00:00:00 --- log: started forth/09.09.11 00:00:49 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote closed the connection) 00:00:50 you have direct access to the display memory so all the graphics are your own, for the most part. So I've done some circles and parrallelagrams and triangles. Working up to 3d someday. 00:01:47 that's another useful idea... can you use the graphics processor in mathmatical programs? 00:02:02 * Raystm2 notes to remember to not forget to look up visualPython ide IDLE and look into fast running 3d code. 00:04:32 There are originally two tasks running, one graphical which includes running all of the program and displaying it, and the second task is keyboard polling for a keypress or time out and do the next graphic slice. 00:04:45 so everything runs in the graphics code. 00:04:46 It was neat to see what Moore was doing. I guess it shouldn't be shocking that he is pretty sucessful 00:05:31 --- join: josvuk (n=josef@Q69ab.q.strato-dslnet.de) joined #forth 00:05:40 I agree. When you get down to it, it's a pretty simple system at its core and thats hard to mess up. At that level, only necessity shows it's head. 00:06:17 that's like the old days of VGA programming 00:06:29 I suppose so. 00:06:37 Sure, that makes good sence. 00:07:40 * Raystm2 = diabetic and must consume now to remain alive. lol :) afk brb. 00:08:08 ok. that's a good reason 00:15:16 I found this chat site via the iTools2 downloaded and running under win32forth 00:18:57 hi, what forth words should I type in the open firmware to get information about the builtin soundchip? 00:24:09 don't listen to me. I'm a newbie to modern forth technology 00:24:19 --- quit: josvuk (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:28:26 josvuk, I wasn't suggesting that you should leave 00:45:12 which colorforth version is good for me to try first? I am on an AMD Phenom X4 9650 based computer 01:07:59 --- join: Raystm2_ (i=rastm2@c-24-8-232-212.hsd1.co.comcast.net) joined #forth 01:09:19 wb 01:16:52 Thank you. I'm not quite back yet, I've starte a movie. 01:16:52 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#docid=-5122859998068380459 called Dagerous Knowledge about Gregor Cantor and the Infinities. 01:16:54 --- nick: Raystm2 -> Guest77234 01:17:16 --- nick: Raystm2_ -> Raystm2 01:17:58 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#docid=-5122859998068380459 called Dagerous Knowledge about Gregor Cantor and the Infinities. 01:18:26 don't know if I sent that as last post already. I seem to be losing connection rather regularly. 01:21:51 oh. i see. Yes. you sent the link twice 01:23:37 --- quit: Guest77234 (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 01:25:22 I think I will have to get some sleep. But thanks for these interesting topics 01:29:13 --- join: thom_ (n=thom@pool-173-51-164-80.lsanca.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth 01:40:15 its quite quiet now 01:41:22 --- quit: f[x] (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 01:58:38 --- quit: thom_ ("This computer has gone to sleep") 02:07:23 --- join: thom_ (n=thom@pool-173-51-164-80.lsanca.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth 02:54:47 --- quit: nighty^ (Remote closed the connection) 03:01:38 hello 03:01:44 --- join: neceve (n=ncv@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 03:08:31 --- join: GeDaMo (n=gedamo@212.225.115.96) joined #forth 03:49:55 --- join: Raystm2_ (i=rastm2@c-24-8-232-212.hsd1.co.comcast.net) joined #forth 03:54:23 --- join: sunwukong (n=vukung@catv-80-98-131-133.catv.broadband.hu) joined #forth 04:03:28 --- quit: Raystm2 (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 04:10:07 --- quit: GeDaMo ("Leaving.") 04:11:52 --- quit: Raystm2_ (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 06:20:59 --- join: f[x] (n=user@239-115-133-95.pool.ukrtel.net) joined #forth 06:42:50 --- join: kar8nga (n=kar8nga@LRouen-152-83-15-79.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr) joined #forth 06:43:35 --- join: nighty^ (n=nighty@x122091.