00:00:00 --- log: started forth/17.01.09 00:03:44 --- join: mtsd (4d6e3d64@gateway/web/freenode/ip.77.110.61.100) joined #forth 01:57:51 --- join: groovy2shoes (~groovy2sh@unaffiliated/groovebot) joined #forth 02:08:46 --- quit: karswell (Remote host closed the connection) 02:10:14 --- join: karswell (~user@252.135.46.217.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 03:23:39 --- join: Bunny351 (~Bunny351@46.165.220.212) joined #forth 03:42:15 --- quit: Bunny351 (Remote host closed the connection) 03:45:36 --- join: Bunny351 (~Bunny351@46.165.220.212) joined #forth 03:46:55 --- quit: impomatic (Quit: http://corewar.co.uk) 03:49:10 --- part: Bunny351 left #forth 03:53:46 --- join: Bunny351 (~Bunny351@46.165.220.212) joined #forth 03:55:57 --- quit: proteusguy (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 03:58:24 --- join: true-grue (~true-grue@176.14.222.10) joined #forth 05:05:18 --- join: impomatic (~impomatic@host86-190-54-160.range86-190.btcentralplus.com) joined #forth 06:53:00 --- part: mtsd left #forth 06:56:26 --- join: mayuresh (~mayuresh@182.58.252.82) joined #forth 06:56:54 --- quit: mayuresh (Client Quit) 07:11:41 --- join: GeDaMo (~GeDaMo@212.225.83.98) joined #forth 07:15:58 --- join: zincing (~zincing@2a03:1b20:2:f702::16de) joined #forth 07:29:57 --- quit: zincing (*.net *.split) 07:30:46 --- join: zincing (~zincing@2a03:1b20:2:f702::16de) joined #forth 07:47:30 --- join: Mat4 (~claude4@ip5b41030d.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) joined #forth 07:54:11 --- quit: zincing (Quit: Leaving) 08:12:42 --- join: zincing (~zincing@2a03:1b20:2:f702::16de) joined #forth 08:19:19 --- quit: M-jimt (Remote host closed the connection) 08:46:48 --- join: M-jimt (jimtmatrix@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-xmpcmapwxluhjqtu) joined #forth 08:47:29 --- quit: Mat4 (Quit: Leaving) 09:12:03 --- join: neceve (~ncv@79.115.225.255) joined #forth 09:12:03 --- quit: neceve (Changing host) 09:12:03 --- join: neceve (~ncv@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 10:29:53 --- join: Zarutian (~zarutian@168-110-22-46.fiber.hringdu.is) joined #forth 10:40:35 --- quit: ricky_ricardo (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 10:52:25 --- join: ricky_ricardo (~rickyrica@2601:240:4203:ecb0:685f:7ba2:f35e:6154) joined #forth 11:19:21 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 11:34:17 --- quit: karswell (Remote host closed the connection) 11:35:29 --- join: karswell (~user@252.135.46.217.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 12:00:00 implementation of portability is VERY important because of libraries 12:00:10 There are some libraries you absolutely would not want to implement yourself for example one that controls date and time 12:00:20 If you make a single mistake you could ruin a large organization. So clearly you want to at least steal from a c library or something 12:00:36 --- join: zincing_ (~zincing@2a03:1b20:2:f702::16de) joined #forth 12:00:48 --- quit: zincing (Remote host closed the connection) 12:01:26 But people will not be satisfied with forth if you can only steal libraries from other languages 12:01:38 people want to be able to write libraries in forth and have them be re-used 12:08:49 If you look around there are really no forth libraries out there to speak of 12:09:07 This is in part because people can not agree on a standard format for forth libraries 12:12:46 I didn't say "implementation OF portability," I said "implementation portability." It appears to me that the forth mantra is, whatever you need, rewrite it for your specific use-case. Given this, there doesn't appear to be much necessity for implementation portability 12:12:55 that is, portability across forth implementations 12:13:09 some people agree to that mantra 12:13:54 I think you can not build really large scale applications without making standard protocols and making libraries which match those standards 12:15:05 why would you be using forth to build large applications? 12:15:14 isn't the whole philosophy about going small? 12:15:51 The philosophy moore puts forth yes 12:16:07 However I don't work on embedded systems I work in cloud computing which is very high level 12:16:24 and the type of things a boss will demand of me is large scale scalable applications where we can give our customers certain guarantees 12:17:15 okay, so when you said "people" earlier you really meant you 12:17:27 Me and people like me 12:18:11 My vision for forth is kind of a cross between forth and factor 12:21:14 I think the base forth should definitely be very much like Moore's 1979 forth or like modern color forth and not ans forth 12:21:50 but I think that you should present newcomers with a more bootstrapped system with some nice syntax features added and let them work their way into realizing the forth beneath 12:22:32 to be honest, I couldn't care less about newcomers. I don't feel any obligation to evangelize the tools that I use 12:23:21 I think it is very necessary to tell people about forth because it seems to be the solution to my research project 12:23:34 I personally have alot invested in forth's success 12:23:46 weird 12:24:22 All I know is I have been looking for a very specific thing for years and forth is the best thing out their that matches the rules for that thing 12:26:35 First of all I wanted a language which had a repl and in which the code you typed in the text file worked the same way as the code you typed into the repl 12:26:47 and secondly I wanted a language that was customizable and which every single thing in the language was editable 12:26:50 at runtime 12:27:06 and last of all I wanted a syntax which worked similarly to unix pipes 12:27:46 Forth meets those requirements better than any other language I've found 12:29:08 The only other languages which meets those requirements is lisp 12:29:18 but forth is many times more efficient than lisp 12:46:55 --- quit: zincing_ (Quit: Leaving) 12:48:02 My goal in life now is to promote forth as well as promote teaching rpn in schools 12:48:24 I think infix notation and other bad notation features are part of the reasons why many kids today have trouble in school with math 12:48:48 I think the reason rpn did not take off is because the rpn calculators used to be the more expensive nicer ones like sinclair 12:49:01 and also because the teachers themselves probably did not know rpn 12:50:11 --- quit: neceve (Quit: Konversation terminated!) 12:50:39 Today you can get an rpn calculator as an app on your phone so every child should have access to them 12:51:30 that is the dumbest shit I've heard so far this year 12:58:05 zy]x[yz: please be nice. you can disagree without insults. 12:58:21 I don't know if I can 12:58:53 i think you're probably smart enough to figure out a way 12:59:17 "many kids today have trouble in school with math" because of a lack of rpn, though? seriously? 12:59:37 anyway. i agree with you that forth is best for small applications. i don't think it's feasable for it to be a general purpose language 13:00:42 i also think RPN isn't going to help kids with math. but you could just say so without saying it's the dumbest shit you've heard this year. 13:00:55 but then I would be lying by omission 13:01:30 maybe you can choose different words. anyway, moving on. 13:10:43 I think many kids have trouble in school because the curciculum is ass backwards and teachers overworked? An overworked teacher isnt an enthusiastic teacher. No enthusiasm and the subject turns to being dreary and hopelessly boring. 