00:00:00 --- log: started forth/20.10.12 00:21:35 --- quit: sts-q (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 01:59:33 --- quit: jedb (Remote host closed the connection) 01:59:46 --- join: jedb joined #forth 04:31:47 --- join: sts-q joined #forth 06:39:29 Welcome kmstout. sup? 07:06:40 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC1 (Remote host closed the connection) 07:17:28 --- join: f-a joined #forth 07:37:40 Did that krivine machine guy ever come back? 07:38:33 --- quit: proteus-guy (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 07:49:36 asau/dgasu ? he's still banned 07:55:01 I was thinking the other day about if a krivine machine could be compiled, and have a concatenative syntax. 07:55:26 his problem was he was only worried about making his software small and didnt understand that forth has a syntactic advantage 08:26:00 --- quit: f-a (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 08:28:00 --- join: f-a joined #forth 08:40:45 why did he get banned if it's ok to ask? 09:02:15 Kirvine machines are neat. There's quite a few ways to implement functional languages out there, SECD, TIM, STG. 09:02:47 Haskell uses STG, for instance. 09:03:05 lisbeths: What do you mean by "if a Krivine machine could be compiled"? 09:51:34 MrMobius: he was trolling, actively discouraging use of forth, and negative in general 10:18:38 siraben: Do you have a link to point me to a description of the properties/differences between SECD TIM STG or Krivine machine ? I have no idea what they might look like. 10:27:26 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 10:52:35 --- join: kieselsteini joined #forth 10:53:04 --- quit: kieselsteini (Client Quit) 10:57:30 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 11:17:06 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth 11:53:40 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 12:16:33 --- quit: jimt[m] (Quit: killed) 12:16:35 --- quit: siraben (Quit: killed) 12:16:39 --- quit: Blue_flame (Quit: killed) 12:22:43 --- join: jimt[m] joined #forth 12:26:55 --- quit: f-a (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 12:28:39 --- join: f-a joined #forth 12:30:09 --- join: siraben joined #forth 12:30:09 --- join: Blue_flame joined #forth 13:51:21 --- join: mark4 joined #forth 13:57:20 --- quit: mark4 (Quit: Leaving) 14:32:51 --- quit: Keshl (Quit: Konversation terminated!) 14:33:43 --- join: Keshl joined #forth 14:34:12 --- join: Zarutian_HTC1 joined #forth 14:36:56 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 15:01:36 --- nick: Zarutian_HTC1 -> Zarutian_HTC 15:15:04 --- join: TCZ joined #forth 15:51:13 FUZxxl: are there links to your session/s? I poked around but do not see a way to watch them 15:55:22 bluekelp: unfortunately, the event is already over 15:55:33 the talks will be published on https://media.ccc.de soon 16:01:53 --- quit: f-a (Quit: leaving) 16:03:54 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Remote host closed the connection) 16:24:54 --- join: dave0 joined #forth 16:41:08 great. i looked for the talks but didn't see them. glad to know they will be shared. 16:41:33 i was bummed to have missed it but given timezones, my job, etc. it was unlikely i could have joined real-time anway :) 17:09:26 --- join: X-Scale` joined #forth 17:12:08 --- quit: X-Scale (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 17:12:08 --- nick: X-Scale` -> X-Scale 17:38:11 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 18:33:24 --- quit: TCZ (Quit: Leaving) 18:35:47 --- join: boru` joined #forth 18:35:49 --- quit: boru (Disconnected by services) 18:35:52 --- nick: boru` -> boru 20:35:13 --- quit: sts-q (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 20:50:35 --- join: sts-q joined #forth 21:06:47 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth 21:40:56 MrMobius: the problem with the krivine machine guy is he was against contatentaive programming in the first place. he seemed to believe that we only programmed concatenatively becuase that was the only way we had figured out to make it so small, and that is why he wanted to convince us to use a krivine machine. It did not occur to him that we like the advantages concatenative programming gives. 21:41:47 siraben: what I mean is that lambda calclulus on its own is not able to have arrays, only linked lists. so to get any kind of speed at all you would have to take a machine + an expression and compile it to something which does use arrays. And of course you'd want it to be concatneative. 21:54:26 lisbeths: right, but I think being concatenative is a notational choice, consider (S (K S) K) for instance, compiled it would look something like PUSH S; PUSH K; PUSH S; APP; APP; PUSH K; APP when compiled 21:55:31 If you take functional + pointfree style all the way, heh you end up with category theory, only talks about arrows between types and composing them, rather than specific values. 21:56:37 I mix pointfree and pointwise all the time in Haskell, for instance, depending on what better conveys the meaning. 21:57:59 lisbeths: yes, λ-calculus when implemented naïve only has linked lists, so there's work on efficient representation of lexical environments as arrays and compilation techniques (lambda lifting, closure conversion, etc.) to make it more efficient on hardware. 21:58:05 s/naïve/naïvely 22:10:29 sts-q: I think web searches would be best, it depends on your background 22:11:03 Personally I'm looking for proofs of compilation correctness with respect to those machines 22:57:32 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/20.10.12