2023-01-10 02:42:08 <veltas      > MrMobius: Well if it makes the routing easier that's good, I suppose there isn't any legitimate reason to read machine code anymore
2023-01-10 02:42:58 <veltas      > The second you're reading machine code you can probably pipe it into objdump
2023-01-10 03:04:42 <decay       > I wanna make an undirected, unlabeled graph rewriting machine.
2023-01-10 08:30:32 <KipIngram   > What will it be for?
2023-01-10 08:30:41 <KipIngram   > What's your application?
2023-01-10 08:32:30 <KipIngram   > veltas: I agree with you on that, with the only exception I can think of being if you were trying to get a deeper understanding of some particular processor.  In that case studying the object code might give you some insight into how its decoding process worked.
2023-01-10 08:33:03 <KipIngram   > Like in this case it might help you to understand HOW that particular layout of bits simplified the processor routing.
2023-01-10 08:34:14 <KipIngram   > Or maybe if you were writing a Forth assembler you'd be interested in code layout.
2023-01-10 08:34:40 <KipIngram   > or any assembler, I guess.
2023-01-10 09:33:24 <KipIngram   > It's kind of neat reading through this old book I found online on observational astronomy.
2023-01-10 09:33:26 <KipIngram   > https://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/sphericalAstronomy/An_Introduction_to_Spherical_and_Practical.pdf
2023-01-10 09:34:02 <KipIngram   > No particular rocket science there - it all is just as straightforward as can be.  What's fun about it though is how absolutely pervasive the application of statistical methods is to it all.
2023-01-10 09:34:34 <KipIngram   > It's easy to see that what we weren't able to accomplish with precision technology in the past we made a run at by brute force - gathering large amounts of data and taking averages and so on.
2023-01-10 09:34:58 <KipIngram   > Really highlights how important statistical methods are - I've felt for a long time that stats should be required study in high school.
2023-01-10 09:35:15 <KipIngram   > I'm of the opinion that a population that's educated in that area is harder to lie to and mislead.
2023-01-10 09:36:39 <KipIngram   > I also noticed that the guys who did that WP34S project included a lot of emphasis on statistics in the manual for the thing.  Made me think that one or both of them must have had a big component of that in their professional work.  The thing has LOTS of different distributions "canned" in it, too.
2023-01-10 10:07:01 <KipIngram   > Well, looks like I've now officially made it to 60, as of about half an hour ago.  :-)
2023-01-10 10:29:08 <thrig       > now to do it again in hex
2023-01-10 10:36:54 <KipIngram   > Heh heh heh.  3C I suppose.  Hey - I like "in my 30's."  I quite loved my 30's.
2023-01-10 10:49:25 <KipIngram   > Hey - that means my wife will be 32 on her next birthday... yum.
2023-01-10 14:01:54 <decay       > happy birthday KipIngram.
2023-01-10 15:31:32 <KipIngram   > Thanks.  :-)
2023-01-10 16:46:05 <KipIngram   > Ugh.  Still no updates since Jan 5 on the DM-41 shipment.
2023-01-10 16:46:23 <KipIngram   > You watch - it'll just show up at some point, without the USPS tracking having advanced at all.
2023-01-10 16:46:27 <KipIngram   > Those guys are pathetic.
2023-01-10 16:48:03 <Zarutian_iPad> not like a delivery I had once where the tracking got way to detailed at the end. International FedEx if you must know.
2023-01-10 16:50:35 <Zarutian_iPad> ”Out for delivery”. “In your muncipality”. “In your postcode block”. “In your postcode subarea”. “On your street”. and then distance that ticked down in meters
2023-01-10 16:51:08 <thrig       > you hear the package scratching, scratching at the chamber door
2023-01-10 16:52:09 <Zarutian_iPad> ”Package out of car” as I watched the delivery guy scan the barcode on it
2023-01-10 16:52:34 <Zarutian_iPad> and then “Knock knock.”
2023-01-10 16:53:25 <thrig       > maybe also be worried if the return address says Carcosa
2023-01-10 16:53:43 <Zarutian_iPad> I asked the guy how they did this. He showed me his handheld scanner thing and told me that it has gps chip in it
2023-01-10 16:54:34 <Zarutian_iPad> plus because I was watching the tracking page the system pinged it more often.
2023-01-10 16:54:47 <Zarutian_iPad> pinged the scanner that is.
2023-01-10 17:45:46 <KipIngram   > Oh, well that was actually kind of cool - to devote extra attention to it for those who are indicating they're anxious.
2023-01-10 18:49:39 <KipIngram   > Wow - I scored $100 of Amazon gift cards from my mother-in-law for my birthday.  That was unexpected.
