00:00:00 --- log: started retro/06.10.27 00:39:50 --- quit: Cheery ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/") 00:42:17 --- join: Cheery (n=Cheery@a81-197-19-23.elisa-laajakaista.fi) joined #retro 01:13:28 --- quit: Shain (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 02:50:55 --- quit: neceve_ (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 02:56:17 --- join: neceve_ (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #retro 04:11:34 --- join: virl (n=virl@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #retro 04:13:29 --- quit: neceve_ (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) 04:20:31 --- join: neceve_ (n=claudiu@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #retro 05:46:53 --- join: timlarson_ (n=timlarso@65.116.199.19) joined #retro 09:13:38 --- log: started retro/06.10.27 09:13:38 --- join: clog_ (n=nef@bespin.org) joined #retro 09:13:38 --- topic: 'RetroForth | Pastebin @ http://retroforth.net/paste | The editing key is 'despair'' 09:13:38 --- topic: set by crc on [Sat Aug 05 13:13:30 2006] 09:13:38 --- names: list (clog_ Snoopy42 Shain Ray_work timlarson_ neceve_ virl timlarson Quartus_ @nanstm @crc Quartus nighty clog @lukeparrish @ChanServ) 09:45:17 --- quit: clog (Connection timed out) 09:45:18 --- nick: clog_ -> clog 11:16:37 --- join: erider (n=erider@unaffiliated/erider) joined #retro 11:39:04 --- quit: Shain ("ircII+tkirc2") 12:42:46 --- quit: virl (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 12:43:32 --- join: virl (n=virl@chello062178085149.1.12.vie.surfer.at) joined #retro 13:28:51 --- quit: timlarson_ ("Leaving") 13:59:26 --- quit: Ray_work (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 14:26:56 good evening 14:28:26 hi 14:57:53 --- join: forther (n=mic@c-67-180-209-27.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) joined #retro 15:03:50 hi forther 15:06:37 hi! long time no see 15:09:25 --- quit: Quartus_ (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 15:37:39 --- part: forther left #retro 15:39:49 --- join: forther (n=forther@67.180.209.27) joined #retro 16:07:40 --- quit: erider (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 16:08:00 --- join: erider (n=erider@unaffiliated/erider) joined #retro 16:32:35 --- join: jas2o (n=jas2o@WNPP-p-203-54-32-43.prem.tmns.net.au) joined #retro 16:36:48 ... 16:37:20 ??? 16:37:22 !!! 16:37:44 hello 16:37:50 THINK 16:37:54 :) 16:37:59 hi jas2o 16:38:01 YOU ARE ALL FOOLS!!! 16:38:10 Quartus: you forgot the space 16:38:13 ? 16:38:27 jas20, we're channelling werty 16:38:44 right... 16:39:06 he's a raving usenet lunatic who trolls in c.l.f. 16:39:34 Fond of calling people LUDDITES !!! and suggesting that they THINK !!! and calling them FOOLS !!! ... etc. 16:39:50 Quartus has a lot of fun imitating him 16:40:03 Well, it's that or cry. 16:40:05 oh so you aren't calling me a fool? 16:40:14 no, it's just a gag :) 16:40:26 jas2o, no, it's just a werty-Tourette's moment. 16:40:33 how's it going? 16:40:44 hi lukeparrish 16:41:06 meh, alright (now) 16:41:12 * lukeparrish is home from the bee-dirt infested workplace. still needs a shower though 16:43:41 Just added forthworks.com to the search engine at http://quartus.net/search 16:47:13 It came up indirectly, before, but it's a top-level item now. 16:48:41 http://wiki.forth.org.ru/ has a link to retroforth, yay 16:51:26 http://tunes.org/wiki/Forth_is_NOT_intrinsically_slow is second in the list of results (searching for retro). has several names I recognise in it :) 16:53:26 Novelli's original document does seem misguided, but that's a bit of a gnat-with-a-sledgehammer response to it. 16:54:24 Novelli comments on that page "For the record, I only said a Small C COMPILER is inherently faster than a Forth COMPILER.", which isn't actually what he said. 16:54:31 And it's also not true. 17:25:01 hehe 17:29:09 "I'm actually working on Retro again.. but I don't see Forth playing a central role in the future." 17:30:27 I never quite understood the Tunes idea. something about being reflective and stuff, seems like. 17:32:09 I don't know either. 