00:00:00 --- log: started forth/19.01.25
00:19:57 <nerfur> TIL that linked list is patented *facepalm
00:45:49 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Unlikely
01:11:08 --- quit: smokeink (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
01:13:51 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@193.060.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth
01:14:05 <dave0> re
01:30:10 * proteusguy avoids ARM and PIC chips. Atmel's are very nice for programmers. Most instructions are 1 cycle. ESP is also a nice device for coding.
01:31:24 <dave0> i used to use them to make wafer cards and crack pay tv
01:31:29 <dave0> good times
01:46:15 <yunfan> proteusguy: esp32 or esp8266?
01:46:27 <yunfan> i had a dozen of thems
01:46:41 <proteusguy> I didn't have any issues with either of them.
01:55:46 <nerfur> https://patents.google.com/patent/US7028023B2/en
01:58:53 <proteusguy> nerfur, goodness... is there a running program created since 1972 that doesn't violate that patent in some manner?
02:01:16 <nerfur> yeah, it is easily will be rejected by prior art I think, but you need to go to court for that and it is obviously probably done for patent trolling/competitors attacks
02:05:06 --- quit: ashirase (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
02:07:26 --- join: ashirase (~ashirase@modemcable098.166-22-96.mc.videotron.ca) joined #forth
03:06:51 --- join: smokeink (~smokeink@185.189.254.154) joined #forth
03:27:40 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here)
03:43:48 <crc> my Forth does not violate that patent from what I can see. (My only linked lists are things like the dictionary, with only a single link pointer, whereas the patent appears to cover lists with multiple link pointers)
03:44:58 <jackdaniel> innovative so much, wow
03:45:06 <jackdaniel> (re patent thing)
04:09:20 --- join: dddddd (~dddddd@unaffiliated/dddddd) joined #forth
04:36:18 --- quit: mark4 (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
06:12:10 --- quit: pierpal (Quit: Poof)
06:12:29 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
06:35:17 --- quit: nighty- (Remote host closed the connection)
06:35:49 --- quit: smokeink (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
06:38:54 --- quit: pierpal (Quit: Poof)
06:39:12 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
06:54:00 <corecode> hm, should i use a harvard or a von neumann arch for my forth cpu
07:02:04 <zy]x[yz> von neumann
07:02:58 <corecode> hm, then i need to do wait states
07:03:14 <corecode> for mem access instructions
07:04:05 <corecode> because i can't fetch an instruction and do a mem read at the same time
07:12:18 --- quit: pierpal (Quit: Poof)
07:12:36 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
07:32:50 --- quit: rain1 (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
07:35:18 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
07:37:33 --- join: darithorn (~darithorn@75.174.234.76) joined #forth
08:03:32 <corecode> but i agree that von neumann would be better
08:03:46 <corecode> or simpler
08:07:55 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
08:07:59 --- join: [1]MrMobius (~default@c-73-134-82-217.hsd1.va.comcast.net) joined #forth
08:11:08 --- quit: MrMobius (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
08:11:08 --- nick: [1]MrMobius -> MrMobius
08:11:40 --- quit: Zarutian (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
08:12:13 --- join: Zarutian (~zarutian@173-133-17-89.fiber.hringdu.is) joined #forth
08:39:55 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
08:45:45 --- quit: pierpal (Quit: Poof)
08:46:04 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
08:55:04 <proteusguy> not von neumann actually... :-) why do you imagine it's better? a proper stack machine has the opportunity to avoid the bus contention inherent in von neuman - which is why intel has spent all that money making their complex register based systems.
08:56:36 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Is there a word for a pop in the opposite direction (i.e. with a deque/ringbuf)
08:56:59 <proteusguy> not push?
08:57:05 <proteusguy> append?
08:57:08 <zy]x[yz> enqueue
08:57:38 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Push would alter the contents of the buffer
08:57:43 <zy]x[yz> soda
08:57:44 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I'll call it pip
08:57:52 <WilhelmVonWeiner> kekeke
08:57:53 <proteusguy> I like pip.
08:58:06 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I'll make it a backronym
08:58:13 <zy]x[yz> i don't understand this operation
08:58:53 <WilhelmVonWeiner> if pop is dec+fetch, this is inc+fetch, I suppose
08:59:02 <WilhelmVonWeiner> *fetch and dec
08:59:10 <WilhelmVonWeiner> the opposite of what I said
08:59:23 * proteusguy is now more confused
08:59:26 <zy]x[yz> same
08:59:32 <proteusguy> this is for a queue structure?
09:00:26 <PoppaVic> IndianGiver
09:00:30 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Well I have a deque instead of a stack and I can see potential use from an opposite-pop
09:00:38 <zy]x[yz> haha
09:00:59 <proteusguy> WilhelmVonWeiner, so you want a command to pull something off the top but also pull something out of the bottom?
