00:00:00 --- log: started forth/19.08.02 00:06:11 --- quit: ryke (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 00:34:41 --- join: dys (~dys@2003:5b:203b:100:a64c:c8ff:fef4:13a6) joined #forth 00:38:24 What is it that psychologically drives someone to write their own custom forth? Is it something social? A peer pressure exercise? Is it something about the mindset of forth programmers? Or is it something about the way that forth works that drives human psychology to keep rewriting it? 00:40:50 lisbeths: The entire point of Forth is deep, intensive, customization. 00:41:00 I mean that's the very core of the entire language. 00:42:30 So this, combined with the fact that implementing a Forth kernel is a semi-trivial thing -- a week's project for a complete novice with a bit of programming smarts -- it's almost inevitable that everybody is going to have their own Forth. 00:43:16 So let's talk my space: embedded systems. 00:43:30 MCU 00:43:35 How do you imagine that I'm going to use someone else's Forth for my targets? 00:44:04 Some of my kit has under 1KB of RAM and under 16KB of Flash. 00:44:22 With 8-bit word size. 00:44:36 Other bits of kit I target will have 1MB of Flash and 256KB of RAM. 00:44:53 A Forth written for the latter piece of kit will likely not even FIT in the former. 00:45:12 I think of forth as an alternative to unix + bash shell 00:45:16 And a Forth written for the former will likely not make best uses of the resources and facilities available for the latter. 00:45:50 For the 8-bit kit with limited, tightly-constrained space I'd likely make it tethered and token-threaded. 00:46:27 For the 32-bit kit with loads of resources I'd likely do either direct or subroutine threading (depending on the ISA) with a full-blown programming host on-chip. 00:46:46 It would be impossible to make a single Forth that would satisfy those two targets. 00:47:03 And I've got, like, 15 targets in between those two for complexity, space, and performance. 00:48:31 What bloatware people argue against that with is backwards and forwards compatability 00:49:13 People who sell software in bulk want it to be super portable 00:49:40 Bully on them. 00:49:44 I don't sell softare in bulk. 00:49:49 IMHO "portability" is nonsense. 00:50:01 I sell bespoke software written for specific targetted applications burned into hardware. 00:50:48 I dunno. I was able to download debian and it ported to this machine. And I was able to download emacs to use the terminal. And i was able to use erc inside of emacs. It all ported very well and reliably to this machine that I just bought in the mail 00:51:09 Again, ENTIRELY different world. 00:51:34 True but if I want to program a forth in that world I can. 00:52:03 I wouldn't recommend it, personally. 00:52:20 Forth isn't a language for programming in the large, IMO. 00:52:50 I'm not an electrical enineering type person I am studying for software engineering. I know that the people who I will work with on unix systems will want compatibility with centos, debian, opensuse, and windows 00:52:52 I mean you *CAN* if you really want to, but you *CAN* write a full-fledged word processor in assembler too. It's just ... not a good fit. 00:53:05 So don't use Forth. There's your solution. 00:53:37 I study systems programming and language design, which is why I am driven to programming my own forths and concatenative systems. 00:53:37 Not all software is written for general-purpose devices and not all languages need to be suited for the cult of portability. 00:55:38 This is my world: https://i.imgur.com/yPRmnO9.jpg. So is this: https://i.imgur.com/mmtXmpk.jpg (the handle, not the phone). So is this: https://i.imgur.com/6u6TDOa.jpg 00:55:50 Guess how much "portability" matters to me. 00:56:42 (In the first pic you're seeing, incidentally, four entirely different MCUs, with different ISAs, different built-in peripherals ... different everything, really.) 00:58:29 If my code is going to run in a datacenter I have to let this guy let me run it: https://uploadir.com/u/52a59n. He won't let me do it unless it is very portable and typesafe and all that. 01:00:50 rdrop-exit: pygmy Forth is based on cmForth? 01:03:31 Type safe? Another reason not to use Forth then. :D Forth is type-free. 01:03:34 Yes, at least the 16-bit DOS version was, I haven't looked at the newer 32/64 bit versions. 01:05:30 ttmrichter: I think your definition of forth is limited. Many forths vary away from any forth standard. 01:05:38 "(Much of it was derived from Charles Moore's cmForth.)" 