mean by 'for windows'. Gforth is good, but isn't bound to the GUI 17:39:30 I mean something that is easy for a noob to get working, some person I know wants to learn, but has never programmed before and is incompetent. 17:39:38 Gforth. 17:39:59 Is there a self installing binary? 17:40:06 Yes. 17:40:15 Do you know the url by chance? 17:40:21 Google is your friend. 17:40:28 Yeah, I figured 17:41:17 The binaries live here: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/ 17:41:24 Yeah. 17:41:28 I found it right before you said that. 17:41:30 :) 17:41:52 There's a 0.6.2 exe release in the root there 17:42:07 Do they need to run it in the command prompt or does it come with it's own shell? I would test, but I do not have a windows installation. 17:42:47 Run cmd, then change to the gforth directory, type gforth. 17:42:51 This could also be made into a shortcut. 17:43:53 Win32Forth has a graphical interface, but it's perhaps dauntingly complex. 17:44:01 WORDS runs to many pages. 17:44:07 Alright. 17:44:21 I might just have them learn on pltscheme then learn forth after. 17:44:30 Whatever, I am not going to teach them, just give them urls. 17:44:39 Teaching someone to be a geek NEVER pays off. 17:45:01 Starting somebody out on Scheme will only make them hate you, in my opinion -- but it's your geek. :) 17:45:22 I started on scheme. 17:47:57 Then again, I gave up and learned D/C instead. 17:51:04 Then went back to scheme. 17:51:27 But I only use D/C for when I actually want to produce something, Scheme and Forth for fun. 17:51:48 Do you actually code in Forth? I thought you were just on a tour. 17:53:48 I have just done simple stuff. 17:57:01 You might want to dig deeper. 17:57:06 I prolly will. 17:57:15 Because I really like forth based on my tour. 17:58:11 But I am going to move to learning smalltalk soon. 18:07:22 You'll miss the essence of Forth completely. 18:09:11 Quartus Why is that? 18:10:04 Forth eliminates the need for function calls at the ASM level by using the stack, and all procedures are viewed as words. 18:10:09 The value and benefit of Forth programming is not evident from a drive-by. 18:10:18 Forth is extremely simple, and that is what makes it beautiful. 18:12:14 It is essentially just very cleaver usage of goto, eliminating need for perameters and functions. 18:12:24 Computer change. 18:12:25 :) 18:22:20 Quartus? 18:22:29 Yes? 18:22:48 Is there really anything to miss? 18:22:51 Indeed there is. 18:23:08 Example? 18:23:11 How a Forth compiler is made has nothing to do with how Forth is used. 18:24:03 Isn't it essentially just using the stack? 18:24:22 It would be pointless for me to describe it; you would need to write something significant, and get to where you understand what the point is. 18:24:35 Hmm, alright. 18:24:49 Well, I can always come back to it after my tour. 18:25:03 The only languages I think I will still visit is smalltalk and fortran 18:25:05 Or you could stop, and do the job properly. 18:25:55 ._. 18:30:31 It would require real effort, but you would come away with a changed notion of what it is to write software; you would be a better programmer. 18:30:53 The fact that you think Forth is a subtle twist on ways of programming that you already know, tells me that you have yet to learn what it can offer you. 18:31:09 A better forth programmer. 18:31:19 No; a better programmer in any language3. 18:31:21 A better programmer, period. 18:31:24 Hmm. 18:31:43 Then what should I write? 18:32:07 A programmer without an idea is not a programmer. 18:32:25 What algorithms do you find interesting? 18:33:32 I find communicating thoughts themselves with the computer to be interesting, algorithms are not a big deal to me. 18:33:43 That is why I like touring languages. 18:33:53 Oh. A programmer who is doesn't find algorithms interesting. 18:33:59 Yeah. 18:34:00 :D 18:34:15 I'm sorry, I don't think you're a programmer at all. You're wasting your time here. 18:34:23 I like having control over my enviornment. Programming provides this. 18:34:45 So does plumbing. 18:34:52 No. 18:35:02 Plumbing is more necessary, too. 18:35:06 I recommend plumbing. 18:35:12 You can do it with no actual interest in pipes at all. 18:35:30 Should be right up your alley. 18:35:34 Plumbing does not provide a means of conversion for my thoughts. 18:35:49 Neither does programming, without some interest in algorithmic processes. 18:36:10 Uh, thoughts are algorithms, no? 18:36:17 No. 18:36:39 So, when you solve a problem, you don't think about it? You just go find an algorithm. 18:36:40 I see. 18:36:43 >.> 18:37:14 All human endeavour is a product of thought; algorithms also. This is not to say that all thoughts are algorithms. 18:38:25 The algorithms are all there, it doesn't always help to use them, making your own based on how you would solve it is more interesting IMO. 18:39:59 That's quite absurd. However, even starting from there, the question simply becomes -- what problems interest you? 18:40:17 Solve that one. 18:40:50 Interpreters solve problems. 18:41:18 They interpret the user. ._. 18:41:29 Been done. Forth is an interpeter. They're trivial. 