2025-08-21 09:40:05 <veltas      > : SCAN ( addr u c - n|-1)  SWAP 0 ?DO OVER I + C@ OVER = IF 2DROP I UNLOOP EXIT THEN LOOP 2DROP -1 ;
2025-08-21 09:40:46 <veltas      > I was convinced there wasn't a 'nice' way to write this, but after sweating it out I've got something that's almost readable
2025-08-21 09:41:44 <olle        > Is Forth declarative or imperative or something else?
2025-08-21 09:46:57 <veltas      > It's definitely not declarative although you can use it that way
2025-08-21 09:47:22 <veltas      > My above code is very imperative
2025-08-21 09:50:07 <olle        > :P
2025-08-21 09:51:06 <veltas      > Forth is definitely its own thing, I'd say a language was Forth-like if it was in same class
2025-08-21 09:51:43 <veltas      > Concatenative maybe
2025-08-21 09:58:07 <olle        > Forth-like = implicit stack
2025-08-21 09:58:09 <olle        > !=
2025-08-21 09:58:10 <olle        > ~=
2025-08-21 10:53:02 <veltas      > Just asked copilot for this and didn't get anything useful
2025-08-21 10:53:37 <veltas      > Anyone get a good result asking for e.g. an ANS Forth word that takes a string and character, and returns index of first position of character or -1 if not found
2025-08-21 10:53:49 <veltas      > On claude or something maybe
2025-08-21 10:55:45 <veltas      > It's really patterns and not smarts because it produced code that just wasn't even slightly close to correct
2025-08-21 10:56:01 <veltas      > I've given it the right answer so maybe it will remember that(?)
2025-08-21 10:58:50 <olle        > LLM is bad with implicit stack
2025-08-21 11:09:39 <veltas      > I think the issue more might be it's bad with everything, but implicit stack stuff has a lot less training data so it seems worse
2025-08-21 11:14:31 <olle        > "bad" is relative, I guess
2025-08-21 11:14:40 <olle        > But yea, training data for sure.
2025-08-21 14:03:28 <veltas      > Oh whoops   : S>D ( n - N )  DUP 0< IF -1 ELSE 0 THEN ;
2025-08-21 14:03:40 <veltas      > Could have just been : S>D DUP 0< ;