13:11:12 This is at least what I have seen, heard of and gleaned from writings of others on the subject. 13:12:46 John[Lisbeth]: factor indeed looks like what you are looking for... 13:13:07 not exactly 13:13:37 what's missing? 13:14:06 factor may indeed be what I am looking for but my suspcion is that it is not 13:14:23 I think at the heart of factor is rpn and forth 13:14:33 and I think factor should probably be written in forth 13:15:37 as for rpn in school I absolutely believe we would be able to teach kids better in rpn than infix 13:15:51 if you are doing math by hand on paper then rpn is faster to solve for the same problem than infix is 13:15:59 it takes less steps and is easier to work out 13:16:31 also rpn simplifiex the syntax rules of math and means there is less you have to learn to use it 13:17:34 pushing rpn in schools also helps my agenda because it would mean that people grow up finding rpn easier rather than finding it difficult because they were taught infix 13:17:35 plus it deals away with all the 'rules of precedence' that do nothing but clutter 13:19:46 i think both could be equally useful. i don't see a clear benefit to either, except one is already entrenched and would require re-tooling everything in order to change 13:19:58 but i don't think this is what turns kids off 13:20:14 i'm not even sure kids are "turned off" more on math than any other subject 13:21:43 IMHO, kids don't care about notation - as long as a subject can be made fascinating... 13:21:57 I don't care what kids care about 13:22:09 We should teach them whatever the best thing turns out to be 13:22:23 notation is just noise, if you understand the actual problem at hand, it is secondary. 13:22:31 so what is the best? :-) 13:23:15 notation does matter. If we forced our kids to write the pledge of allegience before every math problem then it would take a lot longer to get their schooling done 13:23:21 Bunny351: yeah, noise you say. At least in languages I can look up each word in a dictionary but there is no such thing in contemporary math notation. 13:23:35 clearly the pledge of allegience is a redundant notational feature and it would be foolish to keep it in 13:23:46 --- join: Mat4 (~claude4@ip5b41030d.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) joined #forth 13:23:48 the reason it is foolish is becuase the notation without the pledge is clearly superior to the notation with it 13:23:59 it saves time not to write the pledge 13:23:59 John[Lisbeth]: that is not exactly notation, it is just an addendum, or an extra. 13:24:16 hello 13:24:19 --- quit: Mat4 (Client Quit) 13:24:24 We disagree on the definition of notation then 13:24:29 --- join: Mat4 (~claude4@ip5b41030d.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de) joined #forth 13:24:46 You could create such a school system in which a child who does not write the pledge of allegience before a math problem gets a 0 on that problem even if the answer was correct 13:24:48 Zarutian: correct, but I was talking about notation, not mechanism. abstractly, so to speak... 13:25:11 John[Lisbeth]: yes, we disagree on many things, it seems. :-) 13:26:14 Bunny351: I was very irritated that somebody thought it neat to use sigma notation with nothing indicating what the fuck it was. 13:26:40 is anybody using kforth on a 32 bit system? I have some problems with the assembler. 13:26:45 Bunny351: there is a good calculus book made by MIT Press that only uses sexp notation 13:27:52 Bunny351: many engineers that had trouble with calculus said that book clarified so many ambiguities inherent in the usual notation used. 13:28:58 Bunny351: heck, I have used MicroSofts Word equation editor to translate an equation into mathml form to understand them. 13:29:38 Zarutian: I don't disagree. My math background is devastatingly bad. I just think that children can learn very fast, and quickly sport the relevant content, regardless of notation, as long as they can be kept interested.. 13:29:53 does one know another notation beside RPN which consists of a single rule and does not require bracketing ? 13:30:06 polish? 13:30:21 Bunny351: the bad notation eats away intrest slightly 13:30:50 Zarutian: who knows? 13:31:15 Bunny351: (setq answer (nil)) 13:31:48 Bunny351: kids that have been asked after being tought both sexp and the RPN notation 13:32:03 Zarutian: a good plan 13:32:24 Bunny351: not a plan, this has actually been done. 13:32:33 Zarutian: link? 13:33:21 Bunny351: none handy as I read this in a local magazine on sciences, technology and education. 13:33:37 I'd love to know more about this. 13:34:41 Had they been taught traditional notation, too? 13:34:51 Bunny351: yebb 13:35:03 and what were the results? 13:36:02 Bunny351: many found the traditional noation tedius and errorprone for stuff other than simple problems. 13:36:23 do you remember the name of the local magazine, or where the study was done? 13:37:06 Bunny351: been a few years and I dont remember the name of the magazine. 13:37:21 hm... 13:37:31 not very promising. 13:38:11 Bunny351: I do remember it was an co-publishment by Námsgagnastofnun and Mentamálaráðuneytið 13:38:35 and a few others iirc 13:39:17 but the study wasnt Icelandic though, think it was eather in Sweden or Finland 13:41:21 you can perform this experiment yourself in your own home 13:41:23 Zarutian: you are pulling my leg! 13:41:40 create three or four long equations and then write one of them in rpn and the other in infix and time yourself 13:41:48 see if it takes you longer to solve it in rpn or in infix 13:42:03 My guess is that if you choose sufficiently long equations you will almost always solve it faster in rpn 13:42:05 Bunny351: nope, only half remembered article I read. 13:42:32 I had the chance to teach RPN (academic IT introduction course) some years ago. The results where frustrating for me 13:42:55 Mat4: frustrating how? 13:45:42 it was not believed that a single rule is sufficient for undertanding RPN 13:46:27 The course participants translated all postfix examples in infix notation (usually wrong) 13:48:09 Mat4: why didnt the believe it? is that single rule to strange for them or? 13:49:51 I think it was result of some kind of brain washing though learning from school ehich result in inability to think flexibly 13:50:05 ehich=which 13:50:39 oh just the usual learned helplessness then 13:50:52 probably 13:52:28 --- quit: Bunny351 (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 13:53:02 I figured out, that the primary teached concept of learning was simply to memorize things by heart 13:53:29 Mat4: oh, parrotlearning 13:53:40 yes, that was my biggest gripe through most of my education 13:54:22 I can understand that, if tortured for years, every form of independent thought must be difficult 13:54:32 --- quit: GeDaMo (Remote host closed the connection) 13:54:34 Mat4: good trick to trip up and get rid of many Indo-Asian applicants is to 'hit' them with a problem that has no memorized solution. 