18:41:52 Deformati: just out of curiosity, why do you keep typing 'R' in Morse code at the end of your sentences? 18:42:28 Forth is a very good interpreter. I would like to produce something new, the way moore did. 18:42:32 tathi: ? 18:42:40 You mean ._. ? 18:42:52 That is supposed to be a text expression smiley thing. 18:43:06 Kinda like "Uh" 18:43:28 ah 18:43:48 See it? . are eyes _ is the mouth 18:44:22 Quartus All computer problems have been solved and are trivial. 18:44:31 Interpreters are just the part that appeals to me. 18:45:12 No, all computer problems have not been solved; most are non-trivial. 18:45:15 If you know something that hasn't already been made trivial, I would love to hear it. 18:45:45 I believe there is a reason there hasn't been any advances really since the 80s 18:45:51 I was speaking specifically; writing an interpreter in an interpreter, especially a reflective one, is a complete doddle and will teach you nothing. 18:46:03 I can't help it if you haven't made any advances since the 80's; you might start now. 18:46:20 I ddi not say me. 18:46:32 You should do. It's you we're talking about. Making you a better programmer. 18:46:44 What major brakethrough in computing has been made since the 80s? 18:47:09 There are scores. What relevance does that have? Would you learn better on a 20-year-old computer? 18:47:36 I am trying to make the point that everything has been done. 18:47:43 If it hasn't someone else would have already done it. 18:48:07 And therefore... you're a good programmer? 18:48:11 You've lost me completely. 18:48:21 [21:43] No, all computer problems have not been solved; most are non-trivial. 18:49:14 So you want to build an interpreter inside a reflective interpreter? You're done before you start. Put a bow around it. 18:49:51 I am building my interpreter in a native lanaguage. 18:50:07 Well, this is frustrating. You asked what you could write in Forth. 18:50:19 No. 18:50:21 The only thing you could come up with that interested you at all was an interpreter. 18:50:25 You asked what algorithms I like. 18:50:32 I never said I wanted to write an interpreter in forth 18:50:40 Yes, that was first. We moved on from that. I asked you what problems interest you. 18:51:11 And I told you, why don't you give me an example of what you want me to answer with then? 18:51:25 Look, it's my mistake. You've made your position and proclivities clear. Carry on. 18:52:10 No, I would like to have something else to make, I simply do not know what. Why don't you suggest something? 18:53:37 I should as likely instruct a poet as to what should move him. Programming to expand one's horizons has a defacto requirement of an interest in the art; lacking that, you're a liberal-arts major who like to think of himself as a programmer. 18:54:09 That's fine, but I'm wasting my time trying to help. 18:54:49 Well, what else is there? I haven't done much more than graphics, interface, and well, interpreter/shell I guess. 18:54:59 I found graphics rather boring. 18:55:02 :( 18:55:35 Read about algorithms. Read about graphical algorithms, they're especially fascinating. Graphics Gems by Glassner has some nifty stuff. So do Pickford's books. 18:56:03 I guess there is memory management and osdev, but I do not see what that would solve, it would just be a major waste of time. 18:56:20 I already said I found graphics boring though... 18:56:22 :( 18:56:31 I guess I could do that though, if you really believe it will help. 18:56:39 I will warrant that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. 18:57:03 I know little. 18:57:26 Then you're discarding it on the basis that it'd take hard bloody work, and you're not interested. A fair position. Again, I'm wasting my time. 18:57:47 I did some opengl work, a lot of 2d algorithms, and I looked into ray tracing and other rendering algorithms a bit, but didn't spend a lot of time on them. 18:58:17 Well, EVERYONE does graphics algorithms. 18:58:30 I have no time to spare to waste trying to guide someone who doesn't want to learn. I have another project here that has a greater claim on my attentions, if you'll excuse me. 18:58:49 :( 18:58:55 What project? 19:00:08 A boring one. Good luck with your tour. 19:00:13 Actually, on second thought, I like recognition algorithms, 19:00:20 Like finding shapes in images. 19:00:48 I forgot about those. 19:01:08 But I guess you don't care anymore. 19:01:50 I also wanted to look into neral networks. 19:01:56 And AI. 19:02:18 Wow, lame the way I start thinking of things after you give up. 19:02:21 Oh well. 19:02:32 Good; 15 minutes each on those subjects, and you can get back to whatever else it is you do. 19:02:52 Why do you say that? 19:03:08 Believe me, the reason why is not only clear to me, but to anyone reading this. 19:04:13 That sentence is incomplete. 19:04:13 Because it sounds like you just want to skim and aren't willing to put in the effort to get anywhere really interesting. 19:04:42 That sentence is perfectly complete. Come on, if you're going to be a liberal arts major, you'd better learn to parse English at least. 