2023-01-10 18:49:47 <KipIngram   > And I got a $50 one at Christmas.
2023-01-10 18:50:12 <KipIngram   > It's neat - just this morning I was looking at data acquisition gadgets on Amazon made by a company called LabJack.
2023-01-10 18:51:54 <KipIngram   > So, that bit on the calculator, where you can tell if any user input was made.  That's done with a test command called ENTRY?
2023-01-10 18:52:46 <KipIngram   > It should be run right after the PROMPT command is run.  If the user entered a number during the prompt, then ENTRY? does nothing.  If they did not enter a number, then it skips the following instruction.
2023-01-10 18:52:54 <KipIngram   > So the general flow is
2023-01-10 18:53:33 <KipIngram   > LBL A: ENTRY? XEQ <sub> STO <reg> GOTO <prompt>
2023-01-10 18:53:58 <KipIngram   > Wait, I may have it backwards.
2023-01-10 18:54:29 <KipIngram   > Oh yeah - sorry.  It's this:
2023-01-10 18:55:13 <KipIngram   > LBL A: ENTRY?, SKIP 001, XEQ <sub>, STO <reg>, GOTO <prompt>
2023-01-10 18:55:23 <KipIngram   > So you run the program and get a prompt.
2023-01-10 18:55:38 <KipIngram   > Then you either enter a number or don't, and hit the A key, which sends execution to lable A.
2023-01-10 18:56:02 <KipIngram   > If you did type a number, the SKIP 001 executes, skipping over the XEQ <sub>, so the number you typed is stored in the register.
2023-01-10 18:56:28 <KipIngram   > If you didn't enter a number, ENTRY? skips the SKIP, and the subroutine calculates that number using the other previously entered data.
2023-01-10 18:56:34 <KipIngram   > Then that calculated value gets stored.
2023-01-10 18:57:05 <KipIngram   > you just set up such a block for each quantity in your equation, and assign them to some easy to remember set of keys.
2023-01-10 18:59:25 <KipIngram   > So one of the DAQ gadgets I'm eyeing is this one:
2023-01-10 18:59:27 <KipIngram   > https://labjack.com/products/u3-hv?pr_prod_strat=use_description&pr_rec_id=cdd4f8256&pr_rec_pid=7675847737593&pr_ref_pid=7772060057849&pr_seq=uniform
2023-01-10 19:31:07 <KipIngram   > That little code snip above isn't actually how they did it in the manual.  Instead of SKIP they had a GOTO with a target label immediately after the subroutine call.  So same flow, but it required an extra step for the label.
2023-01-10 19:31:43 <KipIngram   > They seem to have an aversion to SKIP and BACK, because you "might have to maintain them if you change the code in the skipped over block."
2023-01-10 19:32:55 <KipIngram   > But holy cow - in this case it's just a subroutine call.  That doesn't seem like something that's likely to change - that call is "the whole job" and if you made changes it would be down IN the subroutine.
2023-01-10 19:33:03 <KipIngram   > So I like it better this way.
2023-01-10 19:38:53 <KipIngram   > You know, it occurs to me that a Forth that was structured to interact well with that SDL library would actually have aspects that were more like a calculator than a regular Forth.
2023-01-10 19:39:29 <KipIngram   > With regular Forth, all input is "keystrokes," and there's really no distinction among the keystrokes (except for Enter and some editing keys) until Forth imposes a meaning on the words.
2023-01-10 19:39:41 <KipIngram   > digits, letters, punctuation, etc., it's all the same.
2023-01-10 19:40:00 <KipIngram   > But in this calculator program there's a clear distinction between digit keys and operations keys.
2023-01-10 19:40:34 <KipIngram   > If Forth was responding to events in an SDL context, then keystrokes would be like the digit keys, and "other events" would be like the operator keys.
2023-01-10 19:40:45 <KipIngram   > You could "think of them" in that sort of way.
2023-01-10 19:41:21 <KipIngram   > Finding the most elegant and useful way to capitalize on those capabilities might be somthing worth thinking about.
2023-01-10 19:41:59 <KipIngram   > You could do something similar in a regular Forth if you could program your function keys or something like that.
2023-01-10 19:45:16 <KipIngram   > I'm liking this event loop approach more and more every time I think about it.
2023-01-10 19:46:09 <KipIngram   > I'd always had this feeling that "cramming in mouse support" and other such things was something of a perversion of Forth, but now I'm thinking it probably can be done in a smooth and effective way.
2023-01-10 19:46:56 <KipIngram   > I've probably felt that way because I just tacitly assumed that it meant a conventional GUI, with menus and the whole nine yards, but it really doesn't HAVE to.  That's where the "giving it enough thought" would come in.