2023-11-23 04:08:26 <veltas      > I think this year I'm going to do sed + forth so I can make the input easier to parse with forth
2023-11-23 04:08:34 <veltas      > For Advent of Code 2023
2023-11-23 04:10:34 <veltas      > Just makes it a bit more fun because forth is pretty good at crunching data if it's in the right format
2023-11-23 05:14:29 <olle        > Word of the day: pad
2023-11-23 05:27:33 <olle        > 'pad' ( -- c-addr  ) core-ext "pad"
2023-11-23 05:27:40 <olle        >    C-ADDR is the address of a transient region that can be used as
2023-11-23 05:27:43 <olle        > temporary data storage.  At least 84 characters of space is available.
2023-11-23 05:28:31 <olle        > The exercise is to write a couple of snippets using pad. :)
2023-11-23 05:39:10 <user51      > That doesn't sound too different from HERE
2023-11-23 05:39:21 <veltas      > I think you'll be lucky to get one snippet
2023-11-23 05:42:55 <olle        > It's OK, LLM will help me.
2023-11-23 05:42:58 <olle        > <3
2023-11-23 05:43:41 <veltas      > : PROMPT CR ." What is your name? " ;
2023-11-23 05:43:46 <veltas      > : GET    PAD 1+ 80 ACCEPT  PAD C! ;
2023-11-23 05:43:50 <veltas      > : REPLY  CR ." Hello, " PAD COUNT TYPE ;
2023-11-23 05:43:54 <veltas      > : TEST   PROMPT GET REPLY ;
2023-11-23 05:43:58 <veltas      > TEST
2023-11-23 05:44:24 <veltas      > I think one year I used PAD in advent of code because it was just there and convenient
2023-11-23 05:44:50 <veltas      > PAD is sort of like a 'string register' in Forth, it probably seems extremely archaic today because of how volatile it is
2023-11-23 05:45:21 <veltas      > But it was useful in early memory limited forths, no buffer needs to be reserved
2023-11-23 05:45:54 <veltas      > Anyway, there's your snippet, that program is a typical early program for teaching languages like BASIC that have better string support
2023-11-23 05:48:27 <olle        > \o/
2023-11-23 05:49:08 <veltas      > Don't know if you saw logs olle but I suggested M* M*/ and M/ as words of the day yesterday
2023-11-23 05:49:18 <olle        > Oh! Sorry, missed that.
2023-11-23 05:49:28 <veltas      > They're an important three words, good to learn
2023-11-23 05:49:39 <olle        > veltas: Is that matrix operations?
2023-11-23 05:49:40 <veltas      > Not actually all standard anymore but it's easy to define them with standard words
2023-11-23 05:49:44 <olle        > 'm*' ( n1 n2 -- d ) core "m-star" ok
2023-11-23 05:49:49 <olle        > Sparse doc in gforth
2023-11-23 05:49:59 <veltas      > They're mixed precision arithmetic
2023-11-23 05:50:34 <veltas      > M* is basically cell * cell -> double-cell, M*/ is double-cell * cell / cell -> double-cell, and M/ is double-cell / cell -> cell
2023-11-23 05:51:29 <veltas      > M* and M/ are typically one instruction on most arch's, i.e. x86 where they are equivalent to IMUL and IDIV
2023-11-23 05:51:48 <veltas      > We can talk about those tomorrow anyway
2023-11-23 05:51:53 <veltas      > Today is PAD day
2023-11-23 05:52:11 <olle        > :))
2023-11-23 05:52:26 <veltas      > Do you know PAD is clasically implemented as   : PAD HERE x + ; where x is some small number?