13:55:16 I say Indo-Asian as parrotlearning is rampant in those countries 13:55:32 I wouldn't say it damaged my ability to think independently. it was just boring and those were the classes I usually did not perform as well in because I really was not even remotely interested in memorizing stuff 13:55:41 I think the only way to teach someone who already knows infix rpn is if they learn it like a kindergartener. So you sit them down and force them to relearn all the rules of math by hand working out problems without a calculator 13:56:18 Because they need to actually see their stack growing and shrinking on the lefthand side of their equation 13:56:50 and, without trying to be abrasive, I genuinely cannot imagine how somebody could struggle with rpn. I certainly didn't learn it in any formal education, and I don't even remember "learning it." I'm pretty sure I either read or someone told me in a sentence what it was, and it just made sense to me 13:57:43 but maybe having a background in programming is a major advantage there, because it's common and trivial to accept new ways of expressing things 13:59:22 John[Lisbeth]: Yes, that was my final solution to teach them RPN. However, it was a long... very long and hard way of learing for most of them (and I'm not the person which is gifted with unrestricted patience) 14:00:02 Yeah you just have to have your students put in handwritten work 14:00:22 without seeing that stack on the lefthand side of the equation it is a mystery to them 14:00:34 and you have to give them sample problems which naturally produce very large stacks 14:00:50 maybe 10 or 20 numbers deep 14:01:10 are we talking about solving equations or doing simple algebraic operations? i've never seen RPN equations, e.g., where one would cancel factors from the numerator and denomicator to simplify, etc. 14:01:39 well for equations you sould have to bave some special notation not present in forth 14:01:40 another thing in education I never got was 'homework'. I never or very rarely did any at home other than reading. Why it isnt called 'studyhallwork' beats me as it should only be that. 14:01:54 the way i imagine it being written on paper seems to indicate to be infix would be easier bc the operators separate (visually) the sub-expressions and may (?) be easier to parse visually 14:02:23 but the mind is flexible and could become used to whichever it's been trained in, i guess 14:02:28 bluekelp_: perhaps wirtten but not so with abacus, yes? 14:02:39 heh. perhaps. 14:03:46 i guess to me "math" is more about abstract concepts and simplifying equations, proving equality (or disproving) than it is about computing "4 5 6 7 * + /" vs "(6*7 + 5)/4" 14:03:57 I think anything that you grow up with seems very intuitive which is why most people look at infix notation and call it more intuitive 14:04:22 I think if people grew up with postfix and you tried to show them infix they would say infix looks harder 14:04:22 true. there was a nice saying about "the way things are soon becomes the way things ought to be" 14:04:31 if you go into the etymology of the word 'intuitive' you see that it basically 'familiar'. 14:04:39 basically means* 14:05:02 is this the first time we have agreement in this channel (today)? yay! 14:05:13 The only logical way I can see to solve this debate, like I said, is to take a handful of long equations and write them both in the infix and postfix form, and then set people solving those equations by hand 14:05:25 --- mode: ChanServ set +v bluekelp_ 14:05:28 and the better one should be solved more quickly on average 14:05:35 --- nick: bluekelp_ -> bluekelp 14:06:00 both participants should be well learned in how to use both infix and rpn 14:06:21 and they should be allowed to use a ordinary infix calculator for sums, subtractions, etc 14:06:45 for this pre- or postfix notation is better suited in my (subjective and familiar) opinion :) 14:06:52 but is the time to solve equations really what makes people lose interest? iirc for me all the re-copying of equations, between steps, and "doing too much in my head" were my primary complaints. not time to solve. 14:07:10 my hand, in whatever notation, couldn't go as fast as my brain 14:07:40 I certainly never had that problem 14:07:48 and still don't today 14:07:57 well, i have a _really_ slow hand :) 14:09:09 interesting concept. would be interested to see how postfix equations look. to me they're not terribly hard to translate (in the small) so i can (and do) use postfix for computing offhand estimates at work, etc. (using dc(1)) 14:09:36 the participants would have to write out each step of the equation except the sums, divisions, etc 14:09:53 bluekelp: have you ever tried to solve integrals with the newton method without so called shortening rules ? 14:10:35 tehse rules are only required because of the complexity of this infix notation 14:10:46 tehse=this 14:10:51 I don't think that I have, no. not 100% i understand/remember what you mean by shortening rules but i *think* i get your meaning 14:11:24 probably I have choosen the wrong word in english 14:12:10 clearly in very large problems to solve even slight benefits in syntax efficiency can add up 14:13:27 Someone can solve 2 + 2 as fast as 2 2 + but for longer equations I think rpn will win most of the time 14:13:34 again, i think there's a difference in computing the solution vs the abstract "solution" which tends to be factoring, cancelling like terms, applying a transformation to both sides of the equation, etc. 14:13:54 I am not sure what you mean by that then 14:13:56 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@104.6.70.118) joined #forth 14:14:09 i don't see how the notation makes as much difference for the abstract solution. 14:15:06 ab + ac = ax ===> a(b + c) = a(x) ===> b+c = x 14:15:43 i remember much more of this sort of stuff from calc than actually computing 2+2 vs 2 2 +, etc. 14:16:00 Well I propose that infix notation wastes the mathemeticians time and mental energy compared to postfix 14:16:13 a mathematician only has so many hours per day to do math and only so many days before death 14:16:22 at the very end, yes, sometimes we plugged values of x into an equation to get a value. but the real "math" was more abstract. i'm not sure post/infix notation matters as much for that 14:16:24 so naturaly we want them to solve more problems faster and more easily 14:16:59 similarly to learn new math equations which is necessary to advance forwards in math, you must work out lots of math problems by hand from a textbook 14:17:14 and I pose that that student will waste more time solving those textbook problems in infix than in postfix 14:17:22 simply because infix is harder and takes longer to solve 14:17:59 for math students their lives are very hard and they must often lose out on sleep because they do not have enough time to complete their coursework and have a job 14:18:11 what allows them to completele their coursework faster is necessary 14:18:15 well, not harder, just many more sub steps, that have to be remembered, per steps hence more errorprone 14:18:33 in relevance to Forth or similar languages; Postfix notation is of course preferable for avoid otherwise needed parsing 14:18:44 ^^^bingo 14:18:45 ^for avoid=to avoid 14:18:56 parsing is what makes infix more difficult 14:19:34 in infix you must read the whole equation and check to make sure you are acting in the correct set of parentheses 14:19:42 postfix