19:05:30 But is your conjunction, and "to anyone reading this" is an incomplete clause. 19:06:22 tathi: Not true, I want to put a lot of effort into interpreters, but Quartus believes this is a horrible place for me to put time into, so I wanted to hear about another subject to study instead. 19:06:35 No, in fact. This is turing out to be extraordinarily remedial. Break it down. Exclude the conditional. "The reason why is clear to anyone reading this." 19:07:18 Oh. 19:07:25 I did not see the word "only" 19:07:39 I apologize. 19:07:39 Attention to detail is something else a programmer needs. 19:07:49 * Deformati rolls eyes. 19:07:59 And who are you to tell me what a programmer needs? 19:08:17 Are you the all superior programmer? 19:08:19 A programmer. 19:09:00 Interesting supporting statement. >.> 19:09:49 I've only got about 25 years of it; perhaps you can find someone else whose experience you respect better. I'd just as soon forget this entire conversation. 19:10:58 --- join: nighty^ (n=nighty@sushi.rural-networks.com) joined #forth 19:11:05 I respect you. 19:11:06 In fact I'll go further; there is no chance you will derive any benefit from deeper study of Forth. I strongly recommend you not bother. 19:22:12 --- join: arke_ (n=arke@p54A7E49B.dip.t-dialin.net) joined #forth 19:25:57 --- quit: madgarden (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 19:32:17 --- join: madgarden (n=madgarde@bas2-kitchener06-1096752101.dsl.bell.ca) joined #forth 19:36:25 --- join: Quartus___ (n=neal@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM001947482b20.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 19:36:25 --- quit: Quartus (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 19:36:51 --- quit: Quartus___ (Client Quit) 19:37:05 --- join: Quartus (n=neal@CPE0001023f6e4f-CM001947482b20.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) joined #forth 19:37:05 --- mode: ChanServ set +o Quartus 19:40:32 --- quit: arke (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 19:40:34 --- quit: tathi ("leaving") 19:55:43 --- join: lucca (n=lucca@kuu.accela.net) joined #forth 20:05:30 --- join: JasonWoo1 (n=jason@c-71-192-28-153.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) joined #forth 20:06:55 Hi JasonWoof 20:08:35 --- quit: JasonWoof (Nick collision from services.) 20:08:57 --- nick: JasonWoo1 -> JasonWoof 20:09:02 --- mode: ChanServ set +o JasonWoof 20:26:54 Hi JasonWoobawooba 20:27:15 hey Quartus :) 20:27:28 I enjoyed your suggestion to try plumbing :) 20:27:37 I meant it seriously. 20:28:13 It's a good living, honest work; the things you have to appreciate to do it well are limited, but all require a modicum of technical expertise. A good weld, for instance. 20:28:41 Necessary, even vital, in a way half-assed efforts at programming will never be. 20:29:02 yeah, being a plumber is a great way to be appreciated 20:29:16 people will practically fawn over you just for showing up 20:29:22 Yup. 20:30:07 and you don't have to dress up, that's nice too 20:31:20 What's new in JasonWoofenville? 20:32:55 Just now in ##c: [23:32] dahitokiri: I suggest that you try another career -- I hear the plumbing is in demand. 20:33:10 worked a lot this past weekend, and I'm relaxing a lot yesterday and today :) 20:33:13 Coincidence? Read the book. 20:33:27 heh 20:41:46 JasonWoof, I envy you. I'd like a couple of days slack. 20:42:11 heh 20:42:19 Soon I hope. 20:42:25 I should be working 20:42:45 Then I can solve world hunger, well, for 20 minutes or so, until it gets dull; and there's this book on string theory I've been meaning to read the back-cover of. 20:43:30 freerice.com 20:43:46 maybe you can just summarize it for me, it's probably boring 20:44:21 naw, too late, I already lost interest. 20:44:49 I have to save my energy to read the spines of a few technical books at the library tomorrow. 20:45:14 lol 20:45:40 Sure, laugh; but I can read as many as ten spines in an hour. And I remember at least 2 of those an hour later. 20:48:24 After all, what new books have been written since the 80's? 20:50:13 "Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further developments." 20:50:33 advance to the rear! 20:57:44 --- quit: doublec () 21:16:30 --- join: forther (n=forther@c-67-180-150-67.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #forth 23:45:48 --- log: started forth/07.11.14 23:45:48 --- join: clog (i=nef@bespin.org) joined #forth 23:45:48 --- topic: 'Welcome to #forth. We discuss the Forth programming language and a variety of technical subjects. Introduction and Helpful Reading: http://forthfreak.net/index.cgi?FnFC | ANS/ISO Forth Standard doc: http://tinyurl.com/nx7dx | Gforth compiler: http://tinyurl.com/s8uho | http://quartus.net/search | Paste: http://forth.pastebin.ca' 23:45:48 --- topic: set by tathi on [Fri Aug 24 08:25:49 2007] 23:45:48 --- names: list (clog Off_Namuh ygrek @JasonWoof lucca @Quartus madgarden arke_ Quartus__ @crc cmeme Deformative Snoopy42 gnomon timlarson madwork @kc5tja saon maht_ ccfg CyberSpace Deformati uiuiuiu mem4tim TreyB mrsbrisby warpzero rbarraud nighty-- Fractal) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/07.11.14