09:03:50 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Not off the bottom, I'm only keeping one pointer
09:04:09 <WilhelmVonWeiner> oh, maybe off the bottom. Lol.
09:04:27 <proteusguy> :-) both ends I presume?
09:04:37 <WilhelmVonWeiner> either or.
09:04:56 <PoppaVic> buttpop
09:05:08 <zy]x[yz> unpush
09:05:34 <PoppaVic> dededeque
09:06:03 <zy]x[yz> i might be tempted to make dequeue work, but then enqueue would alias to push and that might be weird
09:06:08 <zy]x[yz> assuming i understand this right
09:07:20 <WilhelmVonWeiner> unpush is a pop
09:07:26 <WilhelmVonWeiner> is it?
09:07:33 <WilhelmVonWeiner> unpush is a dec
09:11:55 <zy]x[yz> idk, given that pop already has a definition, i could see an argument for unpush or antipush to be something that operates from the bottom
09:13:00 <zy]x[yz> again, assuming i understand what you're doing correctly (give stack A, B, C where pop would take C, you want 'pip' to take A), i would probably use dequeue
09:13:25 <WilhelmVonWeiner> But the data structure is a dequeue
09:13:41 <zy]x[yz> what is a dequeue data structure?
09:13:49 <WilhelmVonWeiner> ring buffer
09:13:58 <WilhelmVonWeiner> but the inverse
09:14:08 <zy]x[yz> dequeue is a verb
09:14:12 * PoppaVic facepalms...
09:14:28 <PoppaVic> dbl-link-list
09:14:57 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Oh yeah, that too
09:15:04 <WilhelmVonWeiner> sorry i never use them without a fixed size 
09:15:42 <PoppaVic> same idea - you just have an array with a moving First-OUT and Next-IN
09:16:10 <zy]x[yz> i'd call it a ringbuf or something and use dequeue as a verb
09:16:41 --- quit: cantstanya (Remote host closed the connection)
09:19:30 --- join: cantstanya (~chatting@gateway/tor-sasl/cantstanya) joined #forth
10:09:56 --- join: dys (~dys@tmo-110-72.customers.d1-online.com) joined #forth
10:24:15 <corecode> hm, do i need to implement 2/ and some other rshift op for unsigned values?
10:24:42 <corecode> trying to decide what should be instructions, and what should be done via words
10:43:20 <WilhelmVonWeiner> http://tunes.org/~iepos/joy.html
10:43:30 <WilhelmVonWeiner> if you want to try and make something stupidly small
10:47:25 <corecode> oh i'm talking about my cpu design
10:47:39 <WilhelmVonWeiner> yeah
10:47:43 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I know
10:49:14 <corecode> so at the moment i have AND, OR, XOR, ADD, 2/, NEGATE, 0<>, 0<
10:51:29 <corecode> does that seem reasonable?  something to exchange?  half of the ops are two arg instructions, half of them are single arg
10:56:57 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Chuck has a - on the F18A which gives you the one's complement inverse of a number
10:58:21 <corecode> not two's complement?
10:58:28 <corecode> i guess i should have sub
10:58:43 <WilhelmVonWeiner> derp
10:58:49 <WilhelmVonWeiner> two's complement, yeah
10:58:59 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I assumed subtractions are - +
11:09:31 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
11:29:01 <zy]x[yz> wait a minute
11:31:08 <zy]x[yz> http://bespin.org/~nef/logs/forth/19.01.10 at 19:05:28
11:31:19 <zy]x[yz> i was right: wtf is an arithmetic shift left
11:32:15 <zy]x[yz> i thought i was having a brain fart.  isn't sal the same thing as a shl?
11:34:24 <crc> yes
11:35:51 <zy]x[yz> thought i was losing my mind there
11:36:24 <crc> from https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-vol-1-manual.pdf 7.3.6.1: The SAL and SHL instructions perform the same operation (see Figure 7-6). They shift the source operand left by from 1 to 31 bit positions. Empty bit positions are cleared. The CF flag is loaded with the last bit shifted out of the
11:36:24 <crc> operand.
11:38:23 <crc> iirc, x86 has both mnemonics, but they assemble to the same opcode
11:39:05 <zy]x[yz> yeah
11:57:01 --- join: mtsd (~mtsd@94-137-100-130.customers.ownit.se) joined #forth
11:58:46 <corecode> did i say the wrong shift?