01:05:58 cmForth source is so good 01:06:31 lisbeths: Wouldn't varying away from Forth standards be the epitome of ... not portable? 01:07:13 My definition of Forth basically boils down to "if you have at least two stacks, work mostly in reverse, and talk in words, you're a Forth". 01:07:15 Not if a cohort of programmers could rally behind one unix forth kind of like factor is trying to achieve. Though I want to try to stay truer to the ideals of the original forth. 01:07:48 I guess My level of abstraction is aimed at around gforth but probably a much smaller base of object code. 01:07:49 lisbeths: I wish that was going to happen any time soon 01:07:51 The ideals of the original Forth were very much, however, "build the abstractions and the language YOU NEED". 01:07:56 but look at Forth standardisation 01:08:10 If you want to stay truer to the original ideals of the original Forth then Forth is the OS. 01:08:13 and words like [: :] which are now 2017 standard iirc 01:08:13 The man who INVENTED the original Forth has no use for standards. 01:08:42 I feel a desktop Forth for the modern age needs to be like Factor but less of a pain in the ass 01:09:33 Bah humbug 01:09:37 ;-) 01:10:44 the way Factor was modularised is annoying because of the volume of modules you have to remember to be USING 01:11:11 Factor does not follow true enough to the way of forth because it is based on common lip and not scheme 01:11:29 =8-O 01:11:38 scheme is much more minimal than the most used version of common lisp and is scheme is truer to forth's ideals than common lisp 01:11:40 lisbeths: Have you read or heard ANYTHING by Chuck Moore? I mean, like, at all? 01:12:13 You keep talking about "the way of Forth" and then espouse ideals that go in direct opposition to the stated intent of the man who invented the language. 01:12:16 There are three of his lectures I've listened to about a dozen times each. His ted tak, this one whiteboard speech, and the recent interview he gave. 01:12:27 It's like arguing that systemd is true to the Unix Way. 01:12:55 I am to make unix much more like forth in ideals but to do that I have to offer a branch to them. Unix and forth have to meet in the middle if unix is going to become simpler. 01:13:12 My aim is to simplify unix by using forth techniques. 01:13:15 Unix is too average to be usurped 01:13:16 Why are you so intent on making Unix and Forth meet? 01:13:45 Because forth has something that I want and unix doesn't have, but that unix can evolve towards enabling 01:13:45 That's along the lines of making chocolate and chainsaws meet. 01:13:57 It's more along the lines of attacing a gun to a plane. 01:14:08 Or attaching a flashlight to a power drill 01:15:02 A forth style sytem can make unix alot simpler in design. It also makes more programmers aware of forth. It is a mutually beneficial operation. 01:15:22 Honestly I don't want more programmers to be aware of Forth. 01:15:37 More programmers being aware of a good language turns the language lousy. 01:16:02 Most programmers are incapable of grokking Forth 01:16:05 Yes but you can always write your own forth and not use theirs. 01:16:13 Small, sleek, nicely-constructed languages start to bloat up with features from every other language that the other programmers came to it from. 01:16:40 That's because those systems they use are complex 01:16:42 Erlang got nailed by this, with both direct bloat from changes made to assuage a horde of newcomers and that Elixir abomination. 01:17:19 A language that was once a joy to work with (modulo deployment, which I'll confess was always a pig) became a festering pool of bad ideas engendering worse ones. 01:17:19 Your goal is to make a low level system that is simple. My aim is to simply high level systems by copying the simplicity ideas from low level systems. 01:17:25 Keep away from anything with "concatenative" on the label 01:17:30 Concatenative systems make very good user shells. 01:18:08 Lua hasn't gone that way because the language's owner doesn't listen to people, thankfully, and ruthlessly follows a quasi-rule that for each new feature added, one must be removed. 01:18:33 As much as you hate something dubbed 'concatenative', you would hate bash shell far worse if you had to write a serious program in bash shell 01:18:47 Why would I write a serious program in bash? 01:18:56 bingo 01:19:00 You claim to be studying engineering. ("Software engineering" as if that were a real thing!) 01:19:03 bash programs longer than a million lines can become very tricky to debug for large teams 01:19:16 rotfl 01:19:21 One of the CORE engineering skills is using the right tool for the job. 01:19:39 One of the CORE engineering skills is improving trools. 