2023-11-23 05:52:37 <veltas      > So PAD gets corrupted when you add to the dictionary in any way
2023-11-23 05:52:51 <olle        > Damn
2023-11-23 05:52:53 <olle        > Good info
2023-11-23 05:53:04 <olle        >   here #170 + aligned ; ok
2023-11-23 05:53:08 <olle        > that's gforth def
2023-11-23 05:53:42 <veltas      > The standard talks about it being 'transient' and defines that somewhere
2023-11-23 05:54:22 <veltas      > This definition based on HERE allows it to not actually take up room in the dictionary, so tiny memory systems don't have any reservation for PAD in the way if they're not relying on it
2023-11-23 05:58:18 <olle        > Hm
2023-11-23 07:25:18 <olle        > I need a plugin to jekyll blog engine that supports forth syntax highlight
2023-11-23 07:25:31 <olle        > Wonder if there's some simple JS that can do that
2023-11-23 07:41:41 <veltas      > I would guess it's not hard to write a simple forth syntax highlight
2023-11-23 07:41:49 <veltas      > I would just do it manually
2023-11-23 07:41:56 <veltas      > Or have no highlight
2023-11-23 07:42:05 <veltas      > I don't think Forth really lends to highlighting that well generally
2023-11-23 07:44:23 <olle        > Perhaps not
2023-11-23 07:44:37 <olle        > Some basic stuff for strings and numbers might be nice
2023-11-23 07:45:09 <veltas      > I personally think Forth looks best as just bold black on white, with Courier style font
2023-11-23 07:45:15 <veltas      > Nice big letters
2023-11-23 07:45:22 <veltas      > But I'm biased BECAUSE I WRITE FORTH LIKE THIS
2023-11-23 07:46:30 <olle        > Hehe
2023-11-23 08:55:24 <zelgomer    > don't you mean I THISLIKE FORTH WRITE
2023-11-23 08:56:49 <thrig       > many modern forth have ditched the caps '(likewise lisp)
2023-11-23 08:58:24 <veltas      > I only do it because it feels more retro
2023-11-23 08:58:41 <veltas      > And also the standards don't assume lowercase / case-insensitivity
2023-11-23 08:59:07 <zelgomer    > on the subject of syntax highlighting - last time i delved into forth i lost a lot of brain cycles on trying to adhere to naming conventions so that i could write vim syntax patterns. one of the changes i'm making this time around is to just embrace monocolor
2023-11-23 08:59:54 <kws         > syntax highlighting is entirely unnecessary if anything it distracts
2023-11-23 09:00:31 <zelgomer    > it's more in line with the "DIY" spirit, anyway. if i had to build forth from scratch on a desert island, i'm not going to have colors
2023-11-23 09:00:58 <user51      > invisiFORTH? :P
2023-11-23 09:01:33 <thrig       > black on black spares writing to video memory
2023-11-23 09:02:30 <olle        > Syntax highlight is very helpful to detect typos in core lib words/functions
2023-11-23 09:04:59 <thrig       > not with color disabled at the terminal level
2023-11-23 09:05:29 <MrMobius    > +1 for syntax highlighting
2023-11-23 09:05:38 <MrMobius    > especially when it shows a syntax error
2023-11-23 09:06:47 <thrig       > -1 for rubbing the backside of a unicorn all over the terminal and making the text difficult to read
2023-11-23 09:11:39 <olle        > Thankfully, one can choose
2023-11-23 09:13:18 <thrig       > sometimes not, I've heard horror stories about modern IDE that make it darned difficult to nix colors
2023-11-23 09:13:31 <olle        > Don't use that IDE?
2023-11-23 09:14:21 <veltas      > zelgomer: Yeah I absolutely agree with you re syntax highlighting, monocolor is the way to go
2023-11-23 09:14:43 <hello-operator> Isn't everyone using their own block editor to edit their own Forth code :D
2023-11-23 09:15:04 <veltas      > MrMobius: I agree for most languages but for Forth I just think the lack of a formal lexer syntax makes it more trouble than it's worth, and syntax errors are usually 'okay' in forths
2023-11-23 09:15:53 <veltas      > The only place syntax highlighting can work in Forth is in LOCATE on code that's literally been run through the actual forth in question and has an opportunity to say exactly how it parsed it
2023-11-23 09:16:01 <veltas      > And even then it only works so well
2023-11-23 09:16:18 <veltas      > Well by 'work' I mean perfectly without misinterpreting
2023-11-23 09:16:47 <veltas      > But I understand if people prefer a compromise
2023-11-23 09:24:27 <zelgomer    > that's exactly the problem i ran into. it's impossible to colorize forth without executing it. so i tried to bake syntactic hints into my word names. words ending with : were parsing words, words that ended in " parsed literal strings, words surrounded by [] were immediate parsing eords, those ending in ; terminate compilation, etc.
