00:00:00 --- log: started forth/10.05.23 00:42:09 --- quit: ygrek (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 01:25:24 --- join: qFox (~C00K13S@5356B263.cable.casema.nl) joined #forth 01:37:01 --- join: ygrek (debian-tor@gateway/tor-sasl/ygrek) joined #forth 02:21:39 --- join: ygrek_ (debian-tor@gateway/tor-sasl/ygrek) joined #forth 02:24:39 --- quit: ygrek (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 02:38:04 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@jol13-1-82-66-176-74.fbx.proxad.net) joined #forth 02:49:35 --- join: ajcc (~Adrian@81-234-205-71-no118.tbcn.telia.com) joined #forth 02:50:35 I'm stuck, I'm trying to understand how one can use Forth to do low-level system calls. Do I have to use some sort of in-line assembly? 02:55:48 --- quit: schmx (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 02:55:51 --- join: schmx (~marcus@c83-254-196-101.bredband.comhem.se) joined #forth 02:55:52 --- quit: schmx (Changing host) 02:55:52 --- join: schmx (~marcus@sxemacs/devel/schme) joined #forth 02:57:23 ajcc: Depends on what forth. 02:58:24 schmx: Oh, I'm a bit confused about some Forth Systems being an operative system themself, and others having an built in assembler and others just being plain odd. What's Forth and what's not :) 02:58:38 schmx: how is it in Forth ANS? 02:59:04 Not having checked I'll go with there isn't jack shit regarding this in the standard. 02:59:37 is there any other standard because I get this feeling of insanely incomplete all the time 02:59:52 Nope. 03:00:16 a low-level system call wouldn't even make sense on all platforms where you can run a forth. So I dunno how that would fit in there. 03:01:11 That's true, but I have an idea of building very small and low level words so that I can abstract the hardware, and yet anyone could see how the words talk to it 03:01:28 You might want to look up how the specific forth you are using would do such a thing. 03:01:36 Sounds great. 03:02:53 is there any more accepted Forths than the rest? I was thinking about gForth since it run in enough systems 03:03:03 If you're implementing your own forth to run right on the metal then you can do whatever. 03:03:33 I dunno man.. all forths are accepted ;) 03:03:37 hehe 03:03:43 and all standards are neglected 03:03:51 Hey you learn fast (: 03:03:59 it's Forth ;) 03:04:14 I think gforth is a good bet. 03:04:32 perhaps pforth .. also the commercial ones perhaps. 03:04:53 perhaps too many perhaps. 03:07:28 pForth seems like too, I like the idea of making something small and portable and not using those pesky BLOCKs 03:10:47 (: 03:10:51 well food time! happy hacking 03:11:08 enjoy 04:01:13 --- quit: gogonkt (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 04:03:10 --- join: gogonkt (~info@218.13.58.248) joined #forth 04:37:26 --- join: Guthur (~michael@host86-150-202-161.range86-150.btcentralplus.com) joined #forth 05:23:39 ok, now I've been reading and in the Forths I've planed to use, you could write assembly with special words that resemble a instruction on the given platform. Like writing assembly in a real assembler, but with estoric syntax. Now I know why Forth is Forth :) 05:25:19 That kind of describes C as well, hehe 05:25:32 If I get your meaning correct 05:27:23 it does 05:29:07 Except forth may arguably be more flexible that C 05:29:10 hmm, why didn't I think of that in the first place? ugh... oh well :) at least I learned something new 05:29:13 that/than 05:29:20 in a meta-forth kind of way? 05:29:47 Ya, but more experience forth'ers could outline the benefits better than I 05:31:00 the largest benefit compared to C that I'm after is the ability to both interpreted and compiled code interchangably. which seems like a good idea to me 05:31:46 and that you can write a forth in forth using only a few hardware dependent words :) so it's easy to port tiny things 05:33:11 or to say it with a quote: "What good is a language if it can't compile itself?", who said that, I don't know :) 05:34:52 Yep, I have to go now, a bbq to go to, hehe 05:35:07 --- quit: Guthur (Remote host closed the connection) 05:35:07 :] have a good one! 05:37:29 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote host closed the connection) 05:46:24 ajcc: You could have assembly in "normal" syntax too. 05:56:50 schmx: hmm, gForth had it's own syntax. normal or NASM style syntax would be a lot nicer 05:57:20 ajcc: Yes. But you can change that. 05:57:57 schmx: by configuring gForth differently+ 05:58:08 ajcc: You can define your own syntax. That is one of the beauties of forth. 