01:19:57 If you're using bash scripts for more than trivial, MAYBE multiple-hundred-line programs, you're using the WRONG TOOL. 01:20:30 There is nothing wrong about wanting to improve bash. 01:20:57 Yes, there is. If that "improvement" is like how, say, C++ was "improved". 01:21:24 ttmrichter: Elixir is great 01:21:28 Interestingly, the horror that C++ became as it "improved" is a direct result of that whole "portability" (specifically backward compatibility) shibboleth of yours. 01:21:42 Elixir is an abomination. 01:21:47 the only thing lame about Elixir is that every block is closed by an end statement 01:21:48 Certain industries consider c to be the wrong tool for themselves compared to c++. You are being unobjective. 01:22:21 C is the wrong tool. It's a terrible language that got popular only because it was freely available at a time when other languages in the same space were proprietary and protected. 01:22:28 Further, C was originally very easy to port. 01:22:51 Anybody who'd done a very basic compiler design class could churn out a C compiler in a small march of days. 01:23:05 also you can use Bash for a lot, shell scripting is powerful 01:23:05 (This is, of course, no longer true. Because of all the "improvement".) 01:23:06 Again there are some industries where to work there you must learn c. You are once again being unobjective. Are you saying you could not work in a job were c was necessary for that job? 01:23:09 obligatory hat I want and unix doesn't 01:23:09 have, but that unix can evolve towards enabling 01:23:16 LOL wrong paste 01:23:22 obligatory http://widgetsandshit.com/teddziuba/2010/10/taco-bell-programming.html 01:23:23 I am using C in my job now. 01:23:26 I fucking hate it. 01:23:34 Yes just as I have bash. 01:23:40 We have alot in common it seems. 01:23:47 s/have/hate 01:24:02 ttmrichter: what's wrong with Elixir? 01:24:19 the differences with Erlang are largely syntactic 01:24:28 It focused on the least important part of what made Erlang work (syntax) and fucked the semantics in the process. 01:24:35 The big one for me is having mutable state. 01:24:41 As the default, of course. 01:24:57 wtf are you talking about 01:25:17 Try A = 5 A = 6 in Erlang. 01:25:24 Now try the same in Elixir. 01:25:27 Which one fails? 01:26:08 A custom forth could make a way better shell than bash. 01:26:16 I like Jose as a person. He's always been a class act and a nice person to talk to. 01:26:29 But his Ruby background shines in everything in Elixir. 01:26:32 ttmrichter: that's not mutability 01:26:44 I don't even know if you can do that 01:26:48 The symbol "A" changes its value. 01:26:51 let me install elixir 01:26:58 You can call it "rebinding" if you like. 01:27:19 okay rebinding is not mutability 01:27:20 The end result is a class of bugs that are impossible in Erlang happen in Elixir. 01:27:26 that's ridiculous 01:27:37 It is ridiculous. Which is why I don't use Elixir. 01:27:42 We are in absolute agreement. 01:28:06 but that is not what mutability means 01:28:11 no data is changing 01:28:21 the data you are referencing is what changes 01:28:26 You can play definition games all you like. 01:28:33 no, this isn't a definition game 01:28:35 In the end, A had one value, then it had another. 01:28:45 the memory at the previous address does not change 01:28:51 Beforehand if I accidentally reused a name (by say typoing it) the compiler vomited at me. 01:28:52 A is _not_ the value 01:28:58 Now it doesn't. 01:29:08 A is practically a pointer to the value 01:29:16 A = 5. A = 6. Please show me how I get to my 5. 01:29:28 You clearly didn't want it 01:29:43 So for all practical purposes, the value has changed. 01:29:49 There is no way to get the original value. 01:29:54 No, because the value is not the reference 01:30:04 you could have two references to the same data 01:30:09 Talking about "binding" or "changing value" doesn't change a damned thing at point of use. 01:30:13 It's an implementation detail. 01:30:16 it totally does 01:30:21 you are just chatting shit 01:30:26 A = 5. B = A. A = 6. 01:30:36 Show me how that's different as values or as bindings. 01:30:53 B will be 5 either way. 01:30:57 A will be 6 either way. 01:31:38 If I gave you two languages, one that "rebound" and one that "changed value" on assignment, show me a test that will distinguish between them. 01:32:17 Are you using a fork of elixir where you can only ever have a single variable? 