00:00:00 --- log: started forth/21.04.14 01:08:30 --- join: neuro_sys joined #forth 01:09:27 If I want to factor out a group of words that use return stack into another word, how can I force-inline it so that return stack order is not messed up due to the return value usage of word calls? 01:10:02 I thought of using a combination of immediate and postpone, but it didn't work as I inteded. 01:14:53 Ah it actually worked, I had to postpone each word in the immediate word definition. 01:27:54 Looking at some code i see this in a word definition: [ 1 CELLS ] LITERAL 01:28:10 I don't understand why it's not just 1 CELLS 01:35:29 i'm still a forth newbie, but 1 CELLS is a constant, so rather then compute it everytime, compute it once when you compile the word, and then you don't have to compute it at run time 01:36:44 say CELLS always multiplies by 4, because that's how big a cell is... then you have 1 4 * but why not directly just use 4 ? 01:39:11 neuro_sys: Basically, as dave0 says, it's a way to do constant optimisation 01:39:19 Although in some Forths that would happen automatically 01:39:49 It's a pattern you'll see in my code a lot 01:40:13 Although I tend to define 1 CELLS CONSTANT CELL 01:46:10 Ah right, :facepalm: I missed the optimization. 01:46:48 CELLS is 8 on my gforth BTW. 02:55:51 --- join: f-a joined #forth 03:03:11 --- quit: f-a (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 03:06:37 --- join: f-a joined #forth 03:31:51 --- join: proteusguy joined #forth 03:31:51 --- mode: ChanServ set +v proteusguy 04:21:45 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 05:02:35 --- nick: jedb__ -> jedb 05:03:01 --- quit: f-a (Quit: leaving) 05:24:54 --- join: f-a joined #forth 05:37:54 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 06:00:54 --- join: tech_exorcist joined #forth 06:05:52 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 06:09:53 --- join: Zarutian_HTC1 joined #forth 06:12:08 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 06:12:57 dave0, I don't think you qualify as a full newbie anymore. You've been around the oasis for a little while now. 06:14:40 neuro_sys: defining CELL as you do is better for something that gets used a lot, since each of those [ 1 cells ] literal invocations consumes two cells in the definition rather than one. 06:15:14 I'm guessing CELL is probably slightly faster too, but that might not be universal. 06:28:38 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC1 (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 07:25:25 --- quit: f-a (Quit: leaving) 07:50:12 --- join: mark4 joined #forth 07:58:34 --- mode: ChanServ set +v mark4 08:24:26 --- quit: mark4 (Remote host closed the connection) 08:40:50 --- join: elioat1 joined #forth 08:53:48 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 08:53:56 --- join: f-a joined #forth 08:57:29 --- part: elioat1 left #forth 08:58:08 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 09:16:49 --- quit: gravicappa (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 09:17:16 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth 09:19:17 --- quit: gravicappa (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 09:32:10 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 09:32:18 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth 09:37:43 --- join: MrMobius joined #forth 10:10:10 So, this Lisp 1.5 document is very methodical and clear. 10:10:29 I'm about a third of the way through it, pickinng at it off and on. 10:11:03 Unfortunately I also have 4.5 hours of mandatory training to get my company's "Agile Explorer" "badge." I'm... so excited. :-( 10:12:21 I'll be honest - I think there are some good ideas in the agile mindset (ideas that were around long before they were called "agile"), but the extent to which they push the hype and the cheerleading and the happy talk really does make me want to vomit a little. 10:20:36 KipIngram: hardly anything in life sounds less appealing to me than the idea of "pair programming" 10:20:46 do they really make you do that? 10:21:06 I dunno, we pair program (wholly voluntarily) rarely, and it's usually a valuable experience 10:21:46 but pair programming is XP, not agile, right? 10:21:47 seems like it could be good if you're helping someone out or mentoring or something like that 10:21:57 --- part: f-a left #forth 10:23:27 I think it's really useful when there's some chunk of the problem that involves so many fiddly details that it's going to be easy for one person to forget / mess up one of them 10:45:25 lispmacs[work]: No kidding; I feel the same. But like remexre said, I think in isolated cases it can go well. Those cases will probably arise spontaneously - I think it's a terrible thing to try to "force." 