17:33:14 I think it's one of those things. yeah. 17:36:32 I think it's "The current way of doing things inhibits progress, so in order to proceed at all, everything first has to be redesigned from the ground up". 17:36:47 I *would* like to see a computational system that is self-evolving, super-readable, and hyper-efficient, but well, there's Reality to contend with for now. 17:36:47 Which makes me think of PoppaVic. 17:36:52 :) 17:37:58 It seems, to me, like refusing to write anything in English because English isn't completely regular. 17:38:29 yeah. we *should* all switch to esperanto. but will we? 17:38:33 Or, moreover, suggesting that nothing can or should be written until the language is redesigned. 17:38:55 I think the hard-core freaks would suggest Loglan. 17:39:30 * lukeparrish has yet to get around to learning that one 17:40:43 There is a sizeable community of people who don't produce anything, but instead complain that they cannot until some arbitrary condition is met. 17:41:41 yeah. I kind of feel sorry for them. I'm not as productive as I'd like to be myself. 17:42:23 I don't have any particular issue with non-productivity in others. I do wonder about the incredible verbosity that comes out of some people as regards why they don't or can't produce, though. Seems like if they folded that effort back in, they'd be really productive. 17:42:43 yeah, that's the thing 17:45:37 I have been researching personality types (one of my hobbies). I think what happens is people try to be someone they aren't, and it drives them nuts. sometimes literally. 17:45:56 Maybe. They could be nuts to start with. 17:46:14 I think there are those, but it's a smaller percentage than you're seeing. 17:46:44 many would otherwise be perfectly healthy, although maybe not the highest IQ. 17:47:22 I don't know; it's anybody's guess as to whether the obsession causes the insanity, or is a product of it, in any given case. 17:47:30 yeah 17:49:15 I'm not sure it's a useful question, unless you could identify pre-conditions and act to prvent them developing. 17:49:33 exactly what I'd like to figure out 17:49:59 I do believe mental health is the most important problem we have. 17:50:21 Or, more accurately, the prevention mental illness and its consequences. 17:50:32 stick an 'of' in there somewhere, and it'll even parse as English. :) 17:50:38 :) 17:57:07 According to the Jungian system, there are 16 configurations of personality traits. These are various mixes of logical, ethical, intuitive, and physical introversion and extroversion. The trouble is that each type handles a given trait totally differently, so some get stressed out when others are experiencing relief. 17:58:35 The 16 types can be divided into four which share traits that they are most comfortable with, known as Quadra in the lingo. 18:01:15 xor, or, and are kinda weird lukeparrish can you explain them 18:01:27 ok 18:01:49 I think such narrow classification leads to error; it seems to me it's a continuum. 18:02:22 * erider is trying forth again 18:02:45 You may be familiar with the Myers-Briggs system. It has some fundamental errors. 18:03:01 Yes, it's another narrow classification system. 18:03:04 erider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic 18:03:12 ok, 1 0 is a set of two values. 0 is false, and 1 is true. 18:03:35 0 1 is another set of values. again same principle, but in opposite order 18:04:07 true false vs. false true 18:04:26 now, xor doesn't care about the order. neither does or, or and. 18:04:51 but it does care whether the two are the same thing as each other or not. 18:05:03 0 0 are both the same, and 1 1 are both the same. 18:05:18 ok I got it I have stuff on the stack thats why it was returning some weird results :) 18:05:24 --- part: jas2o left #retro 18:05:29 cool 18:06:24 but if you could explain the arbitrary control structure that would help me out I think 18:06:42 explain it to me, first. What the hell is an 'arbitrary control structure'? 18:07:38 'even-if/anyway' or 'maybe/instead' ? 