05:59:10 true :] 05:59:35 but ya. intel syntax would be nice there for x86 anyway. 07:44:47 --- quit: schmx (Read error: Operation timed out) 07:46:29 --- join: schmx (~marcus@sxemacs/devel/schme) joined #forth 08:14:02 --- quit: ajcc (Disconnected by services) 08:14:22 --- join: ajcc (~Adrian@81-234-205-71-no118.tbcn.telia.com) joined #forth 08:25:21 ajcc: pforth is small because it is stripped down. 08:25:35 It doesn't do many things I'd like to do with it. 08:29:49 --- join: ncv (~neceve@unaffiliated/neceve) joined #forth 08:30:25 ASau: fill me in please, it seemed to do everything I wanted from it. But gForth is more complete 08:33:09 asau the beauty of forth is that you can make it do the things you want it to do. thats teh whole point 08:33:42 gforth is also gCforth not gforth :P~ 08:33:52 forth should be written in forth and assembler. not c 08:34:10 tho im sure pforth is also c based. 08:34:26 "is probably" 08:36:50 the GNU in GForth always equals to written in C because GNU is always in C 08:37:09 even if it was Lisp, or Fortran, it's always C someway or another 08:37:49 probably, because C is still the only language that will compile everywere 08:49:23 no thats not the reason .. well it is and it isnt 08:49:38 the reason is because of things like "learn c in 24 hours" 08:50:09 every fucking moron in the world codes c. not many people code forth because like i have said many times, most people taking their first look at forth go screamin for mamma 08:50:36 if more people coded forth then theres no reason why forth couldnt compile everywhere. but the fact is THAT is a still a complete and utter NON issue 08:50:57 give me your fooforth soruces and it would be trivial to get them to compile on my barforth compiler 08:52:01 compared to other languages, development time in forth is instantaneous 08:52:32 :) 08:53:05 how is it with libraries in Forth? I haven't looked into that subject yet 08:53:55 if you need tcp/ip you dont need the library 08:54:10 you just need a clue about the protocol and you WRITE the library 08:54:26 C is for the people who have no clue how to do that 08:55:48 ajcc: some forths allow use of existing libraries written in C; some allow for access to system calls from the host OS 08:56:39 regarding libraries written in forth, its a bit more annoying. you can find things, but many times they have dependencies to specific forth implementations 08:57:18 yeah, libraries are mostly useful if they are shipped with an imprementation to support them, the same goes for C 08:59:39 also. about that whole portability issue 08:59:48 yes? 09:00:00 you show me any single non trivial library or application written in c thats "portable" 09:00:13 glibc 09:00:38 and ill show you 500 different versions of teh same thing all interelaved into itself with inordinate amounts of conditional compilation visual clutter bullshit 09:00:59 ajcc: it is bad with libraries in Forth, because every 09:00:59 moron teaches that the beauty of Forth is that you can do 09:00:59 anything in it, but noone codes in Forth enough to reveal that "beauty." 09:01:00 ajcc: Have you looked at all the OS and CPU specific code in glibc? :) 09:01:27 schmx: he said portable, not GNU-clutter 09:01:48 schmx writing isforth dictated that i not only browsed those sources extensivly but also compiled things against it and reverse engineered it 09:01:53 for those who don't know, GNU C code usually have tons of inline assembly to "optimize" it 09:02:08 ajcc: That is his point I believe.. for glibc to be "portable" there are whole subtress of platform specific code. 09:02:10 ajcc: before you understand where that "clutter" comes from, 09:02:11 there's no sense to talk with you about portability. 