12:34:45 --- log: started forth/21.06.23
12:34:45 --- join: clog joined #forth
12:34:45 --- topic: 'Forth Programming | do drop >in | If you have two (or more) stacks and speak RPN then you're welcome here! | http://forth.chat for more information and related channels'
12:34:45 --- topic: set by veltas!~veltas@freenode-qot.4b9.qlhleq.IP on [Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969]
12:34:45 --- names: list (dsmcfarl klysm Adran @veltas lonjil @cmtptr iv4nshm4k0v ornx @proteusguy @KipIngram a3f neuro_sys_ rpcope fiddlerwoaroof bluekelp Vedran @ChanServ klys blackbeard420 mark4 crab koisoke X-Scale pareidolia Glider_IRC jyf2 clog cbridge_)
12:35:31 --- quit: cbridge_ (Quit: bye)
12:37:16 --- join: cbridge_ joined #forth
12:37:19 --- quit: cbridge_ (Quit: bye)
12:47:41 <crab> welcome back, my dear clog
13:17:16 --- join: cbridge_ joined #forth
14:05:48 --- quit: neuro_sys_ (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
14:13:49 --- quit: cbridge_ (Quit: bye)
14:14:00 --- join: cbridge_ joined #forth
14:18:48 <cbridge_> <Zarutian_HTC> crab: I found porting eForth to the DCPU-16 more illuminating than jonesforth
14:19:47 <cbridge_> <Zarutian_HTC> it ran usably quickly in one of those dcpu-16 webbased emulators
14:20:51 <cbridge_> <Zarutian_HTC> and I did the line editing in the forth not in the emulator
14:21:28 <cbridge_> <Zarutian_HTC> the emulator was not even jitted or anything like that!
14:21:54 --- quit: jyf2 (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
14:22:48 --- quit: proteusguy (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
14:23:13 --- join: proteusguy joined #forth
14:23:13 --- mode: ChanServ set +o :proteusguy
14:23:25 --- join: jyf2 joined #forth
14:29:04 <cbridge_> <dave0> maw
14:29:37 --- quit: cbridge_ (Quit: bye)
14:29:48 --- join: cbridge_ joined #forth
14:30:04 <cbridge_> <crc> maw
14:30:31 <cbridge_> <dave0> maw crc 
14:44:54 --- quit: cbridge_ (Quit: bye)
14:45:05 --- join: cbridge_ joined #forth
14:45:58 --- join: Glider_IRC_ joined #forth
14:48:52 --- quit: Glider_IRC (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
14:50:35 <crab> maw
14:53:25 <cbridge_> <cd> there's seriously still people on fn?
14:53:28 <cbridge_> <cd> 
ACTION is very surprised

15:03:10 --- quit: cbridge_ (Quit: bye)
15:03:21 --- join: cbridge_ joined #forth
15:03:36 <cbridge_> <crc> cd: some, yes
15:20:49 <cbridge_> <crest> brainfunnel: jonesforth shows you how a forth *can* be implemented
15:20:56 <cbridge_> <crest> there are lots of other ways to do it
16:01:48 <cbridge_> <brainfunnel> crest: this is what sort of makes it overwhelming haha, the degree of freedom on offer in terms of how you could do it
16:02:03 --- quit: crab (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
16:37:24 <cbridge_> <NieDzejkob> are there any optimizing forths that are similarily easy to follow as jonesforth?
18:54:29 --- quit: pareidolia (Quit: ZNC 1.7.3 - https://znc.in)
18:55:05 --- join: pareidolia joined #forth
19:00:15 <cbridge_> <MrMobius> NieDzejkob, most forths dont optimize like a c compiler
19:00:31 <cbridge_> <MrMobius> NieDzejkob, Mecrisp forth is one you could look at. not sure how easy it is to follow
19:48:34 <cbridge_> <ttmrichter> I wouldn't use Mecrisp to learn how to implement a Forth, but if you have a decent idea already it's easy enough to follow.
19:49:09 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> brainfunnel: I'm coming in late here, but one of the first decisions you need to make is what "threading" model to use.  The big three are code threading, direct threading, and indirect threading.
19:49:37 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> In this context "threadding" has nothing to do with code threads you hear about in other places.
19:49:50 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> You could say "sequencing" instead, but no one does.
19:51:19 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> I was once discussing those options with a friend in another channel, and another guy who'd done a lot of C programming over the years was trying to follow along while trying to fit what we were saying into the normal meaning of "multithread programming."
19:51:28 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> Needless to say, he wound up kind of baffled.
19:52:03 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> And annoyed - he was the one with a CS degree and nothing we were saying made any sense.  :-)
19:52:56 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> The source code for FIG Forth used to be online.  
19:53:15 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> OLD code.
20:08:02 <cbridge_> <ttmrichter> KipIngram: You forgot Token Threading.  :D
20:29:22 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> Ah, you're right - I did.  I've never really quite regarded it as on the same level, but I suppose it is.
20:31:26 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> Token threading would be a lot like indirect threrading, wouldn't it?  Just with the CFA's all packed together into a table instead of spread out through the headers?
20:31:51 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> I'm thinking of NEXT - you'd pick up a token, and use it to index into a table, and the table entry would point to the code you needed to execute.
20:32:10 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> That's almost exactly an indirect threading NEXT.
20:32:42 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> I don't say that to deny it a place in the list - I was just thinking about how it would be implemented.
20:33:29 <cbridge_> <KipIngram> Except that in a token threaded system I'd expect the tokens to be smaller than the addresses the other models use.
20:55:50 --- join: crab joined #forth
23:14:48 --- quit: crab (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)
23:16:04 --- join: crab joined #forth
23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/21.06.23