01:32:21 Hell, I'll give you one language and you tell me how you'd decide if it was "rebinding" or "mutating". 01:32:34 Uh... A. And B. 01:32:37 That's two variables. 01:33:56 If you were mutating the data you wouldn't be able to safely pass the variable to concurrent or parallel functions operating on that data 01:34:17 That would depend on the passing protocols, now, wouldn't it? 01:34:44 you pass the variable and these workers can go "cool, here in memory is what was passed as my argument, and because data is immutable this data will not change, i'll just sit on the reference" 01:35:27 I don't see what you're struggling to understand 01:36:38 int times_two(int x) { return x * 2; } ... int a = 5; int b = a; run_in_parallel(times_two(a)); ... Show me where this is dangerous in a C-ish language? 01:37:11 I'm not struggling to understand anything. I'm saying I don't like the way Elixir does something. 01:37:22 I'm not sure where you're struggling with that very basic concept. 01:37:52 https://stackoverflow.com/a/37170718 01:38:01 this is a very, very very basic explanation 01:38:35 Dude, I KNOW THE FUCKING IMPLEMENTATION DETAIL. 01:38:54 I'm saying I DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT I CAN CHANGE A FUCKING VARIABLE ONCE BOUND. 01:38:58 Please try to follow along. 01:39:22 You *DO NOT* change the variable 01:39:35 sorry, the data 01:39:48 Read. What. I. Just. Typed. 01:39:48 the variable in elixir is NOT a variable in C 01:39:53 ...concurrency is the main place to even care if something is immutable anyway. 01:39:58 This, incidentally, is UNTRUE. 01:40:20 Immutable variables were a thing long before concurrency was an issue outside of anything but the tallest of ivory towers. 01:40:30 Prolog is from the '70s. 01:40:31 what is the relevance 01:40:35 Its variables are immutable. 01:40:50 holy fuck dude 01:40:56 missing the point entirely 01:41:01 No, I'm not. 01:41:07 you really are 01:41:10 I'm saying I don't like mutable variables. 01:41:13 At all. 01:41:15 it's very straightforward 01:41:18 Concurrency notwithstanding. 01:41:20 I don't like them. 01:41:25 It's VERY straightforward. 01:41:31 Once set, I don't want the fuckers changing. 01:41:45 Whether they're changing the actual memory or changing the memory they're pointing at. 01:41:51 I don't want them changing AT ALL. 01:41:56 then don't use the same variable name lol 01:42:00 dude leave it out 01:42:06 Is that clear enough now? 01:42:07 forget it 01:42:17 that's a complete non-problem 01:42:27 The benefits of immutable variables have been commented on since, likely, before you were born. 01:42:44 There are languages that are almost as old as me that featured them. 01:42:51 They're a thing for a reason. 01:42:59 And they were a thing in Erlang for a reason. 01:43:06 LOL you're going to bring up age? What relevance does age have? 01:44:36 whatever 01:44:43 I'm bringing up the fact that variables being immutable were a thing considered important long before the claim made in that answer that you really only care about immutability in concurrent programming. 01:45:13 I didn't claim that, I like immutability, full stop 01:45:18 There are other reasons to favour immutability. Whether that's changing values directly or changing the value that's pointed at doesn't matter. 01:45:38 bring up age like that but forgetting what I've said... maybe your grey matter is deteriorating 01:45:50 Prolog's memory model is nearly identical to Elixir's. The variable does not contain a value. It contains a reference to the value. 01:46:05 But ... once bound, you CANNOT CHANGE THAT REFERENCE. 01:46:10 Because there's benefits to this. 01:46:13 lisbeths: it's a shame Factor has such a steep learning curve, plus some weird semantics 01:46:29 because it really could've bridged Forth and, say, Python 01:46:36 The MLs are on a similar model (though the compiler may optimize values to direct access). 01:47:25 And, get this, Erlang's memory model is also IDENTICAL to the model you seem to bizarrely think I can't grasp: variables are bound by reference to values. 01:47:34 And again, once bound, can't be modified. 01:48:07 Your early claim that the difference to Erlang is largely only syntactic is simply wrong. 01:48:38 On just the subject of variable bindings the syntax is more similar than different, but the underlying semantics are very different. 01:49:06 WilhelmVonWeiner: I am trying to keep my semantics very simple 01:49:08 And it so happens that I prefer the original Erlang approach: once bound, never rebound. 