may always be read left to right 14:19:47 that's primary an implementation specific advantage 14:20:23 prinicipal the same can be said for prefix notation if the number of parameters is known or restricted 14:20:53 back on my previous point it is also wasting the college's time and resources because there are only so many good math professors and staff and those professors and other staff and other resources are wasted if there is a better faster way to learn the material and that way isn't bein gused 14:21:37 then there exist possibilities to ease parsing be restricting infix rules. This is the APL apporach with right to left parsing 14:21:51 i really don't think college level students are unduly hampered by infix. iirc i wasn't made to solve page after page of simple computations 14:21:57 ^apporach=approach 14:22:26 bluekelp: but that is basically what the course work often is, no? 14:22:42 i 100% agree postfix is much easier to parse/compute for computers. not sure it makes a human's job any harder but if the research shows it i won't disbelieve it either 14:23:17 My suspicion is that if we taught postfix in schools (and if the teachers teaching it actually understood postfix), then we could shave two years off the time it takes for a student to reach the high level maths 14:23:24 Zarutian: not at all - i recall doing much more of the "abstract" work and then only at the very end computing a single "value solution" 14:23:29 simply because students could complete their homework faster 14:24:02 human life is precious and it is a shame wasting that life doing unnecessary maths 14:24:09 only the necessary should be done 14:24:21 I'm pretty sure that if you made homework faster, they would just assign more of it 14:24:29 bluekelp: here is an thought, you dont need to restrict only numbers on the stack, you could use symbols such as x, y etc. 14:24:30 exactly 14:24:31 i don't have any proof other than my own brain but (visually/mentally) parsing infix is easier for my brain than postfix for non-trivial computations. but then again i've had my brain trained for it 14:24:37 they would assign more of it and get more of the book done more quickly 14:24:58 bluekelp: well like I said what you do is just get a handful equations and write them in both postfix and infix 14:25:03 and solve them by hand showing all of your work 14:25:23 if I am correct then you will see a trend that when you show all of your work you solve postfix faster 14:25:26 zy]x[yz: this kind of 'homework' always irritated me. I rarely never left the school building unless I had finished my 'homework'. 14:25:31 Zarutian: good point. though i don't have any experience with postfix being faster than infix (for me). for computers/systems like forth to parse they're much simpler, yes 14:25:33 John[Lisbeth]: As there exist multiple ways of understanding, there must exist idfferent notations. The problem I see is diskriminating specific notations in education 14:25:46 idfferent=different 14:26:08 diskriminating=dicriminating 14:26:50 Zarutian, yeah, I would always do mine in study hall or during downtime at lunch or another class. but I had this one precalc teacher, man... she would assign an absurd amount of monotonous problems every night. there were a lot of homework sets I just didn't do in that class 14:27:21 --- join: Bunny351 (~Bunny351@46.165.251.68) joined #forth 14:28:07 well the problem is I wanted to do postfix in college and my professor refused to grade postfix 14:28:11 so there already is discriminatiopn 14:28:22 people aren't going to want to waste time teaching both, they will want to teach whichever one is better 14:28:35 I propose that postfix is deomonstratably better 14:29:43 they will teach whichever they know best, i suspect. that's the hardest part about getting postfix adopted. there is much already invested in infix. like keyboard layouts. qwerty remains dominant and all the kolmec/dvorak adopters are seen as weirdos 14:30:03 nobody really cares about the efficiency gains except the "weirdos" 14:30:04 John[Lisbeth]: your professors grade the homework? isnt that TA's job? 14:31:19 i suspect even with a diff keyboard layout i'd still fumble my fingers and type the wrong word unconciously as i thought of another word, etc. bc my mind will still race faster than my fingers, etc. 14:32:11 so i think math issues would remain and people would still not like it. even if they are X% faster at it. 14:32:52 computers will still be much faster at mathematical computations. so i'm happy to program the systems instead of, e.g., doing my own ray-tracing by hand. 14:33:34 but what do i know? i'm just a human 14:34:05 a friend's father once tried to get me into an argument about computers, he didn't like them 14:34:16 "the best computer in the world is in here", he said, tapping the side of his head 14:34:28 but a brain isn't a computer, and a computer isn't a brain, I explained 14:34:41 it's much more like a lathe than a brain 14:35:18 it doesn't think, at all, it's just a very useful and versatile tool 14:35:31 it's the *cause* of a lot of thinking, but it's not actually doing any itself 14:37:19 ciao 14:37:19 i think i understand your point. computers are excellent at computing things. brains are slow at this. brains are good at abstract though. computers not so much. 14:37:27 --- quit: Mat4 (Quit: Leaving) 14:37:30 bluekelp: exactly 14:37:38 karswell: I know what shape I want this driveshaft to be 14:37:43 bluekelp: ^ 14:37:51 karswell: sorry :-) 14:38:09 I can think about the shape all I want, it's not going to turn this bit of bar stock into a driveshaft 14:38:39 this was the point i was trying to make when i referred to "abstract" math vs computing an answer given a value of x. 14:39:30 so programming is how you tell the computer how to make that shape given a piece of stock? 14:39:48 s/computer/lathe/ 14:40:11 --- quit: Bunny351 (Remote host closed the connection) 14:43:59 bluekelp: in a sense 14:44:10 I have to think about how I make the part 14:44:51 ah, I think I see. thinking vs following given steps, e.g. 14:44:52 maybe if I turn that end down to a taper I won't be able to shape the other end, because the taper won't go in the lathe chuck 14:45:07 exactly 14:45:09 creating vs implementing 14:45:26 I know what I want, I have to work out how to use the tool to make it 14:46:14 at work, we have a couple of fairly old systems 14:46:26 one reads its config from an XML file, one reads a Windows-style INI file 14:46:30 computers haven't yet figured out how to get humans to create porn they (computers) enjoy 14:46:58 between them they both have station numbers, and one has station numbers mapped to telephone numbers and IP addresses, the other has numbers mapped to names and capabilities 14:47:26 there is no "single source of truth" about these anywhere, but I have these two files that contain a good start on it 14:47:46 maybe they're not 100% accurate but it's what the system that actually gets firemen out and into trucks uses 14:47:50 so 14:48:13 I needed a tool, to read an XML file, and read a windows-style INI file, and turn them into some sort of coherent database that I could then query 14:49:01 the brain thinks up what the machine needs to do, the machine does all the tedious mucking about with numbers and words, over and over 14:50:33 