09:02:23 schmx: for Forth to be portable, there's a Forth for that system 09:02:40 ajcc: Because well.. shit don't work the same on even something as similar as freebsd and netbsd 09:02:57 forth is inherantly more portable than C but for those cases where it doesnt port... EXTEND the fuckin language 09:03:00 schmx: FreeBSD and NetBSD are completely different operating systems. 09:03:04 oh shit. isforth doesnt have "postpone" 09:03:11 err my soruces use postpone alot!!!1 09:03:16 ok so add the fucking definition lol 09:03:18 ASau: Obvioulsy. But more similar than openbsd and amigaos 09:03:24 I440r: isForth doesn't work anywhere outside l00n1x. 09:03:27 TRIVIAL to "port" forth 09:03:40 ASau: and glibc has a while shitton of freebsd speicifc code. that is completely not portable 09:03:43 asau it COULD. i just dont give a rats ass :) 09:03:59 I440r: it doesn't, therefore it can't. 09:04:05 until proven otherwise. 09:04:20 asau if its an issue for you that it doesnt run in fbsd or windows... PORT IT!!! 09:04:24 no problem 09:04:30 I440r: port it, and prove it can be done. 09:04:39 before you do, it isn't portable. 09:04:46 See Occam razor. 09:05:06 i did port it and it worked in FBSD fine... till they modificed FBSD in some way i have no interest in investigating 09:05:14 I seem to remember starting an isforth port. I wonder where I put it :S 09:05:18 i suspect its related to the heap randomization issue 09:05:32 schmx: yes i remember that too (taps foot!) 09:05:34 :) 09:05:45 Most C code works fine wit ASLR. 09:05:54 That proves that C is far more portable than Forth. 09:05:57 btw. i ported linux isforth to dos in less than a day 09:06:01 I bet it is on the device I was looking to port it too... hrrrm. I will look into this 09:06:19 i ported all the kernel sources to be assembled with eric isaacsons A386 assembler 09:06:31 I'll agree here anyway. just port the lil system specific asm.. darned it is just as portable as glibc :) 09:06:42 tada! 09:06:52 however. most c weenies would be terrified of having to do that! 09:06:55 zomgwtf! 09:06:56 So? 09:07:16 If you ported it to FreeBSD, it should work. 09:07:28 the unwashed masses who cant code their way out of a wet paper sack can still code in C. they just have to use the code that OTHER people wrote. 09:07:35 thats GOOD for the industry and bad for it 09:07:39 I wouldn't mind writing things in assembly, but I would mind writing for the kernel 09:07:43 its good cuz it geets the job done 09:07:44 If it doesn't, you didn't port it, you just implemented some hack to make it "work". 09:07:57 its bad because i have to compete for a job with said unwashed masses 09:08:21 and the PUKE they produce is technical debt that the company they wrote it for spend decades paying off 09:08:41 if you can't write things other people wrote, then why are you using an operative system in the first place? 09:09:09 Sane programmers just reuse others' code and go on rather than reinvent bicycle. 09:09:11 forth is the operating system. forth is the development system. forth is the programming language 09:09:38 ... 09:09:42 Yet you chose to host in on linux rather. 09:09:44 This is why I like #forth . 09:09:44 asau yes and no. while im not on a par with chuck moore who does not believe in reusing even a single line of code across different projects 09:09:59 i also do not believe one should be tied to legacy unless its an EXACT fit 09:10:03 exact fits are rare\ 09:10:10 C is the Operative System. Every communcation in a POSIX system is done via C calls, every library is in C, every application is able to talk to C. 09:10:17 C is your cuddly friend 09:10:26 I440r: sometimes close is good enough :) 09:10:29 if i have to write a little duct tape code to make my old shit work all im doing is incuring technical debt. go google technical debt 09:10:29 asau and I440r . You're both great and have a lot of good ideas, and strong opinions. And you're boh sooo annoying the other 50% of the time. Good going :) 09:10:40 Abstraction is a great invention of humanity, it levels insignificant differences. 