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp) joined #forth 06:47:32 --- quit: nighty^ (Client Quit) 07:24:53 --- join: GeDaMo (n=gedamo@212.225.115.96) joined #forth 07:32:46 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote closed the connection) 08:14:43 --- quit: sunwukong (Remote closed the connection) 09:18:03 --- join: pgas (n=user@pdpc/supporter/active/pgas) joined #forth 09:37:51 --- quit: thom_ ("This computer has gone to sleep") 10:12:19 --- join: thom_ (n=thom@pool-173-51-164-80.lsanca.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth 10:31:19 --- join: PurpleSmurf (i=1000@c-68-56-143-229.hsd1.fl.comcast.net) joined #forth 10:31:21 re 10:36:16 Quiznos here 10:37:59 boingo 10:49:01 why does forth have so many interesting stories? I'm reading Fox's blog 10:49:22 it's versaility 10:50:38 maybe it is that people attracted to forth are also doing interesting things a bit more often that non-forthers. 10:50:43 Depends on what one finds interesting I guess. (: 10:56:36 the descriptions of success seem almost mythological. But much may just be due to the ability of some people to work with the forth programming model 10:57:31 i had been away from forth for about 10 years now 10:58:52 welcome back :) 11:01:06 some forth websites seemed to also stop getting updated 10 years ago 11:01:16 thanks :) 11:03:47 its funny how Fox described the operating system as protecting programmers from programmers 11:08:16 (: 11:08:24 OS can be annoying at times.. and get in the way. yeah :) 11:10:06 I always wonder how much faster applications could run if so much wasn't reserved to the operating system 11:11:42 i'm curious about colorforth. But what are these things called "floppies"? haha 11:12:24 mike3: floppies.. you need to keep a few for backups :) 11:13:15 mike3: on a lot of OS the "OS overhead" isn't very big, so you won't get much faster by just removing it.. but maybe by writing better code and/or using better algorithms :) 11:14:54 maybe so. but you have to go through various o/s layers and sometimes through the protection rings 11:15:43 depends on how you set it up. (: 11:15:46 --- quit: thom_ ("This computer has gone to sleep") 11:16:03 and I guess it makes sense for joe average to have an OS anyway :D 11:16:43 --- join: thom_ (n=thom@pool-173-51-164-80.lsanca.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth 11:19:57 --- quit: PurpleSmurf ("[BX] iT's bEttEr tO bUrN oUt tHaN tO fAdE aWaY") 11:21:01 sure. office computers often need some standard privacy protections 11:21:40 And people need some complete systems that can add new programs easily 11:31:08 --- quit: thom_ ("This computer has gone to sleep") 12:19:47 --- join: Maki (n=Maki@dynamic-78-30-139-176.adsl.eunet.rs) joined #forth 12:40:26 --- join: Judofyr (n=Judofyr@cC694BF51.dhcp.bluecom.no) joined #forth 13:12:54 --- quit: GeDaMo ("Leaving.") 13:23:27 --- quit: schme (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 13:23:40 Q: Is Forth, the concept, big enough to handle anything with enough scaffoling? 13:23:44 scaffolding 13:24:02 big, flexible, expressive? 13:24:03 --- join: schme (n=marcus@c83-249-82-26.bredband.comhem.se) joined #forth 13:24:17 Q: Is Forth, the concept, big enough to handle anything with enough scaffolding? 13:24:26 big, flexible, expressive? 13:24:30 scaffolding? 13:25:08 every forth *I*'ve seen just isnt "fleshed out" enough (i could be wrong) 13:25:29 but i dont think i've seen any forth that is prepared to write BIG apps in 13:25:30 Quiznos: I don't quite understand what you're talking about. 13:26:11 Quiznos: I think you'd need to write forth up to suit your application first. 13:26:21 Forth is minimal bc no one, not even groups, provides the kind of code that we see develped for Perl, Python, even C 13:26:26 ruby 13:26:43 it's not that forth cant do it; we dont write code to do it 13:26:54 Right. 13:26:59 I just write what I need. 13:27:27 one of our aversions (IMO) is that we individually dont like to use another's kernel. 13:27:29 ruby and perl are a bit useless because you can't really boot it without some underlying OS. 13:27:45 forget that part of forth's flexibility for this thread. 