2025-02-27 08:22:03 <ghodawalaaman> ForthBot: .S
2025-02-27 08:22:20 <ghodawalaaman> Oh it's gone
2025-02-27 09:47:50 <veltas      > !gforth .S
2025-02-27 09:47:51 <gforth_eval_bot> <0>
2025-02-27 09:48:20 <veltas      > Oh there was a ForthBot in here
2025-02-27 09:48:31 <veltas      > That makes abundantly more sense as gforth_eval_bot is your bot lol
2025-02-27 11:27:11 <xentrac     > cleobuline: I'm not a huge fan of string buffers on the stack but at least you're snprintfing
2025-02-27 11:28:33 <xentrac     > I'm not a huge fan of initializing `stack->top = -1;` but it is correct in context
2025-02-27 11:29:50 <xentrac     > similarly I'm not a huge fan of strtok() but at least you're using strtok_r()
2025-02-27 11:29:59 <xentrac     > overall it seems solid
2025-02-27 11:31:31 <veltas      > Strings on the stack makes as much sense as MP integers on stack
2025-02-27 11:31:50 <veltas      > Oh you mean the C code?
2025-02-27 11:31:58 <xentrac     > yeah
2025-02-27 11:32:04 <user51      > that's better than stacks in strings, no?  :)
2025-02-27 11:32:11 <xentrac     > aren't stacks always in strings?
2025-02-27 11:32:46 <xentrac     > I think at some point you probably want to make compileToken table-driven instead of a long chain of ifs
2025-02-27 11:32:59 <veltas      > stack->top = -1 is solved by using a stack that grows downwards
2025-02-27 11:33:34 <veltas      > In konilo it's solved by adding a dummy object at the start of the stack array
2025-02-27 11:33:52 <xentrac     > well, or by using stack->top++ and --stack->top instead of vice versa
2025-02-27 11:34:21 <veltas      > So top is incorrect 100% of the time?
2025-02-27 11:35:12 <user51      > xentrac: maybe the right word is 'sequential'?
2025-02-27 11:35:32 <xentrac     > so top points to the first word above the current stack rather than the last word on the stack
2025-02-27 11:35:59 <veltas      > AKA top points to one above the top
2025-02-27 11:36:14 <xentrac     > maybe you could call it "size"
2025-02-27 11:36:23 <veltas      > That would work
2025-02-27 11:36:33 <veltas      > My complaint is about the name 'top'
2025-02-27 11:37:04 <veltas      > But then accessing the top you need size-1
2025-02-27 11:37:11 <xentrac     > looking at a particular primitive FLUSH, it gets assigned a bytecode on line 26, interpreted by the inner interpreter at line 374, compiled at line 770, and interpreted by the outer interpreter at line 1162
2025-02-27 11:37:52 <xentrac     > so to add a new primitive you need to modify four things.  I think those should all be consulting a single table so you can add a new primitive in one place
2025-02-27 11:38:09 <xentrac     > also I think newly defined words should go in that table
2025-02-27 11:39:34 <xentrac     > (in traditional Forths that table is the dictionary, but I don't think its particular choice of structure is as important as eliminating the bug-prone duplication)
2025-02-27 11:40:04 <veltas      > I think top-down stack pointer is easiest:   empty(){sp = stack+LEN;}  TOS = *sp,  next = sp[1], etc.  pop = *sp++  *--sp = push  etc
2025-02-27 11:40:44 <xentrac     > that's certainly valid.  and the way cleobuline is doing it is valid too
2025-02-27 11:42:54 <xentrac     > but it's more to my taste to represent an empty stack as -1 instead of 0 or LEN and to represent 2 items on the stack as 2 instead of 1 or LEN-2
2025-02-27 11:43:02 <xentrac     > or &stack[LEN-2]
2025-02-27 11:44:05 <xentrac     > interestingly I learned about a new CPU whose call stack grows upwards in memory.  the only one I knew about before was the IBM 360, but it turns out the Padauk 3¢ microcontrollers like the PMS150C have upward-growing stacks too
2025-02-27 11:44:48 <xentrac     > the combination of downward-growing call stacks, stack-allocated locals, and upward-growing strings seems like it was a mistake
2025-02-27 11:45:03 <xentrac     > on for example amd64
2025-02-27 11:46:43 <xentrac     > irrelevant to Forth operand stacks of course, I was just reminded
2025-02-27 11:47:16 <veltas      > It feels like the reason we have downwards growing stacks as a convention is because it's easier to address the top of stack, and because it gives more room combined with upwards-growing data break / HERE
2025-02-27 11:47:32 <veltas      > Less and less relevant on modern CPUs
2025-02-27 11:48:00 <veltas      > With virtual memory and good negative immediate/register indexing
2025-02-27 11:48:47 <veltas      > Whichever direction, you would want the machine code to keep the address or index of the top element for performance
2025-02-27 11:49:03 <veltas      > But writing in C do what makes sense, it's not the optimised version anyway
2025-02-27 11:50:53 <xentrac     > I think ARM's register+immediate adressing only supports positive immediates?