heh. the computer is the grade-school student doing the "homework" you assign to it before it can idle about :) 14:51:15 but instead of learning it is (unknowingly) doing something useful (for you) 14:52:42 the computer and father analogy works well. THe older generation still struggles against computers trying to do everything by hand. But business owners know a good program can outwork a fleet of men tirelessly in less time 14:53:06 and so even though it was expensive humanity had to move over to using computers for most things becuase it was too expensive not to 14:53:13 in the same way I think it is too expensive to use infix forever 14:53:33 if I am indeed correct then long after I die postfix will still be as good as it is right now 14:53:38 and others will discover what I have discovered 14:56:03 infix and postfix are just tools 14:56:09 one isn't somehow superior to the other 14:57:06 i don't think the (relative) cost of humans using infix is that great. unless humans are being used as inefficient computers. then perhaps the x% increase would matter 14:57:56 well you could say a sharpened rock and a knife are both tools but one is objectively nicer for cutting things 14:58:39 similarly you could say a commedore 64 and a modern dell computer are both comptuers but one is nicer for getting work done 14:58:41 you could, but it would be irrelevant 14:58:47 that is simply false 14:58:56 you cant go to a computer boss and tell them it is irrelavent if htey use com 64s 14:59:00 John[Lisbeth]: bullshit 14:59:05 hey lets be civil 14:59:14 infix is no better and no worse than postfix 14:59:27 I say I have an experiment which shows that it is better in terms of speed and ease 14:59:33 and you can either try that experiment for yourself or not 15:00:06 it just so happens that given a particular class of problems and a particular class of computing machinery, postfix notation makes it easier for us to write programs to parse inputs and calculate results 15:00:26 infix is plainly more correct than postfix 15:01:00 if nothing else from a natural language point of view, it's clear that infix is better 15:02:35 I think they are clearly equally correct in the solutions they produce 15:02:45 but one produces the answer more easily than in the other 15:02:46 and more quickly 15:02:54 and you can test this out for yoruself 15:04:16 all you need to do is take a series of equations to test, the more equations the better, and write them in both postfix and infix, then simply record the time it takes you to solve the problem showing all of your work 15:04:27 it is also useful to count the number of lines of paper it takes 15:04:32 and infix will be faster 15:04:36 in all possible cases 15:04:43 I don't think that is accurate 15:04:54 I propose you record your times and then I will believe you 15:05:01 because infix makes more sense at least to those of us familiar with Western languages 15:05:08 no, because there are too many variables 15:05:14 to wit, I suck at arithmetic 15:05:30 so postfix or infix will never be the rate-limiting step 15:05:55 either way, infix is how we actually talk about arithmetic problems 15:07:00 I think at first when you first teach someone postfix they will be slower than with infix, but after a few hours of doing it Ithink your postfix speed will increase beyond your infix speed 15:07:13 we're adding up a restaurant bill, we say "that's 12.95 times two, add 6.50 for the wine and add 3.70 for the beer, and divide by ten and add that to the result for a tip 15:07:59 2 12.95 * 6.5 + 3.7 + 10 / if I understood you correctly 15:08:05 though you typed it out in english and not infix 15:08:08 we don't say "10 3.70 6.50 12.95 2 times add add dup divide add" 15:08:12 you should type it n a real notation 15:08:14 semantically that's a fucking tyre fire 15:08:28 no need to get mean, friend ;) 15:08:40 also I don't think you should put all the numbers on the left like that 15:08:46 even though you can do that IThink that makes it harder to read 15:09:13 that's true 15:09:20 and I have to admit it was deliberate 15:09:53 even saying "12.95 2 times 6.50 add 3.70 add dup 10 divide add" is still a bit batshit 15:10:26 I don't think so. I would work that out pretty quickly with an ordinary calculator 15:10:39 and with an rpn calculator I can type it directly into the calculator 15:10:54 our brains could flip and we could think in postfix. we're flexible like that. but i think that's missing the point. humans aren't (good/fast) computers relative to the tools we now have. i see no reason to optimize - esp when almost every (wester) brain you'll encounter is infix trained. 15:11:10 i can't speak about other cultures but suspect postfix is natural to none (?) 15:11:29 do they actually use "polish notation" in Poland? 15:11:41 that is not why it is named polish notation 15:11:41 and, does that put the operator first? 15:11:49 so speeding up our time to compute trivial equations is a waste of time. "penny wise, pound foolish" 15:12:09 I think it would be very wise to use the best tools available to use in any given situation 15:12:22 I agree that it's a simple way to make your parser a lot easier to write, with only a little bit of mental adjustment 15:12:24 i thought it was named polish notation (or reverse) bc it was used by some academics -- not a general "polish way" of doing things 15:12:40 bluekelp: maybe like Hungarian Notation 15:12:49 haha. yes, like that. 15:12:51 no there was a apparently a man who may not have even been polish but his name could not be pronounced 15:12:59 so they call it polish notation instead of naming it after him 15:13:55 in any event, I don't think any PN/RPN is used anywhere as the generally accepted way of doing non-computer/stack things 15:14:11 John[Lisbeth]: and indeed the mathematician that devised it was Polish 15:14:20 perhaps there is some academic niche outside of computers. but not people in general. 15:16:21 the "best" tool isn't always the "best tool" -- there are plenty of things that thousands, millions, or billions of us do that could be improved in some way. but trying to get everyone else to change is probably not the more efficient use of your own time unless the overall gain/improvement is great 15:17:01 Jan Łukasiewicz was the chap 15:17:03 getting humans to switch to RPN isn't worth it. getting humans to switch to peaceful means of resolving conflicts, however... 15:17:06 it's not even hard to pronounce 15:17:24 "wookah-shevitch" would get you in the ballpark 15:18:02 I think that the fact that people use infix does not in it's self make infix better it just makes it more commmmonly understood 15:18:15 if the majority of people believed abraham lincoln was a woman they would still be incorrect 15:18:30 though the fact that infix is so common makes it difficult to promote postfix 15:18:37 okay, but infix *is* better 15:18:39 demonstrably so 15:19:03 postfix is good *for some applications* 15:19:22 where you might not want to throw the computing resources at decoding infix 15:19:29 how do you demonstrate that infix is better? 