13:27:45 I don't mind other's kernels at all. 13:27:48 ok 13:28:00 usually they don't run though ;) 13:28:37 i want a forth that grep's, does Good string processing, heap, and dynamic lib loading. 13:28:42 (not in order) 13:28:50 --- quit: f[x] (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) 13:29:10 It seems to me that gforth has the most shit happening for it library wise like that. 13:29:11 with dynamic lib processing etc. 13:29:11 i400r's forth is fast enough. he told me that his forth can compile millions of lines/sec 13:29:29 But gforth is not very portable,and it requires some OS underneath it. 13:29:31 i440r's 13:29:35 that's ok 13:29:53 I can't even run it on most of my machines. 13:29:57 i'd forgo that aspect of any forth in order to be able to write quickly and run it 13:29:57 even though they run linux :) 13:30:08 i'm not looking for portability 13:30:12 i want forth! 13:30:24 and still you want.. a lot of shit, eh? :) 13:30:31 maybe you want factor? (: 13:30:36 i wanna be able to mung kernel, replace the call to init with forth 13:30:43 oh ok. 13:30:51 that's the kind of forth i want 13:31:09 well good luck there :) 13:31:14 and that munging is ONLY one line of code. 13:32:11 I'm quite happy with gforth on linux in general. It has useable FFI and what not. 13:32:31 it just.. is very x86-centric. won't even build correctly on ARM or MIPS 13:32:40 why should it have to? 13:32:45 it's forth! 13:33:14 Why should it have to have string processing and dynamic library loading? 13:33:31 to build "bigger" tools 13:33:42 it should also be more introspective. 13:33:52 more than just "see" 13:33:56 Right. I have not yet had any use whatsoever for string processing. 13:33:56 or "dump" 13:34:29 I guess if I did I'd have libc do it for me, eh. 13:34:34 i had a great idear for using the arrow keys last night 13:34:44 libc pff; port it into forth 13:34:55 Quiznos: Why reinvent the wheel? 13:34:57 up and down arrows for history recall; 13:35:10 if I'm already *on* linux, and I have FFI, why not use what is there? 13:35:11 bc it would make porting easier from c and other langs 13:35:34 ffi is another way to go; i hadnt considered it. 13:35:44 yees 13:35:49 2. left and right arrows for elinks-style word-browsing 13:35:52 'cept it only works if you are running forth on some other OS. 13:36:04 dunno how elinks works. 13:36:10 gforth does the history thing though? 13:36:14 it's a console web browser 13:36:16 duno 13:36:37 right arrow on a forth would descend into a word and left arrow would backup 13:36:40 ya mean left/right like word back word forward? 13:36:44 yea 13:36:52 I find arrow keys a bit annoying really.. have to move fingers off of the homerow. 13:37:08 I like libreadline then so one can use emacs style movement. 13:37:20 i'm a fond user of midnight commander; F4 to edit a word 13:37:39 hmm.. can't stand function keys.. too far away :) 13:37:40 f2 to save; shift-f2 to save-forth 13:37:49 why are you limiting yourself? 13:38:05 it's not limiting. I have everything I need without moving my hands from the 3 rows 13:38:12 the point is more is needed to be done in forth 13:38:19 + control, hyper, meta and super. 13:38:23 but you have over a hundred keys to use 13:38:27 sure man. 13:38:30 I don't need all keys. 13:38:30 those can be used too 13:38:57 the point is that in forth we dont use alot of stuff; s/w and h/w 13:39:13 just the homerow.. I have aoeuidhtns- .. + those with control.. those with hyper.. those with meta.. those with super.. those with meta and control etc.. 13:39:35 much easier than having to move my hands to use arrow keys and function keys. 13:39:55 i'm not expressing law; i'm saying more needs to be done to forth. 13:40:04 ok< 13:40:08 well do more in forth :) 13:40:23 it needs to be bigger in whatever sense of that word applies 13:40:42 I do about 50% of my code in forth. I don't feel any need for it all to be "bigger" 13:40:49 ok 13:40:54 but what if it were? 13:41:03 you do some writing now :) 13:41:20 well just write some libraries. contribute 'em to wherever. Everyone wins. 13:41:37 sqroo everyone else; answer for yoursefl 13:41:41 ) 13:41:45 I needed to write a roguelike in gforth. So I made some library for using SDL. it's allgood. 