2025-02-27 11:51:18 <xentrac     > I might be confusing ARM, Thumb, ARM64 ("aarch64"), and RISC-V, but I think RISC-V always sign-extends its immediates in order to help out very small implementations
2025-02-27 11:51:39 <veltas      > I mean convention is a good reason too
2025-02-27 11:51:55 <veltas      > Yeah could be in ARM there's a consequence to using upwards-growing stacks
2025-02-27 11:52:22 <xentrac     > yeah, you might need a frame-pointer register
2025-02-27 11:53:03 <xentrac     > if you're putting your heap and your stack in the same small address space you probably want one of them to grow downwards
2025-02-27 11:53:12 <veltas      > Exactly
2025-02-27 11:54:02 <veltas      > And given we want to add sequentially to the dictionary, and with unknown size entries, a constrained Forth pretty much needs to use a downards growing stack
2025-02-27 11:54:13 <pgimeno     > I don't recall that restriction on R+imm on ARM even in thumb
2025-02-27 11:54:24 <veltas      > I think it's just thumb
2025-02-27 11:54:26 <pgimeno     > but I've forgotten a good part of it
2025-02-27 11:56:23 <veltas      > I don't know, I've not written ARM by hand so I only know how to read the instructions, not what their restrictions are
2025-02-27 11:56:41 <veltas      > Their website docs aren't working for me, links aren't doing anything
2025-02-27 11:57:02 <xentrac     > it might be RISC-V's thumb actually.  RV32C
2025-02-27 11:57:04 <veltas      > So I can't check their definition of offsets for the main ARM arch, but thumb does seem to restrict to offsets 0-31
2025-02-27 11:57:35 <veltas      > This is why you should provide a PDF manual, ARM seem to be allergic to doing a nice PDF manual
2025-02-27 11:57:44 <xentrac     > you can get old ones
2025-02-27 11:58:04 <veltas      > Yeah and older x86 manuals are easier to read too
2025-02-27 11:58:09 <xentrac     > yeah, a conventional Forth necessarily needs to grow its dictionary upwards in order to implement ,
2025-02-27 11:58:16 <veltas      > Why does everything get worse over time
2025-02-27 11:58:19 <xentrac     > the ARM3 manual from VLSI is pretty good
2025-02-27 11:58:56 <pgimeno     > I misremembered, only positive offsets allowed in thumb, sorry
2025-02-27 11:59:13 <veltas      > No need to apologise
2025-02-27 11:59:28 <xentrac     > not *everything* gets worse over time.  we have electric cars, reusable space rockets, artificial intelligence, pocket supercomputers
2025-02-27 11:59:43 <veltas      > I am being a bit tongue in cheek
2025-02-27 11:59:47 <xentrac     > pgimeno: you just said "I don't recall that restriction", not "that restriction doesn't exist, you idiot"
2025-02-27 11:59:56 <veltas      > But most of that list isn't actually better lol
2025-02-27 11:59:58 <pgimeno     > :D
2025-02-27 12:00:04 <xentrac     > so you shouldn't apologize unless you're Canadian
2025-02-27 12:01:12 <xentrac     > most of the ARM3 manual from VLSI is concerned with things like pinouts, timing, and electrical characteristics
2025-02-27 12:01:30 <xentrac     > but it also has a complete description of the ARM3 instruction set as one of its chapters, about 30 pages
2025-02-27 12:01:52 <pgimeno     > this one is not half bad: http://kib.kiev.ua/x86docs/ARM/ARMARMv5/DDI0100I.pdf
2025-02-27 12:03:16 <xentrac     > it was the ARM ARM where they actually nailed down what the architecture guaranteed would happen in the future when you do things like modify the same register twice in the same instruction (in that case, I think the answer is just "no security violation")
2025-02-27 12:03:49 <xentrac     > but I feel like earlier versions of the ARM ARM were still better
2025-02-27 12:04:35 <xentrac     > this version is 1138 pages and painfully repetitive
2025-02-27 12:05:26 <pgimeno     > well, it helped me to write the Advance C standard library
2025-02-27 12:06:43 <xentrac     > this version of the ARM ARM did?