15:19:41 I already did 15:19:51 it more closely matches natural language, therefore it is better 15:20:11 at least in the general case 15:20:34 if you want to talk specifically about why it's better for very resource-limited computing to use postfix then fine 15:20:37 I disagree that it more closely matches natural langauge. Infix notation seems more natural to use because we were taught infix from the time we were small children 15:20:48 why do you think that is? 15:20:49 if we had been taught postfix then we might find infix to be more difficult 15:20:59 but we're not taught postfix 15:21:05 because normal people don't talk in postfix 15:21:09 I think it is taught that way because it was taught that way to the teacher before them and so on and so forth 15:21:14 no 15:21:24 we teach postfix because that is what matches the way we talk naturally 15:21:40 we don't talk in postfix 15:21:51 okay 15:21:57 there are well over a billion people using computers and doing simple math, currently using infix. there are, effectively, none using postfix outside of a few forthers or CS students. therefore infix is objectively better to use for everyday life. 15:22:08 incorrigibly nerdy types aside, most people don't talk in postfix 15:22:24 what you are saying is appeal to authority. Just because the authority says something does not mean that thing is better or correct 15:22:26 "if it ain't (horribly) broke, don't fix it" 15:22:31 what is correct is correct and what is incorrect is incorrect 15:22:33 John[Lisbeth]: horseshit 15:22:37 orly 15:22:42 it's objectively better 15:22:46 again 15:22:50 how do you demonstrate that? 15:22:52 christ on a fucking bike 15:22:56 go and read Chomsky 15:23:03 understand how natural language works 15:23:05 i'm not saying authority. i'm saying the small gains in getting people to change in order to be "right" or "a little faster" isn't worth the time it will take 15:23:32 bluekelp: no I was speaking to gordonjcp whenI said argument to authority 15:23:37 don't be an idealist unless your ideal is really important. making life suck a little less for people in school isn't a big enough problem to justify this solution. 15:23:38 we don't go noun noun verb, do we? 15:23:48 ah sorry - crossed my wires 15:23:49 actually 15:23:50 we go noun verb noun, or noun adjective noun 15:23:56 until the 1900s the germans spoke in noun noun verb 15:24:04 for about 700 years they spoke that way 15:24:10 and they don't any more 15:24:14 sure 15:24:27 because that way of doing things was entirely at odds with everyone else 15:24:27 But that proves that it can work linguistically 15:24:29 gordonjcp: please tone your objections down a tad. you can choose nicer words and still disagree :) 15:24:43 and yes, in modern German there are still sentences where the verb at the end is put 15:25:00 but if you talk like that in English you sound like a raving lunatic 15:25:07 yeah you seem to be saying that infix notation is better because it is more natural, and when I say it is more natural because they teach it that way you say "well they teach it that way because it is better"and whenI ask you why it is better you seem not to be able to say why 15:25:08 the question isn't whether or not humans _can_ thing/do postfix. i'm pretty sure we could be taught to. but why? 15:25:11 other than taht it is "easier" 15:25:15 think* 15:25:17 but we have already said it is easier because they teach it that way 15:25:32 or someone who learned German 130 years ago and somehow unaccountably cannot codeswitch to English grammar again 15:25:34 or at least that is an assumption I have made 15:25:49 John[Lisbeth]: we teach it that way because that is how language works 15:25:53 I know a german girl who knows how to speak in both ways 15:26:02 I disagree that that is necessarily how language works 15:26:15 I think you just think language works that way because that is the way you were taught it works 15:26:22 and you are unable to see past your bias 15:26:41 John[Lisbeth]: Step 1: form your own community. Step 2: teach the kids in postfix. Step 3: demonstrate to us how that is better. Step 4: we'll switch if the benefits are compelling. 15:26:52 so what, every human language is somehow wrong? 15:27:07 we should be saying "the cat the mouse ate"? 15:27:24 give me a sec, I have to go wipe something up 15:27:47 until then arguing about it is a little like the "brace placement wars" that have been waged in other programming languages. 15:28:02 right, goo in the carpet avoided 15:28:03 I have a much faster way we can test this 15:28:16 like I said before just choose a large handful of equations 15:28:20 go ahead 15:28:23 let's see your results 15:28:24 write them in both postfix and infix 15:28:29 you'll need to do a blind test though 15:28:31 i don't care if it's better. it has to be *immensely* better for me to even care. 15:28:36 precisely 15:28:37 how do you propose we do a blind test? 15:29:14 John[Lisbeth]: get a large sample of people who are familiar with both infix and RPN, give them a selection of problems, don't tell them what you're measuring 15:29:19 i'm done with school. i don't care if kids suffer a little. i am no longer a kid. and i can use infix to communicate with literally *billions* of other humans. right now. zero extra effort required. 15:29:38 I don't think it will be possible to conceal the experiment from the test participants 15:29:43 although I agree it would be beneficial if we could 15:29:50 your solution, while (possibly) more efficient, is not sufficiently interesting/compelling for me to care 15:30:09 Very funny conversation :) 15:30:14 I don't think the experiment would really need to be blind 15:30:14 and I already *am* a postfix fan - for some computing systems - this is why i'm here in this channel 15:30:34 John[Lisbeth]: but that would influence the result 15:30:44 how would the result be influenced? 15:30:53 John[Lisbeth]: you'd also have to make sure that you didn't give the same person a question posed in both infix and postfix 15:31:01 true 15:31:07 though we can produce new math equations cheaply 15:31:15 because consciously or subconsciously the tester might "throw" the result 15:31:21 Take something in infix. Try to represent it in RPN. Like, for example: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/42efe5c6f302eb75186b3d5b782129850bfa04d1 15:31:27 who cares of the participants know - get 1000 people to agree postfix is better by _any_ means you can. it still won't matter. "6,000,000,000 * x > 1,000 x *" for all values of x and infix/postfix 15:31:30 I posit that the tester would throw the result towards infix 15:31:59 John[Lisbeth]: hell, I agree with you that postfix is better for certain classes of problem, and I still don't agree that it's universally better 15:32:13 well lets test it though I am not sure it could be made blind 15:32:18 I think the testers would know what was up 15:32:23 true-grue: you walked in at a fun time :) 15:32:30 true-grue: oh my ghods, the stack churning involved 15:32:42 Just search for "quadratic formula equation" in c.l.f. They tried it to solve it many years! %) 15:34:32 true-grue: even getting b²-4ac is giving me a headache 15:35:31 iirc it's easier with a separate stack 15:36:15 Ever more simpler example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_function 15:36:23 xy + yz + zx 15:36:30 i.e., stuffing a few things on the return stack helps - but i agree it's hard for an infix-trained mind to grok it in postfix 15:37:59 my best stab at just b²-4ac is (a b c -- a b c result) over dup * 4 6 pick * 4 pick * 15:38:20 but I've always felt pick is cheating somehow 15:38:29 Alas, in postfix version you often need to think in a highly imperative manner to understand how the formula is working. 