2023-11-23 09:24:51 <veltas      > thrig: The syntax highlighting in visual studio code by default is like that, unicorn vomit, I spent quite a while configuring it when I demo'd it just to make it less noisy
2023-11-23 09:25:11 <veltas      > Like rainbow parentheses comes with it as a default.... why!?! Not every language is lisp
2023-11-23 09:25:17 <zelgomer    > the end result was that my vocabulary was full of weirdly named words with crazy characters and it still didn't colorize every case right
2023-11-23 09:25:29 <KipIngram   > user51: pad actually isn't that different from here, except that it's usually "further along" in RAM, so that the VERY NEXT THING you do that consumes dictionary memory won't overwrite pad.  It will, however, MOVE pad.  But if you store something at pad and "remember" the address, then it's likely to still be there evey after you've defined a small word or something like that.
2023-11-23 09:25:41 <KipIngram   > Whereas if you put it at HERE it would get immediately overwritten.
2023-11-23 09:26:12 <veltas      > The other issue with HERE is the WORD buffer goes there somewhere as well
2023-11-23 09:26:17 <KipIngram   > pad is usually just HERE <offset> +
2023-11-23 09:26:33 <MrMobius    > thrig: you should give vim a try sometimes. let me know if you need a link
2023-11-23 09:26:39 <KipIngram   > Yes, in some systems HERE gets used whether you define anything new or not.
2023-11-23 09:26:43 <thrig       > I moved from vim to vi
2023-11-23 09:26:43 <veltas      > Sometimes it's positioned very close to HERE, so using that space pretty much guarantees it will get corrupted by input loop
2023-11-23 09:27:13 <veltas      > I'm a vimmer
2023-11-23 09:27:37 <veltas      > I actually use vim at my day job and quite proficiently
2023-11-23 09:30:53 <veltas      > I do embedded C work and use vim/git for programming and version control, and then use whatever horrid IDE I need for the actual programming / configuring
2023-11-23 09:31:26 <KipIngram   > Yeah, I use vim for all my editing too.
2023-11-23 09:32:12 <zelgomer    > thrig: for any particular reason?
2023-11-23 09:32:52 <veltas      > When I say programming the second time I mean flashing
2023-11-23 09:33:11 <zelgomer    > aren't there laws against that?
2023-11-23 09:33:19 <thrig       > vim is slow to startup and the cursor motions are a bit sluggish and on RHEL I had to compile a custom vim to undo the wacky vendorisms, bloat in general
2023-11-23 09:34:20 <thrig       > (vi also has a bunch of bloat)
2023-11-23 09:34:26 <KipIngram   > :-)
2023-11-23 09:35:41 <olle        > ed?
2023-11-23 09:35:49 <olle        > fucking bloated too man
2023-11-23 09:35:57 <zelgomer    > interesting. my vim is generally fast. it feels a little "sluggish" when i hit esc and then o to open a new line, but i eventually realized that was because it saw <esc>o as a possible controo sequence prefix and was waiting for the next char to decide what to do
2023-11-23 09:36:10 <thrig       > ed lacks the nifty filters that ex added, and a few other things
2023-11-23 09:36:31 <thrig       > but I can use ed if need be
2023-11-23 09:38:00 <KipIngram   > zelgomer: On a lot of systems vim has been configured to wait a split second after seeing <escape> before it checks for the next key.
2023-11-23 09:38:10 <veltas      > ed is good for editing commit messages and quick and dirty operations from terminal
2023-11-23 09:38:16 <KipIngram   > It's to let it tell the differenece between a naked escape and the first byte of an escape sequence.
2023-11-23 09:38:17 <zelgomer    > apropos, if i use vim to open a giant script-generated c file then it does stall for a minute or two trying to syntax highlight
2023-11-23 09:38:20 <KipIngram   > It's adjustable.
2023-11-23 09:38:39 <KipIngram   > It can make ESC seem a little sluggish.