2025-02-27 12:06:55 <pgimeno     > yes
2025-02-27 12:07:04 <pgimeno     > https://codeberg.org/pgimeno/ACSL
2025-02-27 12:07:47 <veltas      > With the amazing compute resources of my phone, advertisers and state actors find it a lot easier to spy on me
2025-02-27 12:08:07 <xentrac     > nice
2025-02-27 12:08:18 <veltas      > The future is awesome
2025-02-27 12:08:48 <xentrac     > yeah, it would be pretty painful to try to write a C standard library without an instruction set manual
2025-02-27 12:09:00 <xentrac     > veltas: that's a huge problem, yeah
2025-02-27 12:09:56 <pgimeno     > I mean, I didn't find that manual particularly painful while writing the library
2025-02-27 12:10:52 <xentrac     > you might have enjoyed the version from 01996 more, though
2025-02-27 12:10:52 <veltas      > Very nice footprint pgimeno
2025-02-27 12:10:55 <pgimeno     > thanks
2025-02-27 12:11:12 <xentrac     > how big is the footprint?
2025-02-27 12:11:52 <pgimeno     > well only the formatting routines footprint is specified
2025-02-27 12:12:25 <pgimeno     > less than 4K for sprintf and friends
2025-02-27 12:12:49 <xentrac     > yeah, I saw that
2025-02-27 12:12:51 <pgimeno     > well it depends
2025-02-27 12:12:53 <xentrac     > which is pretty decent!
2025-02-27 12:13:14 <pgimeno     > the rest depends on what routines you compile in , but since the library is written in thumb assembler, it's generally short
2025-02-27 12:14:11 <pgimeno     > sprintf is far more complex than any other routine
2025-02-27 12:15:20 <xentrac     > makes sense
2025-02-27 13:40:00 <cleobuline  > hello xentrac
2025-02-27 13:40:22 <cleobuline  > i see you a have a look on  my source :)
2025-02-27 13:40:33 <xentrac     > I did!
2025-02-27 13:41:26 <cleobuline  > for now i solve much of the bugs
2025-02-27 13:42:09 <cleobuline  > what is pleasant that is a autonomous bot
2025-02-27 13:42:22 <cleobuline  > i does all the job
2025-02-27 13:43:01 <cleobuline  > if you please you can add if here to play with
2025-02-27 13:43:09 <cleobuline  > it
2025-02-27 13:45:16 <xentrac     > :-)
2025-02-27 13:45:28 <xentrac     > I hope my French slang wasn't too annoying
2025-02-27 13:45:37 <xentrac     > I know it was badly done
2025-02-27 13:45:57 <xentrac     > c'est vachement mal mon français, putain
2025-02-27 13:46:51 <xentrac     > mauvais?  mauvais
2025-02-27 13:47:09 <cleobuline  > to français n'est pas pire que mn anglais xentrac
2025-02-27 13:47:46 <xentrac     > :)
2025-02-27 13:47:59 <cleobuline  > yes my few comments is in french sorry
2025-02-27 13:48:59 <cleobuline  > !gforth   2 1000 POW
2025-02-27 13:49:00 <gforth_eval_bot> https://0x0.st/8mXz.txt
2025-02-27 13:50:53 <cleobuline  > !gforth : POW DUP 0 = IF DROP 1 ELSE OVER SWAP 1 SWAP DO OVER * LOOP SWAP DROP THEN ;  2 1000  POW
2025-02-27 13:50:53 <gforth_eval_bot> https://0x0.st/8mXi.txt
2025-02-27 13:50:55 <cleobuline  > !gforth : POW DUP 0 = IF DROP 1 ELSE OVER SWAP 1 SWAP DO OVER * LOOP SWAP DROP THEN ;  2 1000  POW .
2025-02-27 13:50:57 <gforth_eval_bot> https://0x0.st/8mXi.txt
2025-02-27 13:52:16 <pgimeno     > it terminates after 4 seconds I think
2025-02-27 14:33:43 <cleobuline  > i'm using gmp library in my bot
2025-02-27 14:35:18 <cleobuline  > so limited only by the mem
2025-02-27 14:36:35 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 1 + .
2025-02-27 14:36:35 <ForthBot    > 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000001
2025-02-27 15:00:34 <pgimeno     > !gforth : POW SWAP 1 ROT BEGIN ?DUP WHILE DUP 1 RSHIFT SWAP 1 AND IF -ROT OVER * -ROT ELSE ROT THEN DUP * -ROT REPEAT NIP ; 9 3712831918231 POW .