10:46:28 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 10:46:41 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 10:47:25 I just feel like the whole agile mindset downplays the importance of having a leader that possesses a deep understanding of the big picture goal that's being targeted. I'm not talking about a pure mannagement type person - I'm talking about a senior engineer of scientist, that is effectively the "owner" of the overall product. 10:47:55 I just don't believe groups working with no oversight and guidannce can spontaneously deliver top drawer products. 10:49:11 To put it in language that modern evangelists of all this stuff would hate, there needs to be a boss. I agree it's very important for that boss to listen to his people - good ideas can come from anywhere at any time. But in the end someonen needs to make decisions that the team then adheres to. 10:49:32 Someone with experience and deep knowledge. 10:50:22 So yeah, I'm just an old-fashioned guy about this stuff. 10:51:16 I want to re-iterate that there are certainly some practices that agile has laid claim to that are excellent practices. It's not like it's all "stupid." 11:02:59 i noticed that the wikipedia article on Scrum has about 18 warnings on vague, unreliable, unverified, and biased information 11:11:20 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 11:13:05 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth 11:35:28 https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/09/2002049591/-1/-1/0/DIB_DETECTING_AGILE_BS_2018.10.05.PDF I remember seeing this at the time and having a good chuckle 11:38:00 (more at the title and presumed https://twitter.com/PHP_CEO/status/664237197365796864 happening internally than the content) 11:53:45 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Remote host closed the connection) 11:54:22 When I am doing a project at work I just say "iterative methodology" in the documentation, haven't been questioned on it yet 11:54:25 It's honest 11:54:35 Or "incremental" take your pick 12:00:14 remexre: Well that document has good advice in there, but it is weird they call it 'agile'. 12:00:23 I think they just think 'agile' means 'quality'. 12:04:44 Hmmm I seem to remember reading this at work 12:10:27 I've been made https://twitter.com/PHP_CEO/status/1292938920091619334 12:36:24 --- quit: andrei-n (Quit: Leaving) 13:06:02 can anyone become a scrumlord millionaire? 13:08:04 or does it require some talent/charisma? 13:10:34 It requires a 2 day training course 13:12:30 how much does it cost, and does it get me qualified to teach the course to others (for a larger fee?) 13:13:34 yes, I think I see how this works 13:27:00 I think some amount of charisma is probably required too 13:34:20 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 13:42:33 --- quit: mtsd (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 13:51:11 --- quit: X-Scale (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 13:53:24 --- join: X-Scale` joined #forth 14:25:39 charisma is requored 14:25:46 damn touchscreen 14:26:01 charisma is required to go into politics 14:34:16 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 14:56:11 Ok, that's just OFFENSIVE. This guy narrating this training just implied that architecture "emerges" from the agile process. That's just complete bull. Maybe something you CALL architecture emerges, but that doesn't make it any good. 14:56:43 One of my core beliefs is that the best work you can possibly do is the planning and envisioning of how something should work before you start to build it. 14:57:55 Of course I'm not talking here about some little rinky dink thing that hardly even has a design. I'm talking about extremly sophisitcated high end products. 14:59:03 He was talking about the (disputed) notion of "iteration zero." He just blithely implied that a group of people can just "start working" and everything will turn out ok. 14:59:17 As long as they are doing the agile monkey dance. 14:59:56 what do you mean with the word product? 15:00:14 software only? 15:00:27 No, they claim agile works for anything. 15:00:45 That's something else I dispute, but that's their claim. 15:00:49 would not work for electronics 15:00:58 No, IT WOULD NOT. 15:01:04 Which is what I know best. 15:01:40 What he basically just said is that the very thing I considered to be my forte and strongest value add at the high point of my career isn't necessary. 15:02:31 I had a flock of engineers barely out of college, and we turned out some damn high end stuff, because I made sure all the work was going to come together in the end. 15:02:49 I walked around and paid attention to what they were doing, every day. 15:02:57 And steered and mentored. 15:02:59 though one can start with a rough output from the feasibility study and iterate on that design wise until you get something fir first prototype and usability study production 15:03:31 This was a 100 person company. We had no feasibility study or usability study. 