13:41:54 kool 13:42:02 Quiznos: But it's not *me* wanting "bigger". It's *you* :) 13:42:17 i'm axing you to imagine 13:42:41 I'd rather not imagine a more bloated forth.. But I have no issues with forths providing a big chunka libraries. 13:42:55 It's just that.. heap handling. library loading.. it all seems to be there already. 13:42:58 they dont provide a libdl? 13:43:07 and a big glob of OO libraries. 13:43:12 that would seem more logical to me 13:43:16 libdl? 13:43:22 instead of forth-libs 13:43:30 Not quite following you there. 13:43:36 libdl is the dynamic loader for runtime loading 13:43:42 on unix-family os 13:43:44 gforth provides a big chunk of forth code to load. 13:43:48 nods 13:43:59 but of course you can load whatever shared library you have on your linux. 13:44:17 k 13:44:20 That's how I interface with SDL. SDL is a C library afterall. 13:44:24 yea 13:44:25 with stupid nullterminated strings! 13:44:34 what's wrong with them? 13:44:51 what's wrong with 'em is that I have to convert between forth style and C style of strings :) 13:44:53 null is a sentinel 13:44:54 and vice versa. 13:44:59 sentinel? 13:45:01 no you dont 13:45:03 final-marker 13:45:08 uniq 13:45:13 --- join: I440r (n=mark4@12.69.197.210) joined #forth 13:45:13 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r 13:45:16 you dont have to convert anything 13:45:16 right.. and forth style of strings does not use null as a final marker. 13:45:20 I440r !! 13:45:22 yeah I do. 13:45:25 lol im half way tempted to write a forth interpreter in PHP now heh 13:45:28 heh 13:45:32 DONT DO IT 13:45:38 resistance is NOT futile!!! 13:45:43 write a PHP interpreter in Forth! 13:45:47 theres a very nice php function to fetch the next item from an array. called next() 13:45:53 s" foo" . How do I know there will be a null? 13:46:09 fix the forth kernel 13:46:21 schme, erm. usually there wont be - tho im not 100% familiar with ans forths s" word 13:46:27 and some C func returns "blablablaNULL" how do I know the length of that without converting it to normal style? 13:46:32 in isforth that just compiles a counted string 13:46:37 I440r: exactly. That is why I need to convert it to C style. 13:46:42 exactly. 13:46:44 the forth way. 13:46:47 s" blah blah" 0 c, 13:46:50 I440r we're imagining I440r 13:47:00 or make a word called s0" 13:47:08 brb 13:47:15 which creates a c type string. copy the definition for s" 13:47:16 I440r: Yeah. I just don't want that all the time. So at times I use my f-to-c to hand it to C. 13:47:19 or vice versa. 13:47:36 that's what I'm saying. I need conversion. 13:47:44 nah. creating a new string compilation word makes more sense than creating a string conversion word 13:47:46 because C is doing it wrong ;) 13:47:58 I440r: It did not for me, no. 13:48:04 unless you know you are going to need to reuse that string in each format 13:48:04 k 13:48:13 brb 13:48:28 how is c doing it wrong? 13:48:38 it's not wrong, it's just different. 13:48:38 --- join: thom_ (n=thom@pool-173-51-164-80.lsanca.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth 13:48:47 yea but he said it 13:49:07 oh; wait, you said it, schme 13:49:10 and I'm sticking with thinking C does it stupid. 13:49:15 why? 13:49:22 What if I have a string "NULLNULLNULLNULLNULLNULL" 13:49:33 that's a null string 13:49:37 with padding 13:49:54 also troo in Lisp too 13:49:54 yeah and C will think it's 1 length instead of 6 13:50:01 uh. 13:50:15 I assure you I have strings in lisp with nulls in 'em. 13:50:27 i mean the *F* "" and () 13:50:34 uh. 13:50:35 heh 13:50:56 problem is that C will think that is a string of length 1 instead of 6 13:51:00 nods 13:51:09 and I prefer the forth way. 13:51:14 or struct 13:52:12 right. 13:52:55 i gotta teach I440r how to code in asm 13:53:01 and my main interest in life is not a "bigger" forth. yeah. I'd rather have something nice and sweet that didn't require linux, and let me controll my external hardware. 