01:49:29 if you introduce words like M: or M:: you've failed 01:49:36 keep that in mind lol 01:51:22 So, have you clued in yet, Sonny? I do actually know how Elixir's memory and variable bindings work. I've known how they worked since long before there was an Elixir, since that particular model of memory and variable binding goes back to at the very least SNOBOL4 (the earliest language I've worked with that uses something in that family of 01:51:22 thought). I just, you know, prefer not letting variables get rebound. 01:51:36 Because it makes for entire classes of error that vanish if you don't allow them. 02:29:25 I think one of the things about forth is alot of forth programmers are much older than me. 02:29:58 I am sort of forth TNG whereas others are TOS 02:30:15 we're forth NOS 02:30:24 No Original Series? 02:30:34 Next On Stack :^) 02:31:17 Meaning iterate the next function onto the stack object? 02:31:27 lol. 02:31:34 No, NOS is the second from top stack item 02:31:40 TOS is top of stack 02:32:00 High level programers prefer next-on-stack or next_on_stack 02:32:17 so many words 02:32:26 Characters are plentiful in the land of unix 02:32:30 HP calculator users prefer T and X 02:32:48 I have 28,000 days to live give or take and I've used 23 years of that time already 02:33:03 Get off my lawn! 02:33:08 with the amount of characters I save typing NOS... I could probably take a holiday 02:35:22 I retired 12 years ago 02:35:29 What I mean to say is that the population of forth programmers are dwindling. 02:35:31 Not growing. 02:35:38 oh for sure. 02:35:40 There are very few young people like me in forth 02:35:58 there's siraben who is like what, 18? 02:35:59 but you can't kill an ideas 02:36:06 One day I will be the oldest person who knows forth 02:36:09 he's done some of the best Forth I've ever rerad 02:36:12 *read 02:36:24 even if it's ANS style syntax kekeke 02:36:32 It'll never die off, a rare few will grok it each generation 02:36:48 "I'll never die" 02:36:56 famous last word 02:37:17 "It's called _rat poison_, not human poison!" 02:37:21 famous last words 02:37:53 I have been memeing forth for the last 2 years. 02:38:03 Unfortunately much of what gets called Forth, has nothing to do with the Forth ethos 02:38:07 Forth changed my life 02:38:19 No, as rdrop-exit just said, the Forth ethos changed my life 02:38:40 After simplifying my code I moved to simplifying my life oddly enough 02:38:44 Life imitating art 02:39:31 Cool 02:39:33 This is my favorite forth video but it's really hard to see what he's writing on the board or hear him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0NwqF8F0k 02:40:43 There are a couple videos on ultratechnology that are just dreadful 02:41:00 interesting content but incredibly hard to watch 02:41:42 There's a transcript of this talk on the site IIRC 02:45:59 I must be getting senile, I retired 10 not 12 years ago 02:47:45 Maybe for those last two years you just didn't try very hard. 02:47:59 :) 02:56:07 WilhelmVonWeiner> it's 22 thousand days, haven't you ever listened to the Moody Blues ? ;-) 02:57:29 rdrop-exit, yeah, retirement ... senility ... death 02:57:38 rdrop-exit, I get to retire in 15 months 02:59:23 Cool, enjoy 03:00:09 thanks, I will 03:02:44 Nights in white satin. never reaching the end. letters are written. never meaning to send. 03:03:02 One day the last person who knew of the moody blues will die. 03:03:03 exactly 03:03:12 then who will sing their songs? 03:03:22 answer: a monkey on a typewriter 03:03:29 thats life, it's like tears in the rain 03:03:52 He died only a few days ago 03:04:01 RIP cylon 03:04:02 yep 03:04:12 red shirts always die 03:04:16 rip Rutger Hauer 03:04:18 My mother dated him before meeting my father 03:04:41 oh we are talking about different things 03:04:56 Rutger Hauer 03:05:01 ahh 03:05:15 awesome actor I always thought 03:05:26 Me too 03:05:48 red shirts always die - Star Trek 03:10:47 Klingon mind tricks don't work on me, I'm a wookie. 03:10:57 --- join: karswell (~user@cust125-dsl91-135-5.idnet.net) joined #forth 03:12:21 WilhelmVonWeiner: indeed, 18, haha 03:12:48 these are not the droids you're looking for 03:13:20 klingons don't have mind tricks, it's the Jedi 03:15:47 * lisbeths waves hand 03:15:51 forth concepts make unix simpler 03:18:01 I find unix very logical and simple, Im happy with it 03:18:17 kit was dos/windows I hated 03:18:23 kit = it 03:18:30 unix can be made simpler 03:18:54 Perfection is attained 03:18:55 not when there is nothing left to add 03:18:55 but when there is nothing left to take away. 03:18:55 (Antoine de Saint-ExupÃ©ry) 03:20:36 I aim to take bash away from unix and replace it with something simpler 03:20:50 sh ? 