18:08:06 control Structures 18:08:36 # Selection: IF ... ELSE ... ENDIF 18:08:37 # Simple Loops: BEGIN ... 18:08:37 # Counted Loops: DO 18:08:37 Are you familiar with control structures in any language other than Forth? 18:08:44 yes 18:08:56 So what's confusing you about them in Forth? 18:09:02 but they are not backwards 18:09:26 Backwards? 18:09:52 You mean IF as opposed to if(test) ? 18:10:09 : test 10 0 ?do i loop . ; which I understand this 18:10:31 yes 18:10:53 Conditional tests in Forth consume a flag from the stack, and so the condition must necessarily come first. 18:11:32 on the tos? 18:11:38 On the top of the stack. 18:12:46 ok 18:12:48 The syntax of other languages allowing if (test) are merely concealing this same fact, that the test must happen before the decision to branch, or not to branch, is made. 18:13:13 If you need to decide whether or not to take your umbrella, you must first check to see if it is raining. 18:14:21 hmm that is a good way to look at it 18:14:31 so raining? if take-umbrella then vs. if(raining()) take-umbrella(); 18:15:00 or perhaps if(israining()) take-umbrella(); since C disallows ? in a name. 18:15:17 you can read it in english 18:15:47 I can read if (raining) take-umbrella(); 18:16:19 you can read them both in English. "Is it raining? If so, take the umbrella." In C, "If it is raining, take the umbrella." 18:16:20 if (raining) take-umbrella(); otherwise don't 18:17:07 hmm 18:17:33 I guess you can 18:21:29 Quartus: The fundamental error in Myers-Briggs is that they decided to define their "Judging vs. Percieving" variable for introverts as being the opposite of how it is defined for extroverts. Unfortunately, their test apparently returns a result more similar to what Jung originally termed as rational and irrational, which is consistently defined across the board. So in practice they are claiming that introverts have primary and 18:22:25 this early mistake is something now so entrenched in the literature that they couldn't easily take it back if they wanted to 18:22:51 lukeparrish, having been subjected to Myers-Briggs in the corporate world, I don't see its flaws as whether or not it agrees with another narrow classification system, but that fact that it *is* such a system. I consider all such systems flawed. 18:24:06 hmm. I would like to do so as well, but it really seems to fit pretty well. 18:24:14 erider, a strength of Forth is that you can separate the test from the condition. For instance, : ?take-umbrella ( flag -- ) if take-umbrella then ; ... raining? sunny? or ?take-umbrella 18:24:37 What I have seen is that the people using this system don't know what the heck they're talking about. 18:24:40 lukeparrish, for some restricted purposes it may suffice, but it seems to me an incomplete description of the problem domain. I'm only a layman, though. 18:25:46 erider, that example suggests you'd want your umbrella to protect you from either sunburn or rain. 18:26:49 hmm 18:31:37 So you can pretty-much arbitrariliy divide the source along word boundaries in Forth, and name the fragments (factors) appropriately. I'm not sure the umbrella-based lexicon has a lot of useful factors, but perhaps it's illustrative. 18:32:53 I working on the stack fiddling again 18:36:10 Quartus: I really see it as a framework to stretch a more detailed canvas over. 18:36:34 I see it as the 30,000-foot view. 18:38:51 just out of curiousity, what did they assign to you? 18:39:38 (ENTJ is my guess) 18:40:41 I fit in two categories. It depended on how I answered the questions. They all require you to select two alternatives, no matter that in some cases the choice is not clear-cut. 18:41:04 yeah, that part is annoying 18:41:11 It's a rather brutal and inaccurate classification system. 18:41:48 socionics has some ways of checking and rechecking, but they only work if you really understand the system. which I myself had a hard time with. 18:42:01 I could run the test more than once, answer honestly each time (but choose the alternative when both have equal weight to me), and wind up with at least two different classifications. 