00:34:37
##forth
<cleobuline>
mforth: " une fée dans un paysage enchanté " IMAGE
00:35:55
##forth
<cleobuline>
a touch of modernism in an old school program :)
00:53:38
##forth
<cleobuline>
mforth: " un groupe de zombies dans un paysage post apocalyptique " IMAGE
04:40:07
##forth
<cleobuline>
mforth: " un groupe de zombies dans un paysage post apocalyptique " IMAGE
05:33:32
##forth
<nmz>
what's the fastest forth?
05:34:05
##forth
<nmz>
if I wanna number crunch, you'd think something written in assembly would beat a JIT
05:34:28
##forth
<cleobuline>
yes
05:38:09
##forth
<cleobuline>
forth: " une fée dans un paysage enchanté " IMAGE
05:38:56
##forth
<cleobuline>
mforth: " une fée dans un paysage enchanté " IMAGE
05:41:32
##forth
<nmz>
cleobuline: like?
05:41:47
##forth
<cleobuline>
like what ?
05:42:01
##forth
<nmz>
you said yes to my question or no?
05:44:23
##forth
<cleobuline>
do you plan to write an assebly forth ?
05:50:52
##forth
<nmz>
no
05:51:12
##forth
<nmz>
I was whining about forth being slower than C and even JIT languages and someone mentioned vfx forth being the fastest forth, but since I can't even download it, I was wondering what everyone thinks
08:27:16
##forth
<veltas>
nmz: If you want to number crunch, then the fastest language is usually literally anything that lets you write SIMD instructions or intrinsics, and spawn multiple threads
08:27:43
##forth
<veltas>
If it's really not parallelisable then usually it's still whatever lets you write inline assembly
08:27:52
##forth
<veltas>
So assembler, C, Rust, Forth, etc
08:28:35
##forth
<veltas>
But if that's not feasible for most of the work, then you're probably better off with C, which has a more mathsy syntax anyway and a lot more compiler effort behind it
08:29:05
##forth
<veltas>
Forth is that tradeoff where having a smaller implementation is desirable, but obviously that means you won't get the fastest code in all situations
13:52:36
##forth
<cleobuline>
mforth: " un fée dans un paysage enchanté " IMAGE
13:53:30
##forth
<xentrac>
it went a bit overboard with the fairy
13:54:19
##forth
<cleobuline>
the magic forth :)
13:54:25
##forth
<xentrac>
I count onze fées but I might be missing some
13:55:18
##forth
<cleobuline>
i like fairys
13:57:06
##forth
<cleobuline>
xentrac only 3 fairys
13:57:44
##forth
<cleobuline>
mforth: " un monstre horrible avec des grandes dents des gros yeux et plein de poils " IMAGE
13:58:17
##forth
<cleobuline>
:)
13:58:53
##forth
<cleobuline>
don't take lsd with this bot , use at your own risks !
14:21:41
##forth
<xentrac>
I think I should use this image as a selfie on dating sites
15:27:26
##forth
<cleobuline>
haha
18:20:31
##forth
<cleobuline>
mforth: WORDS
18:20:31
##forth
<mforth>
USERNAME .S . + - * / MOD DUP DROP SWAP OVER ROT >R R> R@ = < > AND OR NOT XOR & | ^ ~ << >> CR EMIT VARIABLE @ ! +! DO LOOP I WORDS LOAD CREATE ALLOT ." CLOCK BEGIN WHILE REPEAT AGAIN SQRT UNLOOP +LOOP PICK CLEAR-STACK PRINT NUM-TO-BIN PRIME? FORGET STRING " 2DROP IMAGE TEMP-IMAGE
18:20:53
##forth
<cleobuline>
new : IMAGE and TEMP-IMAGE
22:45:59
##forth
<pgimeno>
I was thinking that with a stack of arbitrary precision numbers, you don't need a string stack - you just need to interpret numbers as strings
23:05:20
##forth
<veltas>
Yeah you don't even need a stack, you can just encode everything in one number
23:05:47
##forth
<veltas>
But not much point
23:35:59
##forth
<veqq>
How would you implement a concatenative language in Forth, just conceptually
23:59:26
##forth
<crc>
veqq: is forth not already concatenative?