03:21:18 simpler than sh 03:21:25 not just something simpler than sh 03:21:32 unix doesn't really have bash, Linux has standardized on bash 03:21:33 but something that is good as both a shell and a programming language for larger applications 03:21:50 linux is the most common unix-like 03:22:17 true, but common doesn't mean 'best' 03:22:50 i have a Forth written in bash, and it's not bad 03:23:11 I use sh for all my 'glue' I find it easy to use 03:23:36 I do not plan on writing a forth in sh. I plan on writing a shell that is a forth-like 03:23:40 Just make it POSIX 03:23:43 http://snap.scarydevilmonastery.net/bashforth 03:24:28 I think the biggest limitation of posix is that sh is it's shell 03:24:54 But you're making your own shell anyway 03:25:22 I don't want to write my shell in sh 03:25:26 I've seen a shell written in Forth for Linux, can't recall it's name tho 03:26:12 I'd like a decent Forth like shell for unix myself 03:26:17 Ignore sh, I thought you were writing your own shell 03:26:34 I am writing a programming language that should also be able to perform as a shell 03:26:48 I would like the user to be able to write a pid1 in it 03:26:54 i am hoping I can also make it work on some microcontrollers 03:28:07 Is it worth the bother 03:29:19 siraben: must've had a birthday recently, right? 03:29:24 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@203.117.110.10) joined #forth 03:29:24 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 03:29:44 December, yeah 03:29:50 oh wow 03:29:58 how long have I been in this channel fuck me 03:30:04 you were 17 like a week ago 03:30:43 What will you write your new shell in? 03:39:46 right now i am writing it in c and I am prototyping it in c++ 03:42:44 WilhelmVonWeiner: February 5, 2018 is the first time I see your nick in the logs 03:44:48 that's going to be when I started using IRC too, then 03:45:01 because I only stay for #Forth really 03:45:45 #Forth is the only reason I'm on IRC as well 03:45:49 I only really stay in #forth and #retro :) 03:47:50 I'm currently in 10 channels 03:47:54 I read maybe 4 03:48:02 not sure why I stay in the other 6... 03:57:16 bbiab 04:15:20 --- join: dddddd (~dddddd@unaffiliated/dddddd) joined #forth 04:36:10 --- quit: karswell (Read error: No route to host) 04:36:38 --- join: karswell (~user@cust125-dsl91-135-5.idnet.net) joined #forth 04:37:15 --- quit: proteusguy (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) 04:51:12 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) 05:24:51 --- quit: rdrop-exit (Quit: Lost terminal) 07:41:41 --- quit: karswell (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 07:42:04 --- join: karswell (~user@cust125-dsl91-135-5.idnet.net) joined #forth 07:53:49 --- quit: kori (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 07:56:50 --- quit: lisbeths (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 08:51:57 --- join: lisbeths (~user@2601:601:8300:1fff:592:4d91:3d49:252a) joined #forth 08:59:53 --- quit: lisbeths (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 09:24:25 --- quit: dys (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 09:31:10 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 09:39:13 --- quit: MrMobius (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 09:50:00 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@203.117.110.10) joined #forth 09:50:00 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 09:57:54 --- join: dys (~dys@tmo-108-90.customers.d1-online.com) joined #forth 10:03:27 --- join: MrMobius (~default@c-73-134-82-217.hsd1.va.comcast.net) joined #forth 10:06:29 --- join: kori (~kori@187.123.3.51) joined #forth 10:06:29 --- quit: kori (Changing host) 10:06:29 --- join: kori (~kori@arrowheads/kori) joined #forth 10:34:58 --- quit: X-Scale (Quit: HydraIRC -> http://www.hydrairc.com <- In tests, 0x09 out of 0x0A l33t h4x0rz prefer it :)) 11:16:33 --- quit: Keshl (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 11:16:51 --- join: Keshl (~Purple@207.44.70.214.res-cmts.gld.ptd.net) joined #forth 12:14:35 --- join: [1]MrMobius (~default@c-73-134-82-217.hsd1.va.comcast.net) joined #forth 12:17:45 --- quit: MrMobius (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 12:17:45 --- nick: [1]MrMobius -> MrMobius 12:37:26 --- quit: karswell (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 13:05:03 --- join: ryke (~Thunderbi@71-9-169-152.