18:42:23 --- quit: forther ("Leaving") 18:44:24 right. the trouble is that the various parts of the psyche aren't necessarily more or less important. they serve undeniably different roles however. 18:44:42 According to some particular arbitrary classification system. 18:45:15 If one individual can be validly classified by the same system into conflicting categories, it's broken. 18:45:24 for example, going with my ENTJ hypothesis, you have plenty of introverted thinking and extroverted intuition. however, they play the critical and conservative roles respectively. 18:46:54 That's another arbitrary classification system, pigeonholing activities into named roles. 18:47:50 I understand the desire to do that; I just don't think it's an accurate mapping of the problem domain. 18:48:41 Do you have a tendancy to criticize what people are logically thinking quietly, to a greater degree than the logical thoughts that they share freely? 18:49:24 lukeparrish, don't make me feel like I'm back at work, I'll come at you with a copy of Jung For Beginners. 18:49:33 :) 18:50:15 But to answer your question, yes, from midnight Sunday to noon on Wednesday, no otherwise, except on leap years, when I alternate daily. 18:52:44 I sense Ni-creative in your answer :P 18:53:24 Ask me if I have a violent dislike for being reduced to a series of yes/no answers to a dumbass series of questions intended to pigeonhole my entire personality into one of 16 categories dreamt up by some narrow-minded twit? :) 19:02:22 Yeah. Anyone competent would know that the traits only map out your strengths. But who says the people interested are competent? 19:02:36 I don't. I'd go the other way with it. 19:10:11 I can see your point. If a system does not work, and is adopted anyways, it is detrimental. The more overhead, the more harmful. MBTI has a high overhead, and doesn't work as people expect it to. 19:10:47 The territory needs a better map. 19:11:12 What do you think would be better? 19:11:32 Whatever it is will require more than 16 colours. 19:11:46 is 256 enough? 19:12:46 In a linear 'you're in this box or that one' system? No. I suspect the map will need to be an n-dimensionl matrix. 19:13:09 bounded only by the number of people in it? 19:13:34 Probably with a much higher bound, as people change constantly. 19:13:35 I think it's silly to ignore the similarities that certain people have to each other. 19:15:24 (that's my critical Ne attacking your conservative Ne, btw) 19:16:23 good old mirror relations. NiTe vs. TeNi. 19:17:20 If you're committed to working within those mental constraints, you'll get no further than did your predecessors; you might decide you have a series of pigeonhole names you like better. 19:17:55 If you can distinguish intuition and logic from each other, and distinguish their extraverted incarnations from the introverted ones, you'll see it at work. 19:18:44 Now you're criticizing my alleged mental constraints. Ti-critical, I imagine. 19:19:01 If you acknowledge the basis of the system is broken, why do you persist in treating it as valid? If you're sold on the status quo, then the problem is, to you, solved; you're done. 19:19:37 My whole worldview on logic is kind of lopsided compared to yours, since I instinctively tend to look at it in a flexible light. 19:19:53 I actually don't use MBTI, I use Socionics. 19:20:12 How many pigeonholes does Socionics have? 19:20:28 same number, although some speculate that subtypes might exist. 19:21:12 Personally, I'm skeptical of that. It's just people being different from each other via normal processes of bias, belief, genetics, etc. 19:21:42 I.e. subtypes might exist, but not in the same sense that the 16 types do. 19:22:27 The 16 are set in stone, and do not change over a (normal) person's lifespan. Their preferences, beliefs, and just about everything else, do. 20:25:40 --- quit: nanstm (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 22:41:35 --- quit: erider ("I don't sleep because sleep is the cousin of death!") 23:59:59 --- log: ended retro/06.10.27