09:10:50 crc yes. sometimes. "the best is the enemy of 'good enough'" 09:10:52 agreed 09:11:02 Sane programmers use this, Forth programmers didn't manage to understand it in their high school. 09:11:10 but too often developers use that as a rationalization for not doing the work right 09:11:43 asau so im a little confused why your in this channel.. you seem to hate forth lol (no thats not a go away.. your welcome in here) 09:11:45 First do it. 09:12:22 It seems that you didn't participate in any complex project, 09:12:34 opposing views are fine :) 09:12:37 where understanding of what is right comes after you tried and failed. 09:13:00 asau i very often write code. debug it. get it working and DELETE it and start over 09:13:20 for most corporations, the prospect of paying someone TWICE to do ONE job is not acceptable 09:13:24 however 09:13:40 * ajcc points at GNU 09:13:47 you see, GNU, there's GNU 09:13:51 but i absolutely agree with you. what you are doing there is PRE paying off your technical debt 09:14:01 ajcc: Problem with GNU is the icky license :) 09:14:04 BAM! 09:14:04 I440r: so, why don't you write it "right" at the first place? 09:14:23 schmx: I think it's the right license for I440r 09:14:49 asau. "right" is on a scale from 1 to 10. anything below 7 is where it needs to be redone. most C coders code at level 3 09:15:08 but... again... try convince your employer that those 50,000 lines of C puke need to be thrown away 09:15:15 ajcc: I seem to remember him going LGPL for isforth 09:15:26 schmx: modified LGPL 09:15:34 what crc said :) 09:15:35 I see :) 09:15:40 its a NON viral lgpl 09:15:44 neat 09:15:47 I440r: I threw away that and large amounts of code, and my employer didn't object. 09:16:01 because... when you write an application with isforth part of your executable will be derived from my sources, part from YOUR soruces 09:16:17 the part derived from my soruces is LGPL. the part derived from yours... what ever you want it to be :) 09:16:55 asau im basically doing the same thing with my employer but to a lesser degree, not a complete rewrite unfortunately... tho i think thats what is needed 09:17:04 you are in a VERY good job. you have managers with a clue 09:17:06 thats rare 09:17:32 No, that's not because managers have any clue. 09:18:05 as a trivial example. there was a project i was working on that was having issues. i needed to write a bit count routine so i used the n&n-1 method and solved the issue 09:18:18 That's because previous developer tended to Forth-like 09:18:19 approach and instead of reusing the code of someone's else he 09:18:19 tried to reinvent PHP. 09:18:26 my manager told em to use a loop and mask off each bit one at a time because HE didnt understand it :/ 09:18:27 And did it badly. 09:19:02 asau the people who wrote PHP also initially did it BADLY 09:19:13 but "good enough" and it became popular 09:19:23 and its now top notch shit 09:19:31 tho im not a fan of object obfuscation 09:19:38 I440r: if he didn't try to reinvent well-known tools, he could take any better approach. 09:20:09 asau that whole mindset would have us living in caves still 09:20:10 Instead he tried to go CM or Forth-like way and do everything from scratch. 09:20:16 I440r: :) 09:20:21 why BUILD a house wtf! this cave has worked just fine for 247856289374523489 years! 09:20:47 ok so im sure MY house that I build is no where near as good as your cave 09:21:01 but now i can build it anywhere i want. and ive learned a thing or two about house building 09:21:07 my next one will be better :) 09:21:13 This isn't about house vs. cave. 09:21:32 This is about cave vs. even worse cave. 09:22:13 Noone would mind if he wrote more or less sane web framework. 09:22:28 if he is happy with his framework then what else matters? 09:22:33 for example 09:22:45 while im happy with isforth im not extatic. there are things that need to be addressed with it 09:22:46 Database query time is what matters. 