13:53:15 You want to teach I440r to code in asm .. ? 13:53:16 yea; every forth coder's dream 13:53:36 yea, he cant do it and it's preventing his furthance of isforth 13:53:37 Quiznos: It's not so much a dream here. It's a living project. 13:53:41 kool 13:53:50 I thought I440r coded asm quite well? 13:54:09 looked like it from that isforth anyway :) 13:54:13 i duno; i'm just going by what he told me; he needs an asm'er in forth 13:54:17 (even though it's all 32bit :P) 13:54:25 oh yeah. he needs an x86 assembler. 13:54:28 nods 13:54:48 I think the problem there is more that x86 assembly is messed in the head :) 13:55:00 actually, in octal it makes better sense 13:55:01 generating the opcodes is hell on earth! 13:55:13 in hex it is cuz the masks dont make sense 13:55:16 * schme is in the ARM camp ;) 13:55:19 k 13:55:48 now anyway. In all my forth adventures I have never had the need to do grep'n and advanced string manouvers :) 13:55:57 k 13:56:06 What would be nice is to have gforth, or isforth even, interface nicely with jackd. 13:56:09 hmmmm... 13:56:13 yeees that'd be sweet. 13:56:14 wazzit? 13:56:20 it is a sound server. 13:56:22 k 13:56:30 but it likes to crash stuff. 13:56:31 ehehehe 13:56:34 heh 13:57:16 actually, with my forth i'm trying to develope a a replacement Emacs :) 13:57:19 in C one would link with libjack and setup callbacks.. that jackd gets magic access too. 13:57:29 k 13:57:44 lisp likes to crash from this. it doesn't like external stuff doing stuff in lisp space. gforth too seems very unhappy about this. 13:57:54 nods 13:57:58 I'm thinking mcclim is a better replacement for emacs. 13:58:06 duno that yet 13:58:21 emacs is a pain in the behind. elisp should be taken out and shot several times :) 13:58:26 i can code asm. i cant code an assembler lol 13:58:28 heh 13:58:29 theres a difference 13:58:34 no there aint :) 13:58:46 yes there is ): 13:58:48 it's a syntax prob 13:59:00 you're touched in the head to not be able to code asm 13:59:01 lol 13:59:35 ok; here's the easy stuff in my syntax of forth assembler:: 13:59:41 right now im concentrating on php and sqlite/mysql so i can DOCUMENT my freekin forth 13:59:53 the only word I need to do this is a `enum' word 13:59:57 --- quit: pgas (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 14:00:01 I hear bad things about mysql. and that one should be using the postgre 14:00:23 enum $40 a> c> d> s> t> e> f> ; 14:00:27 that's push 14:00:45 stef corresp to sp bp si di 14:00:55 that's what enum would do 14:01:44 and enum `does>' loop from $40, counting strings, a> c> d> etc 14:01:51 and causes the new word to c, 14:02:12 same with pop, inc, dev 14:02:15 dec 14:02:21 a++ c-- 14:03:03 What I'm thinking with x86 assembler is that intel sent me the ref books and the instruction set is 2 huge books. It's just too much :) 14:03:17 I'm never even gonna bother thinking about writing an assembler for that 14:03:24 i got those too; then i found a page online that shows the map in octal. 14:03:47 it's much easier to write in octal than hex 14:03:50 yeees.. still.. so many 14:03:57 nah, it's managable 14:04:39 there are 3 classes of ml; implied, ax.dx, and, fully addresable. 14:05:47 and there are what... 56million instructions? (: 14:05:53 nop 14:06:18 with forth, all the permutations arent needed. so be selective in writing forth-words for them 14:06:20 that sure is what it looked like to me :) 14:06:27 there's no need to provide everything 14:06:38 I like everything. 14:06:42 forth doesnt need all that addressability 14:07:11 implied and ax.dx might be more than enuf 14:07:35 I mean one needs atleast the SSE stuff.. and probably the base x86 stuff from 486 and what heck. 14:07:57 those can be easily added; but the thing is coming up with a good name for the operation 14:08:24 What's wrong with the standard names PMULHUW etc? 14:08:24 then there's the whole, fp/mmx/sse coordination that must happen 14:08:31 unexpresive 14:08:46 I don't need expressiveness when I'm writing assembly :) 14:08:54 but you're writing forth. 