00:00:00 --- log: started forth/21.02.01 00:04:01 --- quit: jedb (Quit: Leaving) 00:11:38 --- join: jedb joined #forth 00:42:59 --- join: xek joined #forth 01:53:27 --- join: hosewiejacke joined #forth 03:23:52 --- quit: heredoc (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in) 04:21:59 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 04:48:03 --- quit: jedb (Quit: Leaving) 05:00:07 --- join: jedb joined #forth 05:38:18 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 06:14:07 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Remote host closed the connection) 07:17:41 --- quit: irsol (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) 07:54:16 --- join: jedb_ joined #forth 07:54:19 --- quit: jedb (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) 07:54:42 --- nick: jedb_ -> jedb 08:50:21 --- quit: crest (Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.) 08:57:41 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 09:34:30 --- quit: hosewiejacke (Remote host closed the connection) 09:34:37 --- join: hosewiejacke joined #forth 09:36:11 --- join: lispmacs[work] joined #forth 09:53:32 --- quit: Lord_Nightmare (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in) 09:59:45 --- join: Lord_Nightmare joined #forth 10:10:53 --- quit: hosewiejacke (Remote host closed the connection) 10:55:43 --- join: crest joined #forth 11:17:11 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Remote host closed the connection) 11:21:10 --- quit: Guest68228 (Quit: WeeChat 1.9.1) 11:28:58 are there languages that are both basic and forth at the same time? 11:41:48 some of the HP graphng calculators use a stack language similar to Forth and have a basic built in that converts internally to the Forth like language 11:42:09 I think you can write basic in a string and execute it from Forth 11:52:20 cheater: the TI calculators come with ti-basic, but people had written forth implementations for them. 11:52:22 https://hackaday.com/2019/01/25/pocket-forth-invades-your-ti-calculator/ 11:52:55 --- join: X-Scale` joined #forth 11:53:31 you could run a ti-84 on tiemu 11:54:13 --- quit: X-Scale (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 11:54:14 --- nick: X-Scale` -> X-Scale 12:00:46 oh that's interesting but i was more thinking of a language that is both /at the same time/ 12:10:51 --- join: dave0 joined #forth 12:20:19 --- join: ornxka_ joined #forth 12:25:01 --- join: rpcope- joined #forth 12:26:24 --- quit: ornxka (*.net *.split) 12:26:24 --- quit: rpcope (*.net *.split) 12:30:16 --- quit: sts-q (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 12:33:13 --- quit: presiden (K-Lined) 12:34:34 --- join: presiden joined #forth 12:37:54 --- join: sts-q joined #forth 12:40:53 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 13:13:27 cheater: that sounds like some kind of immoral perversion 13:14:02 why 13:14:07 i think it could be fun 13:14:49 I guess maybe I should ask what you mean exactly 13:15:37 you could write forth words to match to basic, with delayed processing of arguments 13:17:49 --- quit: xek (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) 13:20:25 i guess the question if you are intending to implement syntax checking on the basic stuff. I think properly speaking forth does haven't syntax, right...? 13:21:51 *forth doesn't 14:04:16 --- join: jevinskie[m] joined #forth 14:10:16 --- join: WickedShell joined #forth 15:33:45 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 15:42:50 --- quit: FUZxxl (Quit: leaving) 16:14:22 cheater, the HP calculators juggle basic statements to get them into forth form. you could do that to interchange the two in the same program 16:18:04 MrMobius: that's still two separate langs 16:23:54 --- join: Gromboli1 joined #forth 16:26:09 --- quit: Gromboli (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) 16:26:10 --- nick: Gromboli1 -> Gromboli 16:28:32 cheater, then the answer to your question is no I think. you need some way to tell the compiler/interpretter what mode youre in 16:30:48 --- join: WilhelmVonWeiner joined #forth 16:50:16 i don't want two modes 16:50:26 just something with some features from basic, and some features from forth, that's all 16:50:39 i don't know why everyone's all like "oh you want two languages at the same time" no i don't 16:50:41 :) 17:18:38 cheater: well, BASIC is a language with a certain syntax that has to be checked, forth is a language that just executes word that operating on a stack 17:19:06 what do you mean by "checked"? 17:19:12 do you mean tokenized? 17:19:21 lispmacs[work] ^ 17:20:55 cheater: most languages, you have a syntax where words have to appear in a certain order, like the grammar of a language, and if that input is not correct, the sentence is not compiled or executed 17:21:14 Forth, you throw a word at it and it does that. If it fails trying, it throws an error 17:21:24 oh right 17:21:31 yeah, interesting 17:21:45 i mean you don't have to have both at the same time, right 17:21:46 constructs in forth where you seem to have a syntax are actually just a trick of switching between interpreter and compiler mode 17:21:49 you can choose and match 17:22:01 oh 17:22:03 i had no idea 17:22:37 so, you got to pick if you want a forth that looks like a basic, or a BASIC that has some words names borrowed from forth, or switch between the two languages 17:30:10 1 1 + in forth is really just (tell interpreter to put 1 on the stack) (tell interpreter to put 1 on the stack) (try to add top two stack items). PRINT 1 + 1 in BASIC would be something like turning that into a syntax tree, and going up (or down?) through the tree to confirm we have the correct number and type of arguments for each function being called (PRINT and +) 17:30:40 I haven't used BASIC in like two decades... 17:33:23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_(programming_languages) 17:34:35 --- quit: WickedShell (Remote host closed the connection) 17:36:06 good ol' qbasic 17:36:18 and whatever it was running on my Apple IIe 17:55:36 cheater, youd have to give an example of what this hypothetical forth/basic combination would look like then 17:55:51 i'm wondering myself 17:56:49 what if instead of a stack we had a syntax tree 17:57:44 then PRINT would just be a node within the syntax tree, with one hole to fill in using a thing that's printable 17:58:01 similar to how you put stuff on the stack in forth, you'd put stuff on the tree with this thing 18:04:26 --- quit: fiddlerwoaroof (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 18:14:48 --- join: fiddlerwoaroof joined #forth 18:24:09 --- join: boru` joined #forth 18:24:12 --- quit: boru (Disconnected by services) 18:24:14 --- nick: boru` -> boru 18:39:12 lispmacs[work]: hey, I wrote that! hehe 18:39:29 (the Forth on TI-84+) 18:40:13 cheater: I also wrote https://github.com/siraben/ti84-forth and you could expose syscalls to run TI-BASIC programs from Forth 18:45:30 siraben: you did? nice 18:47:06 yeah, it was a fun thing to do when I had a ton of free time in high school 18:50:17 --- quit: zolk3ri (Remote host closed the connection) 19:15:22 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth 19:37:01 haha cool 19:46:25 --- join: dave0 joined #forth 20:07:27 --- quit: dave0 (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 20:18:35 --- quit: sts-q (Ping timeout: 272 seconds) 20:25:00 --- join: sts-q joined #forth 21:07:01 --- join: dave0 joined #forth 21:49:42 --- join: zolk3ri joined #forth 23:32:58 --- quit: zolk3ri (Remote host closed the connection) 23:33:09 --- join: zolk3ri joined #forth 23:49:02 --- join: xek joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/21.02.01