2025-02-27 15:00:35 <gforth_eval_bot> -4135640842385761799
2025-02-27 15:00:58 <pgimeno     > !gforth : POW SWAP 1 ROT BEGIN ?DUP WHILE DUP 1 RSHIFT SWAP 1 AND IF -ROT OVER * -ROT ELSE ROT THEN DUP * -ROT REPEAT NIP ; 9 3712831918231 POW U.
2025-02-27 15:00:59 <gforth_eval_bot> 14311103231323789817
2025-02-27 15:01:51 <pgimeno     > speed at the expense of code complexity
2025-02-27 15:02:29 <veltas      > But can you run your Forth on a ZX Spectrum cleobuline?
2025-02-27 15:02:45 <pgimeno     > commented version http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/pastes/pow.4th
2025-02-27 15:02:51 <veltas      > Because the code I posted earlier would run on multiple speccy forths
2025-02-27 15:09:09 <xentrac     > pgimeno: should be pretty easy to get gforth_eval_bot to mod 2**128
2025-02-27 15:09:50 <cleobuline  > !gforth : SIGMANCUBE  1 + 0  DO I + LOOP DUP * ;    0 10 SIGMANCUBE .
2025-02-27 15:09:51 <gforth_eval_bot> 3025
2025-02-27 15:09:56 <cleobuline  > bien
2025-02-27 15:10:52 <xentrac     > ForthBot: 10 FACT .
2025-02-27 15:10:54 <cleobuline  > il est parti :)
2025-02-27 15:11:55 <cleobuline  > xentrac:  you want it to be back ?
2025-02-27 15:13:03 <veltas      > pgimeno: repeated squares?
2025-02-27 15:13:25 <xentrac     > I'm happy to wait
2025-02-27 15:14:18 <veltas      > I don't much fancy writing a multi-precision library for Z80, although there's nothing stopping you
2025-02-27 15:16:03 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  : FACT DUP 1  > IF DUP 1 - FACT * ELSE DROP 1 THEN ;
2025-02-27 15:16:21 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  : SUM_SQUARE  1 + 0  DO I + LOOP DUP * ;
2025-02-27 15:16:45 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  10 SUM_SQUARE .
2025-02-27 15:16:45 <ForthBot    > Error: Stack underflow
2025-02-27 15:16:56 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  0 10 SUM_SQUARE .
2025-02-27 15:16:56 <ForthBot    > 3025
2025-02-27 15:18:30 <cleobuline  > ( 0 + 1 + ...n ) ^2
2025-02-27 15:20:37 <xentrac     > ForthBot: 10 FACT .
2025-02-27 15:20:38 <ForthBot    > 3628800
2025-02-27 15:20:53 <xentrac     > ForthBot: 100 FACT 2 FACT / 98 FACT / .
2025-02-27 15:20:53 <ForthBot    > 4950
2025-02-27 15:21:12 <xentrac     > ForthBot: 1000 FACT 2 FACT / 998 FACT / .
2025-02-27 15:21:12 <ForthBot    > Error: Stack overflow
2025-02-27 15:21:21 <cleobuline  > :)
2025-02-27 15:21:58 <xentrac     > ForthBot: : x >R DUP . R> + ;  3 4 x .
2025-02-27 15:21:59 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: >R
2025-02-27 15:22:14 <cleobuline  > actually the stack is limited to 1000 , i should create a dynamic stack
2025-02-27 15:22:15 <xentrac     > hmm, no return-stack manipulation.  do we have variables?
2025-02-27 15:22:32 <xentrac     > ForthBot: VARIABLE MENT
2025-02-27 15:22:40 <cleobuline  > nope >R and R>
2025-02-27 15:22:50 <xentrac     > ForthBot: 3 MENT ! .S
2025-02-27 15:22:50 <ForthBot    > Error: Stack overflow
2025-02-27 15:22:57 <xentrac     > ForthBot: .S
2025-02-27 15:23:18 <cleobuline  > seem a bug now :)
2025-02-27 15:23:19 <xentrac     > hmm, possibly you will want to empty the stack when there's an error
2025-02-27 15:23:25 <cleobuline  > yes
2025-02-27 15:23:58 <xentrac     > I was going to try to rewrite factorial with a DO LOOP
2025-02-27 15:24:52 <cleobuline  > ready
2025-02-27 15:25:14 <cleobuline  > yes VARIABLE is implemented
2025-02-27 15:25:33 <xentrac     > ForthBot: 3 MENT !