14:09:17 the words representing the operation are in Forth lingo 14:09:26 I wouldn't have it like that, no. 14:09:30 k 14:09:32 I like to be able to write straight assembly. 14:09:43 like divps xmm1 xmm2 14:09:46 then use fasm/nasm/masm/etcasm 14:09:47 and that should just work out, yeah. 14:09:48 heh 14:09:56 Quiznos: those only work if I am on some OS already. 14:10:03 k 14:10:36 I can't really run yasm on top of my forth :) 14:10:53 yea forgot that one; well, fork it :) 14:11:16 or use that runtime assembler lib 14:11:26 runtime assembler lib ? 14:11:33 yea name escapes me atm 14:11:38 no idea there. 14:12:05 I'm quite sure rewriting yasm in forth would be as much work as writing an assembler from scratch. 14:12:19 Good thing I'm on ARM and I don't have to worry about the madness :P 14:12:20 nah; it dont need to be complicated 14:13:59 I like simple :D 14:14:10 me too 14:14:29 that's why I have a partial dislike for lisp. It's a bit big and complex. 14:14:33 metaobjects etc. 14:14:41 try lisp 1.5 14:14:45 lol 14:14:54 not planning to go back in time :) 14:15:00 pff; coward :) 14:15:06 have you read the history of lisp? 14:15:13 which parts of it? 14:15:17 or is that some book? 14:15:20 what McC wrote 14:15:25 his recollections 14:15:27 nope 14:15:38 how the interpreter pre-1,5 came about 14:15:39 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/lisp.html 14:15:46 ty gnomon 14:15:55 yw 14:16:13 aah too much to read. 14:16:17 * schme sticks to reading IRC. 14:16:20 in forth terms, all we need is to translate McC's paper eval() to forth. 14:16:26 I have bookmarked this for later. 14:16:28 Why would we want that? 14:16:29 k 14:16:47 so I can port lispy concepts to forth. 14:16:57 better factoring of code and data 14:17:06 Well ok. yea. if you want a lisp, write a lisp :) 14:17:07 build excellent scaffolding 14:17:10 no 14:17:16 schme asks a good question. Writing McCarthy's EVAL in Forth would just give you a Lisp interpreter, not a system that would allow you to exercise the strengths of both Lisp and Forth. 14:17:16 i want the concepts without the () 14:17:34 so you want lisp without sexps. 14:17:34 gnomon the concepts would be integrated into forth 14:17:37 nods 14:17:37 dylan then ? 14:17:44 i dont know dylan personally 14:17:50 of it, but not... 14:18:12 it's lisp without the sexps ;) 14:18:16 k 14:18:35 To be honest I find the ()'s one of the best parts of lisps. Makes macros very easy to use. 14:18:43 k 14:19:03 If you're really interested in the intersection of Forth and Lisp concepts, you may want to take a read through http://www.software-lab.de/ref.html 14:19:09 k 14:20:15 I'd be interested in getting some erlanguesque concurrency going (: 14:20:23 heh 14:25:39 i have a twinkling lust for Wirth's Oberon language; especially its type system: very geek-sexy 14:26:01 what's it like? 14:26:19 pascal and add/diminish and amend 14:26:21 heh 14:26:27 simpler to comprehend 14:26:39 but W. still demands upcase keywords 14:26:42 heh 14:27:01 I had a go with ada.. can't stand static typing.. then I had a go with haskell.. cannot stand typing.. then I had a go with ocaml.. 14:27:04 etc. 14:27:08 heh 14:27:09 lolol 14:27:31 i want a better SymTab manager in/for forth 14:27:45 I tried running oberon at two times. It never worked. 14:27:46 linear voc/lexicon doesnt do it for me 14:27:52 the jacob package? 14:28:00 no idea what package 14:28:20 symtab manager? 14:28:40 symbol table; aka the forth vocab 14:29:00 http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/downloads/index <- I grabbed the linux one there. 14:29:05 k 14:29:23 didn't work at all. 14:29:34 find Jacob pkg 14:29:40 oberon on linux 14:29:45 what are you looking for to improve in the symbol table thingie? 14:30:07 well it has to do with the lack of scaffolding 14:30:31 with libdl, a better vocabulary tree management would be essential to me 14:30:48 i'm fond of ancient Fig's voc. tree 14:30:49 I don't really understand the word "scaffolding" :) 14:30:58 english is *far* from my main language. 14:31:10 i mean the added stuff to fill out Forth 14:31:12 (I tend to get by when I occassionally visit english speaking places though) 14:31:15