2023-11-23 09:38:43 <veltas      > zelgomer: vim is really slow to start on some distros, I think it's a bug with X or something
2023-11-23 09:38:52 <veltas      > I blame the maintainer for that distro
2023-11-23 09:38:58 <zelgomer    > KipIngram: i think that's what i said
2023-11-23 09:39:01 <KipIngram   > It's been find on the distros I've used.
2023-11-23 09:39:07 <KipIngram   > Oh, I'm sorry.
2023-11-23 09:39:34 <KipIngram   > Responded early I guess.
2023-11-23 09:39:50 <KipIngram   > Still getting the first cup of coffee down.
2023-11-23 09:40:11 <veltas      > I can't do more than one cup of coffee
2023-11-23 09:40:26 <KipIngram   > Oh, I can drink a lot of coffee.
2023-11-23 09:40:46 <veltas      > 
ACTION chuckles at what zelgomer said about flashing earlier

2023-11-23 09:41:08 <zelgomer    > veltas: DISPLAY= vim :)
2023-11-23 09:41:12 <KipIngram   > Yeah that was good.
2023-11-23 09:41:35 <veltas      > zelgomer: What's that for?
2023-11-23 09:41:56 <thrig       > minute or two would have me throwing the computer out. 30 milliseconds was the "too slow" vim startup, last I benched it
2023-11-23 09:42:29 <thrig       > oh, and forever having to turn off new crap they were adding
2023-11-23 09:42:39 <veltas      > Yeah the 'new crap' is distros
2023-11-23 09:42:47 <veltas      > Mainline vim doesn't enable that if you've got a .vimrc
2023-11-23 09:42:51 <veltas      > With anything in it at all
2023-11-23 09:43:02 <veltas      > I can't blame you though
2023-11-23 09:43:12 <veltas      > It is really annoying tracking down what distros enable
2023-11-23 09:44:04 <zelgomer    > veltas: if X is the problem then unset DOSPLAY so vim can't connect to it
2023-11-23 09:45:07 <veltas      > I think that didn't work when I tried it
2023-11-23 09:45:27 <veltas      > thrig's issue is different, he wants under 30ms startup so I don't know what is needed for that
2023-11-23 09:45:39 <veltas      > Probably not possible in general
2023-11-23 09:45:47 <thrig       > vi starts really quick. and so does emacsclient
2023-11-23 09:45:49 <veltas      > Without different editor or really stripped down build
2023-11-23 09:46:06 <veltas      > I am surprised, in my experience emacsclient is about as fast as vim to start
2023-11-23 09:46:12 <veltas      > But YMMV
2023-11-23 09:46:32 <veltas      > I don't doubt vi starts that fast, not a lot going on in that
2023-11-23 09:47:11 <veltas      > Personally my tolerance for startup is probably up to about 200ms before I really notice, or 500ms before it's annoying
2023-11-23 09:47:35 <thrig       > mine is an order of magnitude lower
2023-11-23 09:48:12 <veltas      > Probably learned from that Pentium 4 machine I was stuck on for about a decade
2023-11-23 09:48:19 <veltas      > Was slow when it was new, just got worse and worse
2023-11-23 09:48:37 <KipIngram   > there's a name for that.  Officially they say it's 400 ms.
2023-11-23 09:48:46 <veltas      > Well it's obviously subjective
2023-11-23 09:48:47 <KipIngram   > starts with a D.
2023-11-23 09:48:59 <KipIngram   > Yeah, but I guess they did high sample count measurements.
2023-11-23 09:49:07 <KipIngram   > "on average" it's 400 ms.
2023-11-23 09:49:23 <veltas      > Was this for websites or something?
2023-11-23 09:49:34 <KipIngram   > Nah, it was a thing way back in the early days.
2023-11-23 09:49:38 <thrig       > probably I was spoiled by the apple 2e  https://danluu.com/input-lag/
2023-11-23 09:49:41 <KipIngram   > I saw it on Halt And Catch Fire.
2023-11-23 09:49:43 <veltas      > With the web because it's on internet, people are used to a certain latency strongly indicating that the page will never load at all
2023-11-23 09:50:08 <KipIngram   > It was from hitting Enter to getting a response to a command.
2023-11-23 09:50:15 <KipIngram   > Like on old systems like DOS.