15:41:07 gordonjcp, Yes, it's cheating, and here is the reason: most clear Forth CPU design means that you don't have an access to any element of stack. Just to first ones with help of the few stack combinators. 15:41:33 true-grue: I mean at that point I'd just give up and write it in assembler 15:41:54 * gordonjcp -> bed 15:41:56 nearly midnight 15:42:00 Good night! :) 15:44:51 I am not sure whether or not the green arrays chips will take off 15:44:52 they might 15:48:54 I don't know enough about the design of the green arrays chips to know if they are more efficient than modern chips 15:51:00 i think they're low power. not sure about how powerful they are. it seems like an apple-orange thing. 15:51:41 I think green arrays chips could be many times smaller and faster than they are now if they got the kind of funding arm has 15:51:42 i'd like to play with them some day. but i'm still years behind on my x86 forth project(s) 15:52:09 the thing is people are not just worried about power consumption they are going to want something that can run legacy code as fast or faster than arm or x86 15:52:28 although power consumption is very admirable 15:52:50 I think green arrays chips could also be alot physically smaller for what they are 15:52:54 and that is just a problem with funding 15:54:25 if they are gonna make a chip that large then they need to worry more about horespower than power consumption just to be able to sell the chips in teh first place 15:55:06 you can get an mcu powerful as a com 64 that's able to run forth for like 40 cents a pop if you buy them in bulk 15:55:39 and these mcus are the size of a quarter 15:56:24 i doubt they'll ever take off. perhaps some of the concepts may eventually be adopted/tried in other chips. but even that is doubtful. 15:57:59 I think forth must take off on the high level before it can dominate the chip market 15:59:27 green arrays chip as far as I understand run under the assumption that people are only going to run forth on it 15:59:34 but that's unrealistic for many problem domains 16:05:01 people are going to want to run c 16:08:18 people grow up being taught in school that c is the fastest thing so when you try to sell them a chip where c is not the fastest thing they cringe 16:08:33 --- quit: nighty (Remote host closed the connection) 16:08:44 heh. you'll be waiting for a while then, I guess. 16:09:48 prediction: forth will never dominate the high level before it is entirely forgotten by all but a small number of computing historians who downloaded the 2016 mirror of Wikipedia and have a vague but misguided notion of what forth even was 16:09:55 I am sure moore will not budge but I am not sure if his guys will follow him bravely to the grave 16:10:16 My life's mission is to dominate high level with forth 16:10:31 My thinking is that I could kick ass in certain systems such a sorting systems 16:10:42 i wish you luck 16:10:52 thanks man 16:10:54 what do you mean by "sorting systems"? 16:11:28 well currently to sort a database you basically need to have virtual machines doing it unless you subscribe to a managed database that sorts under the hood 16:11:40 and one trend which is picking up in virtual machines is containers 16:11:53 and there are such a thing as microcontainers which are little more than unlinked c or assembly files 16:12:03 these microcontainers are the most efficient but are difficult to produce 16:12:05 i don't know what you mean by "sort a database" - do you mean sort the results of a query or something else? 16:12:19 I don't know I don't really deal with dtabases in my work so far 16:12:27 that was just an example Ipulled out of my ass 16:12:46 what I was really alluding to was microcontainers 16:13:24 --- quit: true-grue (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 16:13:25 ah. I think there may be promise for a "high level" forth that is a scripting/DSL atop other primitives in other languages. sort of like ATLAST or something like it written for the JVM, etc. 16:13:40 this is another one of my strategies 16:13:48 i don't see it being an "all purpose" language like Java or being mainstream 16:13:49 is adding concatenative features to existing languages 16:15:01 which features and which languages? 16:19:11 mainly you need the ability to push and pop 16:19:21 and once you have the ability to push and pop you can invent swap and all these things 16:19:35 and the idea for me at least is I want the syntax to be very similar to forth without actually making an interpreter 16:19:42 so I am to borrow the features of the existing language 16:19:52 --- quit: ricky_ricardo (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) 16:22:00 so for example in javascript my forth looks like push(2, 2, 3); plus(); pop() 16:22:09 whereas in bash it looks like push 2 2 3; plus; pop 16:22:28 the downside with this approach is you often are left without macros 16:25:11 if the language already has macros then you have macros but languages that do not come with macros do not allow for macros in that flavor of forth I described 16:29:43 why? it seems like you're stripping the power of forth out (the interpreter) and leaving only the "clunky bits" (compared to other langs) - the stack, etc. 16:30:31 well I could easily add an interpreter to it 16:30:33 you could implement a stack (as an array) in lang X and add a push/pop to that and use it in any language. it doesn't seem that would buy you much. 16:30:40 but the goal is to be able to borrow code from the language below 16:31:01 so I want to program concatenatively but I also want to steal the libraries that are already written in that language 16:31:19 and keeping from writing an interpreter means I have not left the original language and can still call on it's variables 16:31:37 have you seen https://www.fourmilab.ch/atlast/ ? 16:31:55 it's a forth scripting layer atop C, to oversimplify 16:32:22 it can call into C primitives and was meant, iirc, to script/glue things together 16:32:45 it's not a "pure forth" but it is stack based, etc. iirc. 16:32:55 is this what you want? 16:33:04 sure I could make an interpreter that could call on the underlying javascript 16:33:18 oh i see. you don't want to leave the original language. 16:33:18 but my goal is to blend it in with javascript so people consider javascript it's self to be concatenative on it's own 16:33:24 in this case no I don't 16:33:34 I want to retain as much as I can of the original design of the langauge 16:33:39 and turn taht language its self into a concatenative langauge 16:33:54 then i'm not sure what power this gives. do you want to use the stack as the ABI for different parts of the program (in the other language) to communicate with each other? 16:34:48 being able to push/pop in js isn't very useful on its own. you can already so you're just making it convenient? 