2025-02-27 15:25:33 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: MENT
2025-02-27 15:25:46 <xentrac     > ForthBot: VARIABLE MENT  MENT ?
2025-02-27 15:25:47 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: ?
2025-02-27 15:25:52 <xentrac     > ForthBot: @ .
2025-02-27 15:25:53 <ForthBot    > 0
2025-02-27 15:25:56 <cleobuline  > ForthBot: VARIABLE MENT
2025-02-27 15:25:57 <xentrac     > ForthBot: : ? @ . ;
2025-02-27 15:26:04 <xentrac     > ForthBot: MENT ?
2025-02-27 15:26:04 <ForthBot    > 0
2025-02-27 15:26:12 <xentrac     > ForthBot: 3 MENT !  .S
2025-02-27 15:26:12 <ForthBot    > Error: STORE: Invalid variable index
2025-02-27 15:26:32 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  MENT .
2025-02-27 15:26:33 <ForthBot    > 1
2025-02-27 15:29:13 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  VARIABLE X
2025-02-27 15:29:31 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  1234 X !
2025-02-27 15:29:31 <ForthBot    > Error: STORE: Invalid variable index
2025-02-27 15:29:42 <xentrac     > ForthBot: X .
2025-02-27 15:29:42 <ForthBot    > 2
2025-02-27 15:29:51 <cleobuline  > bizarre ....
2025-02-27 15:31:43 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  FLUSH
2025-02-27 15:31:51 <user51      > ForthBot: X 1234 ! 1234 .
2025-02-27 15:31:52 <ForthBot    > 1234
2025-02-27 15:32:03 <user51      > ForthBot: X 1234 ! 1234 @ .
2025-02-27 15:32:04 <ForthBot    > Error: FETCH: Invalid variable index
2025-02-27 15:32:17 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  1234 X !
2025-02-27 15:32:17 <ForthBot    > Error: STORE: Invalid variable index
2025-02-27 15:32:21 <cleobuline  > bug
2025-02-27 15:32:31 <user51      > ForthBot: VARIABLE V V V ! V . V @ .
2025-02-27 15:32:32 <ForthBot    > 3
2025-02-27 15:32:51 <user51      > ForthBot: VARIABLE V V V ! V . V @ .
2025-02-27 15:32:51 <ForthBot    > 4
2025-02-27 15:34:36 <xentrac     > ZARRO BOOGS FOND
2025-02-27 15:44:47 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  VARIABLE X
2025-02-27 15:44:57 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  X .
2025-02-27 15:44:57 <ForthBot    > 0
2025-02-27 15:45:22 <veltas      > I feel like maybe we need a bot playground channel if all this noise continues
2025-02-27 15:45:40 <xentrac     > seems plausible
2025-02-27 15:45:59 <cleobuline  > yes i will modifie to private only veltas
2025-02-27 15:46:08 <xentrac     > OTOH we're definitely having more Forth content than in a while
2025-02-27 15:46:10 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  1234 X !
2025-02-27 15:46:10 <ForthBot    > Error: STORE: Invalid variable index
2025-02-27 15:46:12 <veltas      > The bots are great but maybe we shouldn't have all this experimentation whenever someone wants to learn about the bot specifically
2025-02-27 15:46:22 <veltas      > Well it's up to crc and KipIngram
2025-02-27 15:46:26 <veltas      > They're the mods
2025-02-27 15:46:34 <xentrac     > electrobot on ##electronics has a rate limit of something like 5 messages per 5 minutes
2025-02-27 15:46:37 <veltas      > I'm just thinking aloud
2025-02-27 15:46:41 <xentrac     > which might be a reasonable compromise
2025-02-27 15:46:59 <veltas      > Maybe ##forth-bots
2025-02-27 15:47:03 <xentrac     > if you trigger it more than 5 times in a row it ignores you for 5 minutes
2025-02-27 15:47:13 <cleobuline  > yes :)
2025-02-27 15:47:19 <xentrac     > I think it's valuable to be able to do things like this though:
2025-02-27 15:47:43 <xentrac     > 14:49 < xentrac> van der Horst defined a word called co that can be used for cleanup (not original to him, but this is a good example)
2025-02-27 15:47:45 <veltas      > It doesn't need that kind of limit, I think it's probably sufficient just to nudge people in that direction if they start to play around loads
2025-02-27 15:47:46 <xentrac     > 14:49 < xentrac> https://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/forthlecture6.html
2025-02-27 15:47:49 <xentrac     > 14:50 < xentrac> !gforth : (let!) dup @ over swap 2r> rot >r rot >r >r >r ! ; : let! (let!) 2r> ! ;  ( example usage: ) decimal : dec.  10 base let!  . ;  hex 53 dup dec. .