09:22:53 ajcc: Now this here will go on for some time :) 09:23:13 lol 09:23:42 i dont think it needs to because were both arguing the different sides of teh same coin 09:23:44 He is such a fan of Berkeley database and "C", that he tried to invent PHP and SQL simultaneously. 09:23:57 there are things i agree with asau on but there are things i dont agree with 09:24:15 asau show him where he went wrong 09:24:26 maybe between you you can create somethign superior to all of the above? 09:24:51 I let him crawl where he does. 09:25:13 then you are part of teh problem not part of teh solution :) 09:25:32 schmx: I'm not following 09:25:36 There's no way to create anything superior given orders of magnitude less time he had. 09:25:50 in forth there is :)) 09:25:52 lol 09:25:58 ajcc: this asau+i440r discussion. it will go on for some time :) 09:26:12 schmx they usually dont that i remember 09:26:17 But even quick hack in PHP works better than what can be done in Forth in the same time. 09:26:23 one or other of us gets frustrated to the point where we leave :) 09:26:37 are you guys talking about sorting lists? 09:26:47 asau because PHP developers developed the interface to accomodate taht. nobody in forth ever did 09:26:53 ajcc: BTW, try to sort lists in Forth. 09:27:09 I440r: that proves that Forth cannot handle that yet. 09:27:15 wtf. sorting a list in forth is HARD zomg... its like almost impossible! 09:27:36 asau nobody ever developed a warp engine. therefor its impossible to do it 09:28:36 forth excels at parsing and interpreting input. all you have to develop is the INPUT mechanism and the OUTPUT mechanism 09:28:53 make input "from the web browser" make out output "to the web browser 09:28:59 no more problem 09:29:07 ok. not QUITE true lol 09:29:29 thers security issues. hmmm maybe i can seal the web application into a specific vocabulary 09:29:32 NOW no more problem 09:29:39 Only all parsers Forth accepts, take streams of tokens prepared ahead by humans. 09:30:07 ok i totally dont understand what you just said 09:30:27 your saying that because forth has a SYNTAX it cant do this... 09:30:35 Between those toy descent recursive parsers and real 09:30:35 parsing there's a vast noman's land. 09:31:16 I440r: there's not a signle example of writing real parser in Forth. 09:31:18 nomam's land 09:31:21 Q: how many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb 09:31:26 A: a fish 09:31:51 asau. what you mean is you have never seen a single example of it therefore it does not exist 09:32:09 when atree falls in the forsest it didnt really fall because it does not exist because i wasnt there 09:32:47 I440r: yes, and this is necessary true because I tried to find real example. 09:32:52 No, nnCron is bad one. 09:33:07 instead of writing it yourself 09:33:18 the time you wasted looking for it could have been used to create it 09:33:25 Parser it implements is primitive, the same one is written in C long ago. 09:34:02 I440r: note, that I don't need to do that in "C", because I have YACC already. 09:34:21 Yes, I know how to implement YACC, but it is huge amount of tedious work. 09:34:48 I know how to reinvent other existing tools, 09:35:09 yet it is still huge amount of boring work. 09:35:34 If you think that Forth is oh-so-effective, prove it. 09:36:04 Implement anything that complex in Forth. 09:37:22 or better yet. dont do anythning complex in forth and use forth the way it was intended. create something SIMPLE to do the same thing 09:37:51 if you have a COMPLEX problem and you create a COMPLEX solution you have created a bad solution. period 09:37:52 Oh, invent your own way to write or generate parsers in Fotrh. 09:38:18 E.g. like Henry Baker did that for Lisp. 10:07:23 --- join: ASau` (~user@83.69.227.32) joined #forth 10:09:36 --- quit: ASau (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) 10:20:45 --- quit: ajcc (Quit: leaving) 10:21:40 I440r: that shows that you're either immature or stupid. 10:24:03 This kind of argument is similar to "I put a board across 10:24:03 the ditch and it worked as bridge, therefore I can put ten times 10:24:03 larger board across the river and it will work just fine." 10:24:16 --- nick: ASau` -> ASau 10:24:25 This approach doesn't work. 10:25:33 I like forth. I find it anything but optimal and effective for a whole range of things though :) 10:25:59 Same thing with lisp \o/ 10:27:12 You promised to get some sound stuff into Forth. 