11:59:29 <zy]x[yz> no, i was referring to a conversation i had in here 15 days ago
12:01:58 --- quit: Zarutian (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
12:02:03 --- join: Zarutian_2 (~zarutian@173-133-17-89.fiber.hringdu.is) joined #forth
12:02:34 --- nick: Zarutian_2 -> Zarutian
12:05:01 <corecode> ok
12:05:19 <zy]x[yz> pls keep up with the topic GOSH
13:21:46 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
13:41:29 --- quit: learning (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
13:42:15 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
13:43:53 --- quit: mtsd (Quit: WeeChat 1.6)
13:47:28 <pointfree> WilhelmVonWeiner: `suck` -- to remove from a fifo/pipe/straw
13:48:10 <WilhelmVonWeiner> pip makes the code suck less
13:48:13 <WilhelmVonWeiner> kekeke
14:05:41 --- quit: learning (Remote host closed the connection)
14:46:30 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@193.060.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth
14:47:03 <dave0> hi
14:47:21 --- quit: cantstanya (Remote host closed the connection)
14:49:40 --- join: cantstanya (~chatting@gateway/tor-sasl/cantstanya) joined #forth
15:00:27 <WilhelmVonWeiner> hey dave
15:01:10 <dave0> hi WilhelmVonWeiner 
15:05:59 --- join: mark4 (~mark4@12.41.103.244) joined #forth
15:12:05 <WilhelmVonWeiner> whats up
15:12:29 <dave0> nuffing
15:12:49 <dave0> i did a little bit of Forth coding yesterday.. Forth is hard :-)
15:13:09 <WilhelmVonWeiner> nah, Forth is easy
15:13:12 <WilhelmVonWeiner> thinking is hard.
15:13:58 <mark4> when you get used to forth you can code it without thinking
15:16:20 <WilhelmVonWeiner> if the first definition I write is like `: GAME LOAD BEGIN UPDATE DRAW AGAIN ;` is that top-down design?
15:17:33 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
15:17:49 <corecode> yes
15:18:03 <mark4> thats top down coding.
15:18:19 <mark4> define everything needed by load. then define load
15:18:28 <mark4> define everything needed by update. then define update
15:18:30 <mark4> etc etc etc
15:18:35 <mark4> thats bottom up coding
15:18:49 <mark4> ALWAYS do bottom up coding but top down design :)
15:19:01 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I think that's how I forth.
15:19:28 <WilhelmVonWeiner> Forth is a verb, obviously.
15:19:35 <mark4> i often break that rule tho
15:19:50 <mark4> i designed and wrote my memory manager from the bottom up for example
15:19:56 <mark4> NONE of these rules are hard fast
15:24:46 <WilhelmVonWeiner> of course not
15:24:59 <WilhelmVonWeiner> I think the spirit of Forth holds that "rules suck, unless they don't"
15:25:12 <mark4> i call them hard fast rules of thumb
15:30:48 --- quit: xek (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
15:54:59 --- quit: learning (Remote host closed the connection)
15:59:53 --- quit: darithorn (Quit: Leaving)
16:14:38 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
16:15:06 --- quit: learning (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
16:16:01 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
16:17:07 --- quit: proteusguy (Remote host closed the connection)
16:31:44 <corecode> not soft fast?
16:57:16 --- quit: learning (Remote host closed the connection)
16:58:35 <rdrop-exit> Good mosrning Forthwrights
16:59:17 <rdrop-exit> * morning
16:59:52 <dave0> hi rdrop-exit 
17:00:02 <rdrop-exit> Hi dave0
17:01:32 <rdrop-exit> [_]P
17:02:36 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
17:02:38 <dave0> coffee cup!
17:03:48 <rdrop-exit> I need it, fourth day with flu
17:04:22 <dave0> bummer
17:04:35 <dave0> sick on the weekend :-(
17:04:44 <jn__> make it into a Forth day with flu
17:04:57 <rdrop-exit> :-)
17:10:33 <rdrop-exit> I'm not in any shape to be productive. Just takin' it easy.
17:30:18 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
17:31:21 --- quit: learning (Remote host closed the connection)
17:31:57 --- join: smokeink (~smokeink@185.189.254.154) joined #forth
17:39:47 <PoppaVic> SOunds like yer a congresscritter ;-)
17:47:53 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@rrcs-162-155-170-75.central.biz.rr.com) joined #forth
18:13:10 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
18:15:09 --- quit: X-Scale (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
18:15:18 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
18:46:25 --- quit: dave0 (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
18:46:45 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@193.060.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth
18:47:05 --- quit: dave0 (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
18:53:41 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@193.060.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth
19:02:01 --- quit: learning (Remote host closed the connection)
19:28:57 <dave0> it took me ages, but i got my Forth code to work: http://termbin.com/zbzv
19:30:15 <dave0> i hope it's not too long for a Forth word
19:37:31 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@2600:1700:7990:24e0:8d7a:3d82:9669:8573) joined #forth
19:38:33 --- join: learning (~learning@47.180.91.163) joined #forth
19:44:36 --- join: X-Scale (~ARM@83.223.227.56) joined #forth
19:47:06 <crc> dave0: looks ok to me 
19:47:34 <crc> `swap over` is `tuck`
19:50:22 <dave0> oh!
