2025-02-15 04:36:32 <pgimeno     > fwiw, Jupiter ACE compiles THEN and BEGIN to words that are effectively a no-op, but they help with decompilation
2025-02-15 04:51:15 <KipIngram   > That's a good point - if you wanted a total decompile ability then that kind of thing would help.
2025-02-15 08:10:52 <veltas      > More appropriate for essentially a compact BASIC replacement, where SEE needs to show the actual source, but you don't want to store all the text
2025-02-15 08:11:03 <veltas      > The ACE also stores comments right?
2025-02-15 10:47:49 <user51      > veltas: what prompted me to say that was this https://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-forth-793.html (too much factoring)
2025-02-15 10:49:50 <user51      > sometimes i even think that just a big block without any words might be easier to write, and only factor if you really need it.  otherwise you write a word and it's a dup there swap there and uhhh
2025-02-15 12:45:38 <KipIngram   > I'm quite into the factoring thing.
2025-02-15 12:46:51 <KipIngram   > There's nothing I hate more than to see a page of Forth that's all one word indented like C.
2025-02-15 12:47:32 <KipIngram   > Well, that's likely not true - I'm sure I could thing of thigns even worse.
2025-02-15 12:47:43 <KipIngram   > think
2025-02-15 12:48:09 <KipIngram   > Agh.  Can't type this morning.  Not totally awake yet, I guess.
2025-02-15 12:56:03 <ghodawalaaman> [bot]clog: !help
2025-02-15 12:56:05 <ghodawalaaman> !help
2025-02-15 12:56:14 <ghodawalaaman> [bot]clog: !commands
2025-02-15 12:58:08 <user51      > KipIngram: definitely need a coffee machine with forth on it  :)
2025-02-15 13:00:24 <user51      > KipIngram: i'll note that i'm 100% on a desktop, which may be a useful distinction.  factoring is probably a good tradeoff if there's less resources available.
2025-02-15 13:01:32 <KipIngram   > I've just evolved this style of writing little groups of related short definitions - they make little blocks on the screen.  I've found it easer to pick my old code back up, etc.
2025-02-15 13:43:22 <MrMobius    > factoring can impact speed on some systems
2025-02-15 13:44:05 <MrMobius    > I ended up with long words on a 6502 program to try to claw back some performance
2025-02-15 13:46:10 <KipIngram   > Yeah, that's true.  Did you profile so you knew where to focus that?
2025-02-15 13:48:14 <MrMobius    > Nah. It was fast enough to work but slow enough to be annoying so any increase in speed was welcome
2025-02-15 13:48:28 <MrMobius    > You can certainly speed things up that don't matter if you're not careful
2025-02-15 19:29:07 <wryl        > Has anybody tried a multi-stack Forth before?
2025-02-15 19:30:54 <GeDaMo      > Most Forths have multiple stacks, usually at least two
2025-02-15 19:30:54 <GeDaMo      > Floating point and string stacks are not uncommon
2025-02-15 19:31:04 <wryl        > As in, an arbitrary number of them.
2025-02-15 19:32:06 <GeDaMo      > How would you select between them?
2025-02-15 19:32:53 <wryl        > There's a few ways. Naively you could have something designated as the "main" stack, and then use that to coordinate pushes/pops to other named stacks.
2025-02-15 19:33:30 <GeDaMo      > Some of Chuck Moore's chips have A and B registers with instructions to move between them and the stack
2025-02-15 19:33:59 <wryl        > : swap temp1 push temp2 push temp1 pop temp2 pop ;
2025-02-15 19:34:56 <wryl        > Something to alleviate juggling.
2025-02-15 19:35:22 <GeDaMo      > But now you're juggling between stacks :P
2025-02-15 19:35:49 <wryl        > Named stacks are just fancy variables.
2025-02-15 19:36:05 <wryl        > Linear collections.
2025-02-15 19:37:53 <wryl        > You could hold a bunch of things on alternate stacks and then chew through them pretty quickly.
2025-02-15 19:38:26 <wryl        > Anyway, was just curious if a Forth implementation existed that did something like this.
2025-02-15 19:39:14 <GeDaMo      > Not that I know of
2025-02-15 19:39:49 <GeDaMo      > Hang around, someone else might know of one
2025-02-15 20:20:15 <KipIngram   > I know that a considerable number of years ago I saw a system offered that had four data stacks.  I've tried to go back and find it, mostly just out of curiosity, and failed, though.
2025-02-15 20:22:26 <user51      > that's just a register machine, no? :P
2025-02-15 20:23:32 <KipIngram   > This may be what I remember:
2025-02-15 20:23:35 <KipIngram   > https://bernd-paysan.de/4stack.pdf
2025-02-15 20:23:51 <KipIngram   > Yes, I do think of it as basically a register machine with stacks tacked beneath the registers.
2025-02-15 20:24:40 <user51      > what i did was put things on a continuum and think, say i had n stacks.. boom MMIXFORTH
2025-02-15 20:25:26 <KipIngram   > That link I just posted - that system had ALUs for each stack.
2025-02-15 20:58:00 <xentrac     > pgimeno: aha, thanks!  I should have thought of that; it's an obviously good idea now that you mention it
2025-02-15 21:00:21 <xentrac     > wryl: the floating-point stack suggests you could have one stack per data type.  The Reduceron was a multi-data-stack machine but wasn't Forth
2025-02-15 22:24:31 <pgimeno     > veltas: yes the ACE stores comments, and doesn't allow them in immediate mode, only when compiling
2025-02-15 22:28:17 <pgimeno     > wryl: the Kipple esoteric language has 26 stacks, but what you're suggesting isn't a bad idea... think having R> and >R but also S> and >S, T> and >T... just R is the return stack and the rest would be auxiliary data stacks
2025-02-15 22:28:54 <wryl        > Yeah.
2025-02-15 22:29:24 <wryl        > Provided you could get the stack depth of any given stack, as well, you could do things like store strings and do processing on them rather than reaching for RAM.