16:37:02 well for me being concatenative in and of it's self is a benefit because it makes the language behave much more like teh way I want 16:37:09 macros would be nice but that is not the use case of this 16:37:24 this particular kind of forth is designed to take a non concatenative language and make it concatenative 16:37:31 and this is to help propogate forth as a means of programming in the high level 16:37:44 and if you want a concatenative programming language, why not check out the functional ones? e.g. check out Scala and ignore all the Java-crap you can do in it 16:37:56 or haskell if you don't want/need JVM 16:37:57 --- join: reepca` (~user@std-001.cune.edu) joined #forth 16:38:27 --- quit: reepca (Write error: Broken pipe) 16:38:33 --- nick: reepca` -> reepca 16:38:38 I don't think forth translates well to modern systems/requirements in a way that will make it propogatable without some major changes 16:40:18 So earlier today I was thinking about what benefits might be found from going nonstandard / lower-level and really controlling the system. I got to wondering how hard it would be to do something like write a simple graphics library that directly uses GPUs if you completely controlled the implementation and interface... 16:41:40 I suspect that particular example coming to mind had something to do with getting frustrated with how confusing trying to understand opengl is 16:42:52 John[Lisbeth]: you ever read Let over Lambda? In the last chapter the author implements a simple forth-in-lisp that can seamlessly communicate both ways. It sounds like something you'd be interested in. 16:43:16 yeah apparently lisp functions and forth functions are compatible from what I've read 16:43:29 another plan of mine is to try to convince lispers to switch to concatenative programing and merge lisp and forth 16:43:55 with common lisp I can actually write a langauge that is faster than common lisp it's self and so this is especially viable in that lisp 16:44:05 other lisps it will just be syntactic sugar 16:51:19 --- join: karswell` (~user@52.209.208.46.dyn.plus.net) joined #forth 16:51:20 --- quit: karswell (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 16:56:31 John[Lisbeth]: you are a very ambitious person 16:56:52 do you plan to merge lisp+forth before or after re-training the world to think+use postfix? ;) 16:57:38 I dunno I just kinda take turns with each one 16:57:52 though merging lisp and forth just means making a macro 16:58:02 so that one is at least easy to implement 17:01:01 The thing is I want to make a syntax for this macro which can work in scheme, guile, common lisp, and emacs lisp 17:06:57 --- quit: Zarutian (Quit: Zarutian) 17:21:11 --- join: nighty (~nighty@d246113.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp) joined #forth 17:28:17 I have ben getting really curious about dgasu's krivine machine 17:30:06 for high levelers using ans as a virtual machine seems like not a huge amount of bloat but I see it as not a good solution 17:30:24 first of all because the minimalists in forth do not approve of it 17:33:48 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 17:34:15 second of all is a very complex standard and if lots of people are copying it you can expect some of them to make mistakers 17:37:15 thirdly, even if it was possible to ensure each implementation of ans were perfect, it is still alot of work to implement ans 17:37:30 and fourthly I agree with the minimalists in that if you have ans within ans within ans within ans that is going to slow down at some point 17:37:44 so I feel that there could be a forth vm which was much much smaller than ans 17:41:12 if dgasu is actually correct about the krivine machine, then this could be an answer to that problem 17:51:48 According to dgasu these are the properties of the krivine machine 17:52:07 1. It is a virtual machine capable of holding a turing complete programming language/environment 17:52:16 2. It is the smallest known possible virtual machine 17:52:30 3. It is very easy to implement 17:52:44 4. Things implemented in this virtual machine are purely functional 17:53:07 and according to my brief research on it the krivin emachine can be defined in four functions 17:53:30 To me this indicates that it would be a good replacement vm for ans as it is simpler and smaller 17:53:53 what really matters is A. IF dgasu is correct about these claims, and B. that this krivine machine is decently fast 18:01:36 lets assume for a moment he is in fact correct and that krivine machine is decently fast 18:01:57 all one would have to do is write a krivine machine in any forth, and then they could port any forth to any other forth in a very minimal amount of code 18:02:20 and to make your forth portable you owuld merely need to make your forth comiple to a krivine machine 18:04:41 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@71.198.73.193) joined #forth 18:08:43 --- quit: mnemnion (Remote host closed the connection) 18:08:59 --- join: mnemnion (~mnemnion@71.198.73.193) joined #forth 18:10:42 --- join: neceve (~ncv@79.115.225.255) joined #forth 18:10:42 --- quit: neceve (Changing host) 18:10:42 --- join: neceve (~ncv@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 18:22:14 what do you guys think. Do you think the krivine could replace ans as the standard vm for forth if those claims are true? 18:43:14 I think clearly ans forth can not be that vm 18:43:29 almost everyone seems to agree with me that I've talked to that ans may be a great language but it is certainly not the ideal vm 18:49:57 --- join: ricky_ricardo (~rickyrica@2601:240:4203:ecb0:685f:7ba2:f35e:6154) joined #forth 18:50:31 --- join: vsg1990 (~vsg1990@static-72-88-80-103.bflony.fios.verizon.net) joined #forth 19:37:00 --- quit: proteus-guy (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 19:37:47 --- join: proteus-guy (~proteusgu@14.207.42.190) joined #forth 21:14:52 --- quit: vsg1990 (Quit: Leaving) 21:19:42 --- join: event-horizon (~event-hor@2001:8003:f10b:2d00:f66d:4ff:fe58:ff4b) joined #forth 21:40:32 --- join: proteusguy (~proteus-g@14.207.45.251) joined #forth 21:40:32 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 21:50:57 --- quit: neceve (Quit: Konversation terminated!) 21:55:59 --- join: mnemnia (~mnemnion@2601:643:8102:7c95:f5d6:3212:2465:fa59) joined #forth 21:59:03 --- quit: mnemnion (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 22:06:09 but then forth "for embedded" will die, if you create "forth for cloud" and "force" it as main 22:06:38 nerfur: i'd prefer forth for cloud 22:06:59 its better to build a service like amazon lambda using forth as the language 22:07:05 why you feel necessary to tell people about forth if it is solution to YOUR project? Isnt' it obvious to tell them if it is solution for THEIR project? 22:21:29 yunfan: sure, because it is your "problem") so just "make" cloforth (and I'm sure amazon will make it easily if they will feel it is good for them) 22:23:00 nerfur: well i just found their case is suit for forth 22:23:10 they were function as service 22:23:21 and use that to processing short term events 22:25:08 I don't think it suits for forth it suits for forth-like language with RPN and "strict" problem-orientation, but I don't really feel they will need memory allocation for variables in bytes and shifting ) 22:26:46 well good luck 22:32:24 --- join: zincing_ (~zincing@2a03:1b20:2:f702::16de) joined #forth 22:32:38 --- quit: zincing_ (Remote host closed the connection) 23:14:52 --- join: mtsd (4d6e3d64@gateway/web/freenode/ip.77.110.61.100) joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/17.01.09