19:50:38 <dave0> an optimization!
20:00:00 <smokeink> dave0: cool
20:00:28 <smokeink> dave0: one little problem, I tried it like in my gforth and it didn't work: S" abc" reverse \ now my stack is empty
20:01:05 <smokeink> oh, it should be empty, according to ( c-addr n --) 
20:01:13 <smokeink> what is reverse supposed to do ?
20:01:47 <ttmrichter> Does it reverse in place?
20:02:14 <ttmrichter> You might have to dup the string pointer and length first before reversing.
20:04:42 <crc> ttmrichter: yes
20:12:46 <dave0> ah should "string" functions always return the string address?
20:13:20 <dave0> it's just an extra 2dup in the code
20:13:52 --- quit: dddddd (Remote host closed the connection)
20:14:25 <dave0> brb having a beer with my neighbor
20:20:51 <PoppaVic> beer always tastes better w/o neighbors.. Or ice, or.. Well, don't dilute it - that is all.
20:26:05 <smokeink> dave0: after you reverse the string you might want to supply it's address and length to the next word in your code, that's why I expected it to return them on the stack
20:29:22 --- quit: learning (Remote host closed the connection)
20:36:52 --- join: gravicappa (~gravicapp@h109-187-28-67.dyn.bashtel.ru) joined #forth
20:40:57 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
20:59:46 <dave0> smokeink: ah okay, i'll do that
20:59:54 <dave0> easy fix
20:59:57 <dave0> :-)
21:03:28 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
21:03:36 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
21:06:11 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
21:10:10 <rdrop-exit> dave0: I would probably do something like this as a first cut.
21:11:15 <rdrop-exit> My chars are bytes.
21:11:38 <rdrop-exit> Untested code ahead:
21:11:41 <rdrop-exit> : btrade ( a1 a2 -- ) tuck b@ \b!@ \b! ;
21:11:42 <rdrop-exit> : step ( x1 x2 -- x1+1 x2-1 ) `1+ 1- ;inline
21:11:42 <rdrop-exit> : btrades ( a1 a2 #trades -- ) for  2dup btrade step  next 2drop ;
21:11:42 <rdrop-exit> : opposites ( a # -- a1 a2 ) 1- over + ;inline
21:11:42 <rdrop-exit> : reverse ( a # -- ) tuck opposites  rot u2/  btrades ;
21:13:45 <dave0> ah i see u2/
21:14:05 <dave0> thos words are short!
21:14:28 <rdrop-exit> That's always the idea
21:15:43 <rdrop-exit> b@ \b!@ \b! `1+ for next are all non-standard
21:15:59 <dave0> what is  \b   ?
21:16:29 <dave0> \b!   =  something store?
21:16:49 <rdrop-exit> byte store with arguments reversed (it's a primitive)
21:16:53 <rdrop-exit> \b!  ( a x -- )
21:17:01 <dave0> aah
21:17:56 <rdrop-exit> \b!@ is a byte exchange with arguments reversed (another primitive)
21:18:16 <rdrop-exit>  \b!@ ( a x -- b )
21:19:08 <dave0> i used my reverse for the number conversion <# # #> .. instead of building the string in reverse, i built it forward and reversed the string at the end
21:19:11 <rdrop-exit> `1+ ( x1 x2 -- x1+1 x2 )
21:19:29 <dave0> rdrop-exit: that looks handy
21:21:16 <rdrop-exit> Some forths use the name under1+ 
21:22:02 <rdrop-exit> I prefer to `1+ I also have `1- `- `+
21:23:03 <dave0> do you have a   >r 1- r>   primitive? i found myself using that in loops
21:23:32 <dave0> oh wait it's not so easy
21:24:01 <rdrop-exit> yes `1- ( x1 x2 -- x1-1 x2 )
21:31:56 <rdrop-exit> Late lunch, catch you all later. Keep on Forthin'
21:32:21 --- quit: rdrop-exit (Quit: Lost terminal)
21:50:48 --- quit: dys (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
21:56:02 <crc> I've finished initial implementations of uuencode and uudecode. Needs more testing, but seems to work ok with the handful of files I've tested against.
21:59:28 --- quit: smokeink (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
22:44:36 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
22:45:34 --- join: dys (~dys@tmo-103-124.customers.d1-online.com) joined #forth
22:48:50 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
22:53:20 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
22:54:48 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
22:58:51 --- quit: pierpal (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
23:01:19 --- join: smokeink (~smokeink@185.189.254.154) joined #forth
23:11:21 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
23:52:55 --- quit: pierpal (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
23:56:26 --- join: pierpal (~pierpal@host53-189-dynamic.17-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) joined #forth
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/19.01.25