2023-11-23 09:50:26 <veltas      > Depends what you're doing
2023-11-23 09:50:34 <KipIngram   > Doherty Threshold.
2023-11-23 09:50:43 <veltas      > This is why we have loading bars, so people see activity before they are wondering why it's so slow
2023-11-23 09:50:52 <KipIngram   > https://lawsofux.com/doherty-threshold/
2023-11-23 09:51:36 <KipIngram   > Coolest thing on Halt and Catch Fire was when they dunked a motherboard in minteral oil so they could overclock the phooey out of it.
2023-11-23 09:51:40 <thrig       > 400ms on a musical instrument would be hilariously terrible
2023-11-23 09:51:44 <KipIngram   > mineral
2023-11-23 09:51:50 <KipIngram   > Oh yeah, for sure.
2023-11-23 09:51:55 <veltas      > I'm assuming vim's startup is just from loading and running the startup scripts, and programming syntax scripts
2023-11-23 09:52:06 <veltas      > thrig: 400ms on a musical instrument would be fine for turning on
2023-11-23 09:52:07 <KipIngram   > The 400 ms wasn't for every keystroke - that would bug the hell out of you key by key.
2023-11-23 09:52:08 <veltas      > Not for playing
2023-11-23 09:52:12 <KipIngram   > it was for a "command" response.
2023-11-23 09:53:01 <veltas      > Context matters, I am very sensitive to delays, I probably wouldn't cope playing a musical instrument with 10ms delay
2023-11-23 09:53:59 <veltas      > I think any musician would get f***ed up by that
2023-11-23 09:54:47 <thrig       > if it were modulus the beat you could maybe play a note ahead?
2023-11-23 09:55:04 <veltas      > No clue
2023-11-23 09:55:59 <veltas      > Do you use a CRT?
2023-11-23 09:56:16 <thrig       > nope
2023-11-23 09:56:38 <veltas      > They have nice low latency
2023-11-23 09:56:51 <veltas      > And X-Rays and volume
2023-11-23 09:56:58 <KipIngram   > I do think we're much more delay sensitive when we're in "music' mode.
2023-11-23 10:02:58 <veltas      > I think the point is that I don't need my editor to seem 'instant', I just need it to not be 'slow'.
2023-11-23 10:03:23 <veltas      > There's a world of difference between the two, you can perceive very tiny delays but whether it feels slow is another thing
2023-11-23 10:06:58 <KipIngram   > Speaking of x-rays, I saw a video last night about a Soviet particle accelerator scientist who inadvertently walked through the accelerator beam.
2023-11-23 10:07:08 <KipIngram   > "Safety system failure."
2023-11-23 10:07:16 <KipIngram   > Amazingly, he survived it.
2023-11-23 10:07:40 <KipIngram   > Fouled up the left side of his face, and he had occasional seizures the rest of his life.
2023-11-23 10:07:51 <KipIngram   > But lived quite a long time.
2023-11-23 10:15:42 <veltas      > Yet Republicans won't allow an accelerator beam ban
2023-11-23 10:20:06 <thrig       > healthier than some cowbows using a screwdriver to play with the demon core
2023-11-23 10:24:20 <veltas      > About time they banned screwdrivers
2023-11-23 10:24:56 <thrig       > there was increased interest in automation following that
2023-11-23 10:25:47 <veltas      > I don't think anyone learned anything from the demon core incident because everyone involved knew it was dangerous and stupid
2023-11-23 10:28:45 <user51      > I didn't know about the demon core, which is funny because I just played DOOM
2023-11-23 10:30:11 <Zarutian_iPad> search for 'Tickling the Devils Tail'
2023-11-23 10:40:00 <KipIngram   > Yeah, I saw that demon core video last night as well.
2023-11-23 10:42:44 <KipIngram   > I had no idea that did all that stuff totally by hand back then.
2023-11-23 10:43:03 <veltas      > I think a lot of scientists at the time were surprised to learn they did that stuff by hand
2023-11-23 10:43:05 <KipIngram   > At least they managed not to let the demon core actually blow up.