2025-02-27 15:47:52 <xentrac     > 14:50 < gforth_eval_bot> redefined dec.  83 53
2025-02-27 15:47:54 <xentrac     > 14:50 < deadmarshal_> thanks
2025-02-27 15:48:40 <veltas      > I don't think anyone, even the mods, wants to limit what people can do in here, but just for organisation's sake of the log it might be worth having a more noisy channel for bot experimentation
2025-02-27 15:49:04 <veltas      > It's good to keep them in here regardless because that's what they're for, and this is where we all are
2025-02-27 15:49:30 <xentrac     > oh, then I agree completely
2025-02-27 15:49:38 <veltas      > And it's all on good faith because anyone can ignore the bots if they annoy them generally
2025-02-27 16:39:15 <cleobuline  > ok i have corrected
2025-02-27 16:41:37 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  VARIABLE X   123456 X ! X @ .
2025-02-27 16:41:37 <ForthBot    > 123456
2025-02-27 16:41:50 <cleobuline  > finished
2025-02-27 16:43:15 <cleobuline  > thanks for your contributions :)
2025-02-27 16:45:43 <cleobuline  > may be i will work on saving the created dictionnary for further use
2025-02-27 16:49:23 <cleobuline  > thinking ........
2025-02-27 16:52:31 <veltas      > Something like that would be interesting
2025-02-27 17:12:46 <cleobuline  > i'm just working on the word SEE to print a definition next , write to a file :)
2025-02-27 17:14:15 <xentrac     > ForthBot: : fac 1 SWAP 0 DO I * LOOP ; 10 fac .
2025-02-27 17:14:39 <xentrac     > hmm, seems like it had a problem
2025-02-27 17:17:12 <xentrac     > !gforth : fac 1 swap 1+ 1 do i * loop ; 10 fac .
2025-02-27 17:17:13 <gforth_eval_bot> 3628800
2025-02-27 17:17:39 <xentrac     > !gforth : fac 1 swap 1+ 1 do i * loop ; 100 fac .
2025-02-27 17:17:40 <gforth_eval_bot> 0
2025-02-27 17:17:46 <xentrac     > !gforth : fac 1 swap 1+ 1 do i * loop ; 20 fac .
2025-02-27 17:17:47 <gforth_eval_bot> 2432902008176640000
2025-02-27 17:17:56 <xentrac     > !gforth : fac 1 swap 1+ 1 do i * loop ; 20 fac 18 fac / 2 fac / .
2025-02-27 17:17:57 <gforth_eval_bot> 190
2025-02-27 17:23:48 <cleobuline  > ForthBot: : fac 1 SWAP 0 DO I * LOOP ; 10 fac .
2025-02-27 17:23:50 <cleobuline  > lol
2025-02-27 17:24:20 <cleobuline  > ForthBot: : fac 1 SWAP 0 DO I * LOOP ; 10 fac .
2025-02-27 17:24:56 <cleobuline  > Executing:  : fac 1 SWAP 0 DO I * LOOP ; 10 fac .
2025-02-27 17:24:56 <cleobuline  > [3]+  Segmentation fault      (core dumped) nohup ./libera
2025-02-27 17:24:56 <cleobuline  > Segmentation fault (core dumped)
2025-02-27 17:26:59 <xentrac     > I didn't notice the bug when I looked at the code earlier, but that shouldn't be a surprise
2025-02-27 17:27:51 <cleobuline  > it does nothing on the console version ...
2025-02-27 17:28:06 <cleobuline  > Stack: 0
2025-02-27 17:30:55 <cleobuline  > something is broken ;)`
2025-02-27 17:34:19 <cleobuline  > maybe somewhere I = 0
2025-02-27 17:34:36 <xentrac     > I, too, am O
2025-02-27 17:34:43 <user51      > Now that I think about it, I dunno what to do with my finished forth.  Maybe advent of code or project euler, or maybe it was just have fun and move on.
2025-02-27 17:35:36 <xentrac     > user51: train an LLM to program it.  translate the compiler into miniKANREN and see if you can get it to generate a quine.  add metacompilation if you haven't.