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com) joined #forth 13:21:02 --- quit: zy]x[yz (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) 13:21:12 --- join: zy]x[yz (~corey@unaffiliated/cmtptr) joined #forth 13:50:34 --- join: jdavidboyd (~jdavidboy@107-144-143-010.biz.spectrum.com) joined #forth 14:01:58 I am trying out pforth but could not find anything about using the command line arguments in the tutorial. Just want to check if anyone has any experiences with parsing arguments. 14:02:18 --- quit: jdavidboyd (Remote host closed the connection) 14:05:32 pforth {-i} {-q} {-dfilename.dic} {sourcefilename} 14:06:36 joe9: The "-q" option suppresses output like the "OK" and the stack display. The -i display seems to include the file name that you give after it. -dfilename.dic adds a dictionary. 14:17:09 john_cephalopoda: not about the pforth arguments. I am trying to figure out when the pforth program has it's own arguments. 14:17:24 does that make sense? pforth myprogram.fth arg1formyprogram 14:20:17 --- join: Keshl_ (~Purple@207.44.70.214.res-cmts.gld.ptd.net) joined #forth 14:20:56 --- quit: Keshl (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 14:21:16 Ah, yeah. There is the "getenv" command. 14:21:54 But I am not sure if you can pass them easily with pforth... 14:45:16 --- quit: dys (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) 14:54:58 From a look at pf_main.c, I donât see anywhere that would pass the arguments into forth 14:55:01 https://github.com/philburk/pforth/blob/master/csrc/pf_main.c 15:00:02 You could try to pass environment variables though. 15:02:54 Weird... pforth on my computer behaves completely different from pforth on my phone. 15:30:31 --- quit: ryke (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 16:20:25 --- join: lisbeths (~user@2601:601:8300:1fff:592:4d91:3d49:252a) joined #forth 16:43:01 --- quit: john_cephalopoda (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 16:44:38 --- quit: lisbeths (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 16:51:13 --- join: john_cephalopoda (~john@unaffiliated/john-cephalopoda/x-6407167) joined #forth 16:56:49 --- join: lisbeths (~user@2601:601:8300:1fff:592:4d91:3d49:252a) joined #forth 17:05:53 --- join: karswell (~user@cust125-dsl91-135-5.idnet.net) joined #forth 17:32:31 --- quit: proteusguy (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 17:33:00 --- join: proteusguy (~proteusgu@203.117.110.10) joined #forth 17:33:01 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 17:50:23 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@rrcs-162-155-170-75.central.biz.rr.com) joined #forth 18:09:35 --- quit: tabemann (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 18:42:28 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@069.d.003.ncl.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth 18:45:57 --- join: tabemann (~tabemann@2600:1700:7990:24e0:2127:dced:1dcc:e2f5) joined #forth 18:56:40 --- join: rdrop-exit (~markwilli@112.201.174.189) joined #forth 19:18:39 https://skilldrick.github.io/easyforth/ yo this is cool 19:26:24 interesting, thanks 19:26:29 --- nick: Keshl_ -> Keshl 20:06:54 --- quit: proteusguy (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 20:08:57 --- quit: karswell (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 20:21:02 Ugh - the snake example at the end looks like C. 20:21:19 Laid out like C at least. 20:30:14 The snake example is ugly 20:30:39 Indeed. Evening, rdrop-exit. 20:31:19 Good morning KipIngram :) 20:31:37 It's Friday, and that's a good thing. But I'm feeling rather burned out - can't seem to really get the engine going on any serious work. 20:31:47 This may just have to be a weekend of mindless idling. 20:32:06 Saturday morning here, slept late 20:32:58 I imagine I will too, tomorrow. 20:33:33 Helping the devs chase down a performance problem at work - it's been something of a taxing week. 20:42:44 --- quit: dddddd (Remote host closed the connection) 20:44:26 --- quit: Keshl (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 20:44:43 --- join: Keshl (~Purple@207.44.70.214.res-cmts.gld.ptd.net) joined #forth 20:49:42 Have a metaphysical beer on me 21:06:43 --- quit: chunkypuffs (Quit: ZNC 1.7.1 - https://znc.in) 21:08:53 --- join: chunkypuffs (~chunkypuf@static.203.112.216.95.clients.your-server.de) joined #forth 21:53:34 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 22:04:48 --- join: dys (~dys@tmo-096-254.customers.d1-online.com) joined #forth 23:24:37 --- join: dave0 (~dave0@069.d.003.ncl.iprimus.net.au) joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/19.08.02