2023-11-23 10:43:30 <veltas      > True
2023-11-23 10:45:16 <KipIngram   > When the screwdriver slip accident happened, there was an audience of other scientists in the room.  They were standing a few feet away, though - just the one guy was right there immediately beside it.
2023-11-23 10:45:53 <KipIngram   > He was actually the second guy it killed.
2023-11-23 10:46:04 <KipIngram   > there had been an earlier accident with it as well.
2023-11-23 10:49:46 <Zarutian_iPad> hmm... maybe you folks can help me regarding an phrase in English I heard recently: regression of the mean
2023-11-23 10:50:07 <thrig       > to the mean?
2023-11-23 10:50:25 <Zarutian_iPad> nope spefically of
2023-11-23 10:50:46 <thrig       > haven't seen it with of before
2023-11-23 10:51:25 <KipIngram   > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
2023-11-23 10:51:46 <veltas      > Almost certainly what they meant
2023-11-23 10:53:09 <Zarutian_iPad> veltas: I thought so too but they were very spefic that it was regression _of_ the mean, not towards it
2023-11-23 10:54:09 <veltas      > It's possible some people say it that way
2023-11-23 10:54:16 <veltas      > I think it does refer to same concept, just my guess
2023-11-23 10:54:21 <KipIngram   > That's what I think.
2023-11-23 10:54:27 <KipIngram   > Just different speaking habits.
2023-11-23 10:55:00 <veltas      > Some people say "Regression to the mean", and often 'to' and 'of' get equated in phrases
2023-11-23 10:55:10 <veltas      > Even if the meaning is quite different literally
2023-11-23 10:55:36 <veltas      > to/of/for I see get confused and muddled a lot
2023-11-23 10:56:46 <Zarutian_iPad> nope, they meant _of_ and not _to_ and were explict about it.
2023-11-23 10:59:29 <veltas      > Maybe they're just being obstinate
2023-11-23 10:59:40 <Zarutian_iPad> so I suspect she meant that the mean of the thing in question was lowering
2023-11-23 11:00:30 <veltas      > It's not impossible
2023-11-23 11:00:51 <Zarutian_iPad> but yeah the of/to/for confusion is quite irritating to non native speakers of English like me.
2023-11-23 11:03:26 <veltas      > It's good for be aware to this
2023-11-23 11:24:15 <KipIngram   > Zarutian_iPad: What makes me pretty sure of it is that when I searched for "regression of the mean" it led me to that article on "regression toward the mean."
2023-11-23 11:24:38 <KipIngram   > I think if it were a distinct concept then a distinct separate article would have popped up.  It would be documented as separate things.
2023-11-23 11:25:52 <KipIngram   > Plus it is just the kind of slop you find in English sometimes.
2023-11-23 11:25:54 <KipIngram   > :-|
2023-11-23 11:25:59 <KipIngram   > sorry about that.
2023-11-23 11:26:31 <KipIngram   > One thing about English that particularly frustrates Spanish speakers is that we don't stick to "one set of letters = one sound.'
2023-11-23 11:26:42 <KipIngram   > "ough" is a particularly bad offender their.
2023-11-23 11:26:48 <KipIngram   > It can sound all kind of different ways.
2023-11-23 11:27:31 <KipIngram   > You have the "through" sound, and the "enough/rough" sound and the "bought" sound and so on.
2023-11-23 11:28:00 <KipIngram   > The did a funny bit on that in the "I Love Lucy" show once, where Ricky was trying to read a bedtime story to Little Ricky.
2023-11-23 11:28:15 <KipIngram   > They made up a story that just had almost every ough word imaginable in it.
2023-11-23 11:30:39 <thrig       > ocho castillao (but English is a lot worse)
2023-11-23 11:33:41 <olle        > Spelling reforms help ;)
2023-11-23 11:34:13 <veltas      > Help some and hinder others
2023-11-23 11:34:30 <veltas      > It would be painful to most people already familiar, but better for new learners
2023-11-23 11:35:03 <olle        > Sure
2023-11-23 11:35:22 <olle        > Especially older text become increasingly unavailable that way
2023-11-23 11:35:26 <olle        > texts*
2023-11-23 11:35:51 <veltas      > Yes, as I know from pre-standard writing
2023-11-23 11:37:16 <olle        > Right
2023-11-23 11:38:50 <veltas      > What is annoying is the etymology they tried to insert into standardised English spelling
2023-11-23 11:38:53 <veltas      > And got wrong
2023-11-23 11:39:05 <veltas      > So there are words with silent letters that literally have no purpose and never did
2023-11-23 11:39:08 <olle        > "They"?