2025-02-27 17:38:02 <cleobuline  > DO I LOOP gives > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2025-02-27 17:38:23 <cleobuline  > 10 DO I LOOP
2025-02-27 17:38:30 <cleobuline  > 10 0
2025-02-27 17:38:51 <user51      > xentrac: Logic programming.. never done it.  Might be worth exploring some day.
2025-02-27 17:44:35 <cleobuline  > you can explore cellular automata
2025-02-27 17:45:05 <cleobuline  > write a test bed with automana programmed in forth
2025-02-27 17:45:12 <cleobuline  > automata
2025-02-27 17:48:31 <user51      > Thanks, still a maybe for now.
2025-02-27 17:51:08 <cleobuline  > xentrac:  ca marche mieux comme ça : fac 1 SWAP 1  DO I * LOOP ;
2025-02-27 17:53:41 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  : fac 1 SWAP 1  DO I * LOOP ; 10 fac .
2025-02-27 17:53:45 <cleobuline  > zut
2025-02-27 18:22:52 <xentrac     > mdr
2025-02-27 18:41:32 <GeDaMo      > !gforth  : fib 1 1 rot 0 do tuck over . + loop 2drop ;  10 fib
2025-02-27 18:41:32 <gforth_eval_bot> 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55
2025-02-27 19:33:55 <cleobuline  > la foire aux bots :)
2025-02-27 19:34:30 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  : FIBONACCI DUP 0 = IF DROP 0 ELSE DUP 1 = IF DROP 1 ELSE 0 1 ROT 0 DO OVER + SWAP LOOP  THEN THEN ;
2025-02-27 19:35:02 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  10 FIBONACCI
2025-02-27 19:35:08 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  .
2025-02-27 19:35:08 <ForthBot    > 34
2025-02-27 19:38:06 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  FORGET FIBONACCI
2025-02-27 19:38:12 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  : FIBONACCI DUP 0 = IF DROP 0 ELSE DUP 1 = IF DROP 1 ELSE 0 1 ROT 1 DO OVER + SWAP LOOP DROP THEN THEN ;
2025-02-27 19:38:22 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  10 FIBONACCI .
2025-02-27 19:38:23 <ForthBot    > 34
2025-02-27 19:38:27 <cleobuline  > pff
2025-02-27 19:39:38 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  11 FIBONACCI .
2025-02-27 19:39:38 <ForthBot    > 55
2025-02-27 19:39:47 <cleobuline  > ya un décalage ...
2025-02-27 19:39:58 <user51      > ForthBot: 10 10 FIBONACCI FIBONACCI
2025-02-27 19:40:14 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  .S
2025-02-27 19:40:14 <ForthBot    > Stack: 55 10 3524578
2025-02-27 19:40:23 <user51      > yeah, im getting tired
2025-02-27 19:41:08 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  VARIABLE X  123456789 X !   X @ .
2025-02-27 19:41:08 <ForthBot    > 123456789
2025-02-27 19:41:33 <cleobuline  > it works in the right way now
2025-02-27 19:42:34 <user51      > !gforth 0 value t : recunacci ( n -- ) t 0 > if tuck + . recurse then ; : fibonacci to t 1 1 recunacci ; 10 fibonacci .s
2025-02-27 19:42:35 <gforth_eval_bot> https://0x0.st/8maY.txt
2025-02-27 19:43:44 <user51      > !gforth 0 value t : recunacci ( n -- ) t 0 > if tuck + dup . recurse then ; : fibonacci to t 1 1 recunacci ; 10 fibonacci .s
2025-02-27 19:43:44 <gforth_eval_bot> 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765 10946 17711 28657 46368 75025 121393 196418 317811 514229 832040
2025-02-27 19:43:45 <gforth_eval_bot> https://0x0.st/8mag.txt
2025-02-27 19:43:59 <cleobuline  > :)
2025-02-27 19:44:01 <user51      > oh no.
2025-02-27 19:44:14 <cleobuline  > lol
2025-02-27 19:44:34 <cleobuline  > nice playing with forth on irc ;)
2025-02-27 19:44:58 <user51      > !gforth 0 value t : recunacci ( n -- ) t 0 > if tuck + dup t 1 - to t . recurse then ; : fibonacci to t 1 1 recunacci ; 10 fibonacci .s
2025-02-27 19:44:59 <gforth_eval_bot> 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 <2> 89 144
2025-02-27 19:45:24 <user51      > who needs gpt when you have irc bots
2025-02-27 19:46:06 <cleobuline  > grok is more than chatGPT
2025-02-27 19:47:04 <xentrac     > ForthBot: CREATE FOO 100 ALLOT
2025-02-27 19:47:04 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: CREATE
2025-02-27 19:47:11 <xentrac     > cleobuline: no arrays, eh?