10:30:27 On my side, I've managed to fix pforth so that it is 10:30:27 possible to work with it on modern (64-bit) systems. 10:31:05 More, I've managed to bend Phil to include fixes into repository. 10:31:39 Have you tried to do anything in Forth? 10:32:49 --- join: ajcc (~adrian@81-234-205-71-no118.tbcn.telia.com) joined #forth 10:34:26 Note, that I have fixes to make FICL work on modern systems. 10:35:13 If you happen to get in touch with John Sadler, I'm able to 10:35:14 try to do the same with FICL as well. 10:35:36 --- quit: ajcc (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 10:44:10 schmx: there's related issue: 10:44:38 I don't think I promised to do anything. I think I was very interested in doing sound stuff, but since january I have been very busy with working full time, studying and running a company :) 10:44:48 Supposedly I should hack code instead of IRC (: 10:44:59 Very nice work with the pforth 64 there! 10:45:10 It looks that _all_ open-source Forth implementors are extremely bad engineers. 10:45:20 I still intend to do sound stuff in forth. 10:45:33 I'd like to work off of gforth, but I have issues getting it to play with jack. 10:45:54 How so? with the bad engineer thing? 10:45:56 It took about 2 years to coerce gforth maintainers to release all those fixes I sent them. 10:46:01 shit. 10:46:03 That's horrid. 10:46:17 Maybe they're too much lone-wolves and upset about someone fixing their stuff (: 10:46:24 They released 0.7.0 which contains known bug, 10:46:37 I fixed it, sent it, they applied fix, and... 10:46:52 A YEAR without any patch release! 10:46:56 AGAIN! 10:47:09 That's quite bad imo. 10:47:26 See how Juan-Jose of ECL fame works. 10:47:33 Or maybe they have just a yearly release schedule (: 10:47:40 Almost monthly releases with bug fixes and new features. 10:47:56 I don't really track ECL, but it seems atleast that SBCL releases monthly. 10:48:02 or is it bi-monthly. doesn't really matter. 10:48:22 How does this make 'em bad engineers though? 10:48:54 He works alone and he is in worse conditions than both main 10:48:54 developers of gforth: 10:49:03 - Common Lisp is much more complex language; 10:49:11 - Juan-Jose works alone; 10:49:27 - Juan-Jose isn't employed as software engineer; 10:49:43 - Anton and Juan-Jose are into academia, but 10:49:53 - Juan-Jose isn't in CS, he's in physics; 10:49:57 - Anton is in CS. 10:50:52 Both developers of gforth are closer to IT and still cannot handle release cycle. 10:51:04 It seems a bit odd with the release cycle. 10:51:21 and indeed very good work of juan-jose to keep up. It can't be a very rewarding job that :) 10:51:50 This is another indication that Common Lisp is far more superiour, 10:52:05 and most Forthers are simply losers. 10:53:16 I find common lisp superior for a whole bunch of tasks, ya :) 10:53:55 Now if someone would just make a nice one with RT GC, and have it play nice with jack without jumping through hoops... 10:55:22 ASau: What does keep you around forth land though? 10:57:12 Sometimes it is amusing to solve puzzles. 10:57:40 Like performing those BDSM actions on-stack without variables. 10:58:02 Did I mention that there're quite little BDSM languages around? 10:58:13 eiffel for the bondage (: 10:58:36 Forth deserves the title. 10:58:41 Without any doubt. 10:59:57 Software masochists like the feel of imposing restriction 10:59:57 of no persistency except stack and try to do everything without 10:59:57 local variables. 11:00:54 Hardware masochists like the feel of imposing restriction 11:00:54 of no registers except very few and try to do everything with 11:00:54 minimal set of instructions. 11:01:45 Former finally admit that you need local variables at some 11:01:45 point just not to lose track of what's going on. 11:01:55 :) 11:02:00 the more regs the better (: 11:02:02 Latter finally implement several address or even arithmetical registers. 