2023-11-23 11:39:15 <olle        > I think I recall that youtube video.
2023-11-23 11:39:34 <veltas      > I've not seen any such YouTube video
2023-11-23 11:40:47 <olle        > Lies! How could you know without it?
2023-11-23 11:45:08 <veltas      > I think I probably learned about this while reading about the older King James bible issues
2023-11-23 11:53:47 <KipIngram   > Yeah, just try to read something written in middle "English."
2023-11-23 11:59:04 <KipIngram   > Chaucer vs. Shakespeare - a lot changed in that not to huge amount of time.
2023-11-23 11:59:12 <KipIngram   > too
2023-11-23 12:00:36 <thrig       > the first English dictionary was also 1604, which will help retard evolution
2023-11-23 12:01:30 <KipIngram   > Yeah, and everything that makes people more "interconnected" would as well, by somewhat defeating "local divergences."
2023-11-23 12:01:55 <thrig       > printing press, telegraph, etc
2023-11-23 12:02:08 <KipIngram   > Yep.
2023-11-23 12:02:33 <KipIngram   > I think television slowed the rate of regional dialect divergence and probably even mitigated it to some extent.
2023-11-23 12:02:57 <KipIngram   > We live in different parts of our country, but everyone in the US tends to watch the same TV shows.
2023-11-23 12:03:44 <KipIngram   > It's not enough to wipe it totally out, of course.
2023-11-23 18:34:52 <KipIngram   > Wow - this is an interesting critter:
2023-11-23 18:34:54 <KipIngram   > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP_9eb4RY4I&list=RDCMUCRlICXvO4XR4HMeEB9JjDlA&index=29
2023-11-23 18:38:53 <zelgomer    > is it mandatory for a forth to be named with forth in the name
2023-11-23 18:41:31 <thrig       > nope
2023-11-23 18:42:06 <veltas      > mecrisp comes to mind
2023-11-23 18:42:27 <veltas      > I never hear that called 'mecrisp forth' or anything
2023-11-23 18:48:12 <thrig       > it may help with brand identification to mention forth somewhere
2023-11-23 18:53:32 <KipIngram   > one of the best things about Forth is that you can do anything you want to.  :-)
2023-11-23 19:05:46 <PoppaVic    > KipIngram, that was a weird bugger, but I still like Boxing Shrimp mo'betta
2023-11-23 20:10:01 <KipIngram   > I was particularly impressed that if you cut off his gun claw the other ones just turns into a new gun claw, and the stub grows into a new normal claw.
2023-11-23 20:10:11 <KipIngram   > other "one"
2023-11-23 20:23:12 <PoppaVic    > well, yeah: lotsa' sealife regenerates.
2023-11-23 20:23:42 <PoppaVic    > ..they are prolly written in lisp with triads and closures and shit ;-)
2023-11-23 20:53:25 <PoppaVic    > 
ACTION ♪ ♫ "stuck inside these 4 walls..." ♪

2023-11-23 20:53:37 <zelgomer    > followup question re: naming a forth. if i don't call it "myforth" then what do i call it? :(
2023-11-23 20:54:48 <thrig       > make a markov model from /usr/share/dict/words and then ...
2023-11-23 20:56:29 <zelgomer    > lol
2023-11-23 21:09:44 <zelgomer    > i think i'll call it "thrig". thanks!
2023-11-23 22:58:07 <Zarutian_iPad> http://archive.retro-kit.co.uk/bbcdocs.com/filebase/econet/ looks intresting for historical reasons
2023-11-23 22:58:49 <Zarutian_iPad> hmm.. did BBC Micro have a Forth written for it I wonder
2023-11-23 23:51:10 <crc         > BBC micro had a couple of Forth systems. Acornsoft Forth and rqForth are two I've seen, and I think there was a third, but I don't recall the name of that one