2025-02-27 19:47:20 <user51      > now we just need to do a fibonacci matrix
2025-02-27 19:47:20 <cleobuline  > not yet :)
2025-02-27 19:47:36 <user51      > ForthBot: HERE .
2025-02-27 19:47:37 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: HERE
2025-02-27 19:47:59 <user51      > ForthBot: ' ' .
2025-02-27 19:47:59 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: '
2025-02-27 19:49:36 <cleobuline  > it may be trick to do array with gmp numbers in it
2025-02-27 19:50:21 <cleobuline  > recunacci :)
2025-02-27 19:51:22 <cleobuline  > maybe an array of pointers
2025-02-27 19:53:22 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  : fac 1 SWAP  1 DO I * LOOP ; 10 fac .
2025-02-27 19:53:22 <ForthBot    > 362880
2025-02-27 19:53:36 <cleobuline  > have fix the do loop bug
2025-02-27 20:00:13 <user51      > recursion time
2025-02-27 20:04:12 <user51      > ForthBot: 100 100 dump
2025-02-27 20:04:12 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: dump
2025-02-27 20:04:16 <user51      > ForthBot: 100 100 DUMP
2025-02-27 20:04:16 <ForthBot    > Unknown word: DUMP
2025-02-27 20:06:04 <cleobuline  > lol
2025-02-27 20:06:29 <cleobuline  > why not pick and poke !!!!
2025-02-27 20:06:49 <cleobuline  > you what tu ack my machine ?
2025-02-27 21:02:28 <cleobuline  > ForthBot: CREATE ZOZO 100 ALLOT
2025-02-27 21:02:47 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  123456789123456789 ZOZO !@
2025-02-27 21:02:47 <ForthBot    > Error: Stack underflow
2025-02-27 21:03:03 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  123456789123456789 99 ZOZO !@
2025-02-27 21:03:22 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  99 ZOZO @@ .
2025-02-27 21:03:22 <ForthBot    > 123456789123456789
2025-02-27 21:04:36 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789  10 ZOZO !@
2025-02-27 21:05:05 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  10 ZOZO @@ .
2025-02-27 21:05:06 <ForthBot    > 123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789123456789
2025-02-27 21:06:03 <cleobuline  > xentrac:  happy ?
2025-02-27 21:07:16 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  99 ZOZO @@ 10 ZOZO @@ * .
2025-02-27 21:07:17 <ForthBot    > 15241578780673678530864199530864199530864199530864199515622620750190521
2025-02-27 23:15:15 <xentrac     > cleobuline: neat, so now you have arrays I guess?
2025-02-27 23:15:47 <xentrac     > but you can't define something like ? that operates on either variables or array elements
2025-02-27 23:38:44 <cleobuline  > yes xentrac
2025-02-27 23:39:12 <cleobuline  > ForthBot: CREATE ZOZO 100 ALLOT
2025-02-27 23:39:39 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  123456789123456789 55 ZOZO !@
2025-02-27 23:40:00 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  55 ZOZO @@ .
2025-02-27 23:40:00 <ForthBot    > 123456789123456789
2025-02-27 23:40:12 <cleobuline  > happy xentrac ?
2025-02-27 23:41:23 <cleobuline  > 0 ZOZO @@ .
2025-02-27 23:41:36 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  0 ZOZO @@ .
2025-02-27 23:41:37 <ForthBot    > 0
2025-02-27 23:41:50 <cleobuline  > all initiated to 0
2025-02-27 23:44:10 <cleobuline  > xentrac:  is it  what you expect ?
2025-02-27 23:44:58 <cleobuline  > i have to work for n dimensions array next ?
2025-02-27 23:45:24 <cleobuline  > lol
2025-02-27 23:46:26 <cleobuline  > nice array accept big numbers
2025-02-27 23:46:56 <xentrac     > well, the usual way of doing it is that a variable is in a sense a one-item array
2025-02-27 23:47:44 <cleobuline  > that's an idea :)
2025-02-27 23:51:17 <cleobuline  > i will do that next , thank for your contribution xentrac
2025-02-27 23:51:49 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  CREATE ZAZA 1 ALLOT
2025-02-27 23:54:00 <cleobuline  > ForthBot:  WORDS
2025-02-27 23:54:01 <ForthBot    > ZOZO ZAZA