11:05:08 (I wonder what happens if one points them to 6502 and 11:05:09 analyses why microcontroller architecture found in those 6502, 11:05:09 6800, 8080, 8085 and similar things is bad.) 11:08:50 BTW, note that those restrictions has nothing in common 11:08:50 with typing restrictions in strongly typed languages. 11:09:18 The latter are meant to catch programming, integration and 11:09:18 even design mistakes. 11:09:32 And they do their work just fine. 11:09:38 Esp. in modern languages. 11:11:04 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@jol13-1-82-66-176-74.fbx.proxad.net) joined #forth 11:11:36 Well I have waffles for sure. 11:21:21 --- join: ajcc (~Adrian@81-234-205-71-no118.tbcn.telia.com) joined #forth 12:19:10 ajcc: what is your "uname -mrs"? 12:20:41 this is Windows XP, but usally it's i386 5.0.2 NetBSD 12:24:39 running GNU programs in Windows is a real pain, no one really knows or cares about how to write windows applications, so often you can only have on GTK program or one libcygwin program 12:24:59 but since I write most code in Haskell or C, it's kinda doesn't matter 12:25:28 ASau: what's your uname -mrs 12:33:03 Here it is "NetBSD 5.99.29 i386" 12:33:41 Other systems differ. 12:34:32 Why are you interested in Forth? 12:34:53 It so much differs from Haskell and doesn't provide anything comparable. 12:36:11 I'm using Haskell as my glue and construction and C for everything else, or when things needs to go fast(er). Forth seems like a nice language for doing almost the same on small machines, and for it being readable and reprogrammable despite the tiny "footprint" 12:36:29 It's also much easier to implement than Haskell 12:36:41 Why not Scheme then? 12:37:26 I've been thinking about Scheme too, frankly I don't know why not. 12:39:40 Scheme feels kind of dying though, don't know why 12:40:02 How so? 12:42:25 don't know really, common lisp feels more active, and scheme feels very 95-2000, but it's probably just the accumulating dead projects found by google 13:25:09 --- join: Guthur (~michael@host86-150-202-161.range86-150.btcentralplus.com) joined #forth 14:04:13 --- quit: qFox (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 14:18:01 --- quit: ygrek_ (Remote host closed the connection) 14:44:24 --- quit: kar8nga (Remote host closed the connection) 15:20:59 --- quit: nighty^ (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 15:43:11 --- join: tgunr (~tgunr@cust-66-249-166-11.static.o1.com) joined #forth 15:53:15 --- join: Deformative (~Joe@cpe-98-155-79-114.san.res.rr.com) joined #forth 16:05:42 --- join: TR2N (email@89.180.157.246) joined #forth 16:45:27 --- quit: schmx (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 16:45:29 --- join: schmx (~marcus@c83-254-196-101.bredband.comhem.se) joined #forth 16:45:30 --- quit: schmx (Changing host) 16:45:30 --- join: schmx (~marcus@sxemacs/devel/schme) joined #forth 16:48:32 --- quit: ajcc (Quit: Leaving.) 16:49:10 --- quit: ncv (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 18:26:19 --- quit: Guthur (Remote host closed the connection) 18:35:07 --- join: Kumool (~Kumool@66-50-191-198.prtc.net) joined #forth 19:56:17 --- quit: Kumool (Quit: Leaving) 19:57:27 --- join: Kumool (~Kumool@66-50-191-198.prtc.net) joined #forth 20:05:41 --- join: tgunr_ (~tgunr@2001:0:53aa:64c:0:2ea4:bd06:59f4) joined #forth 20:09:44 --- quit: tgunr (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 20:20:10 --- quit: Kumool (Remote host closed the connection) 21:09:02 --- join: Kumool (~Kumool@66-50-191-198.prtc.net) joined #forth 21:10:52 --- quit: Kumool (Remote host closed the connection) 22:43:19 --- quit: tgunr_ (Quit: Leaving...) 23:09:27 --- join: kar8nga (~kar8nga@jol13-1-82-66-176-74.fbx.proxad.net) joined #forth 23:22:49 --- quit: TR2N (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 23:29:15 --- join: ygrek_ (debian-tor@gateway/tor-sasl/ygrek) joined #forth 23:41:24 --- join: ASau` (~user@77.246.231.119) joined #forth 23:59:02 --- join: qFox (~C00K13S@5356B263.cable.casema.nl) joined #forth 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/10.05.23