15:03:43 We had a gleam in the boss's eye, and me walking around every day. 15:04:10 And a bunch of young kids willing ot work hard. 15:04:37 no feasibility study? you know, even if it is just the boss figuring out if this product could exists at all? 15:05:00 Well, I suppose he had a mental feasibility study. He had a marvelous grasp of our market. 15:05:18 I am not talking about some huge beurocratic process here 15:05:27 Ok - I misunderstood. 15:05:35 --- quit: tech_exorcist (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 15:05:43 Yes, he certainly believed that the product he specified would sell, and generally he was right. 15:06:06 We made manual and automated programmingn equipment for the device programming market. 15:06:29 This company: 15:06:30 https://bpmmicro.com/ 15:06:37 That thing on the front page is the sort of stuff we designed. 15:06:54 Pick and place technology built in house, with the necessary machine vision and so on. 15:07:07 I take that you dogfooded the first prototypes? 15:07:12 This was back in the late 90's when some devices required very precise waveforms for correct programminng. 15:07:23 Yeah, we used our own products. 15:07:36 --- quit: neuro_sys (Remote host closed the connection) 15:07:44 The basic programming electronics already existed whenn I showed up - he led that himself. 15:07:44 there is the usability study! 15:07:54 But all the PnP stuff I was there for. 15:08:20 The company had an automated programmer already too, but the PnP company went bankrupt. 15:08:37 So our competitor started telling the big customers that we wouldnn't be able to get PnPs. 15:08:48 So in August of one year he decided we needed our own. 15:08:58 We demoed it the following February at Nepcon. 15:09:10 Running 200 pars an hour faster than the predecessor. 15:09:36 I wrote the machine vision software myself. 15:10:02 what kind of machine vision system was used? simple söbel filter and fidicual recognizion? 15:10:07 One of the things I loved about that job was that I could do any of the work I wanted, and had a team to help with the rest. 15:10:10 Why is scrolling accelerated 15:10:15 On that website 15:10:22 Oh, I don't know. 15:10:35 I didn't explore it, though I did visit it and nose around a few months ago. 15:10:37 I wonder if they're intercepting "scroll down" and scrolling 15:10:39 Lemme go back. 15:10:55 Yeah, I bet so. 15:10:59 I've seen this on a few websites, on my laptop it means I basically lose control over scrolling 15:11:01 I see what you mean. 15:12:20 Anyway, sorry to go off like that. That just riled me up good. 15:12:23 I think hardware agile is just using Jira 15:12:46 * Zarutian_HTC ran a short pnp line by himself for a short while for a local company 15:13:07 You me just the chips, the line, and you? 15:13:23 I bet you moved around a fair bit during that time. :-) 15:13:59 those damn feeders man 15:15:31 a tip for pcb designers: have your fidicuals in non rotational and flip over symmetric places 15:16:43 your production staff will thank you 15:18:04 the pnp machine will stop instead of blissfully populate a pcb that got rotated 180 or flipped over 15:30:32 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 15:30:39 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 15:39:13 YES. 16:36:43 --- quit: tabemann (Remote host closed the connection) 16:36:59 --- join: tabemann joined #forth 16:37:03 --- quit: Lord_Nightmare (Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in) 16:39:05 --- join: Lord_Nightmare joined #forth 16:40:48 --- join: dave0 joined #forth 16:41:38 maw 16:46:17 Howdy. 16:47:16 hi KipIngram 16:53:56 Oh, veltas, I noticed that Lisp 1.5 treats numbers like 1E6 as integers. 16:54:10 I thought it was a little funny running across that so soon after I'd asked about it. 18:09:16 --- quit: dave0 (Quit: dave's not here) 18:31:11 --- join: boru` joined #forth 18:31:13 --- quit: boru (Disconnected by services) 18:31:16 --- nick: boru` -> boru 19:52:44 --- quit: sts-q (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 19:59:03 --- join: sts-q joined #forth 20:02:09 --- join: Zarutian_HTC1 joined #forth 20:02:09 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 20:23:05 --- join: dave0 joined #forth 20:52:08 --- quit: Zarutian_HTC1 (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 20:53:15 --- join: mtsd joined #forth 21:27:32 --- join: gravicappa joined #forth 22:37:06 --- join: andrei-n joined #forth 23:14:33 --- quit: MrMobius (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 23:28:07 --- join: MrMobius joined #forth 23:36:54 --- quit: MrMobius (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 23:40:59 --- quit: gravicappa (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 23:46:01 --- join: MrMobius joined #forth 23:48:22 --- join: Zarutian_HTC joined #forth 23:53:36 --- join: wineroots joined #forth 23:54:48 --- quit: MrMobius (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/21.04.14