Vedran has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
crest has joined #forth
Vedran has joined #forth
f-a has joined #forth
f-a has quit [Quit: leaving]
tech_exorcist has quit [Quit: tech_exorcist]
tech_exorcist has joined #forth
f-a has joined #forth
neuro_sys has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
f-a has quit [Quit: leaving]
f-a has joined #forth
<KipIngram>
It's not often that important these days, but in a case like sectorforth I think that's a valuable find, dave0. Nice.
lispmacs has joined #forth
<KipIngram>
Ha ha ha - for the first time in a LONG time I just weighed in under 200. 198.8. :-)
f-a has quit [Quit: leaving]
f-a has joined #forth
dave0 has quit [Quit: dave's not here]
f-a has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
f-a has joined #forth
gravicappa has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
gravicappa has joined #forth
<veltas>
KipIngram: Keep it up buddy
WickedShell has joined #forth
WickedShell has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
gravicappa has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
WickedShell has joined #forth
boru has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
boru has joined #forth
Zarutian_HTC has joined #forth
yyyyyy has joined #forth
yyyyyy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
yyyyyy has joined #forth
yyyyyy has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
yyyyyy has joined #forth
<Zarutian_HTC>
h'lo folks
<f-a>
lo
<Zarutian_HTC>
I have probably described this technique of having primitives expressed with leeding zeros in their cell
<Zarutian_HTC>
for instance I have the sixteen most primitives 0x0 to 0xF
<Zarutian_HTC>
then I have more complex primitives in 0x10 to 0xFF
<Zarutian_HTC>
but I have arranged so that there are ?jump? vectors at those addresses 0x10-0xFF that jump to implementation/colon-word that implement these more complex primitives using the minimal set or less complex primitives
f-a has left #forth [#forth]
<Zarutian_HTC>
a sort of fallback for those environments that do not implement all or only few of the more complex primitives
<veltas>
Reading about COBOL today
<KipIngram>
Better you than me, man.
<veltas>
I find eldritch FORTRAN the hardest to read honestly
<veltas>
I wonder if any of Forth was inspired by COBOL
<KipIngram>
I don't know if I really understand COBOL at all, but I always got the impression it was heavily about printing reports.
<KipIngram>
Like financial reports.
<KipIngram>
Tables, etc.
<Zarutian_HTC>
it was basically like excell via scripting iirc
<Zarutian_HTC>
for making, weekly sales reports, quartly earnings report, invoices et ceterata
<Zarutian_HTC>
s/excell/excel/
<veltas>
That's basically what Forth is though right
<veltas>
What I'm getting from reading this COBOL manual is noticing a lot of potential influences for different languages like Forth, C, etc. Although I don't know other languages from the era that well to compare
<Zarutian_HTC>
Forth was originally for scientifoc instrument controll iirc
<Zarutian_HTC>
Algol influenced Cobol iirc
<Zarutian_HTC>
and Algol also influenced many other programming languages in that era
<veltas>
Forth wasn't created in a vacuum, there would have been some influences
<veltas>
COBOL seems to have something that's pretty similar to the Forth dictionary
<veltas>
Algol, FORTRAN, Lisp and COBOL are the big four influential early programming languages
<veltas>
I don't think early COBOL was influenced by Algol much at all, I don't think it was on their radar. They even invented their own syntax for defining syntax, even though backus form had been created for Algol before they specified COBOL
<Zarutian_HTC>
lot of the ideas that ended up in these four languages were being discussed at the time
<Zarutian_HTC>
Cobol doesnt even pretend to implement Algol syntax but some of the ideas were probably cross polinated
<Zarutian_HTC>
but I am no computer historian
<veltas>
As I was just saying it wasn't on their radar, maybe there was a very minor amount of cross polination
<veltas>
COBOL seems to be mainly based on FLOW-MATIC
<veltas>
It's much more refined though
Zarutian_HTC has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Zarutian_HTC has joined #forth
<veltas>
I wonder if this is where "File descriptor" came from too
shmorgle has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<veltas>
I've got to guess we've got COBOL to thank for Intel's MOV instruction
cantstanya has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
cantstanya has joined #forth
<Zarutian_HTC>
that instruction is turing complete
<Zarutian_HTC>
though there are a few various addressing modes that need to be taken into account
<Zarutian_HTC>
basically the cpu becomes an register to register machine
<veltas>
I'm reading Backus' Speedcoding article
<veltas>
"Once a problem is coded one can often have it punched, checked out on the 701, and ready to run inside of an hour or two."
<Zarutian_HTC>
the joy of batch processing
<Zarutian_HTC>
no wonder interactive repls are so aluring
<veltas>
This is from 1953 and uses floating point, I didn't realise floating point was that old!
<veltas>
Well I suppose it's older than computers really
<veltas>
But I mean in a computer
<Zarutian_HTC>
depends on which floating point number scheme
<veltas>
Why
<Zarutian_HTC>
mantissa x pow(2, exponent) wasnt that of a streach from scientific notation
<veltas>
That's what I mean by older than computers
<Zarutian_HTC>
some of the most simplest one did not have nan, neginfinity, or posinfinity
<veltas>
Neither does pen and paper
tech_exorcist has quit [Quit: tech_exorcist]
<Zarutian_HTC>
or abacus
<veltas>
The calculations are the same, just using binary rather than decimal. Although some older computers used decimal, like the decatron
<veltas>
The C standard for instance doesn't require -inf or +inf or a binary representation
<Zarutian_HTC>
the precision loss and such isnt the same between bases
<veltas>
Yes but I mean the algorithms are the same, with different numbers for base, but of course technically the rounding is different....
<Zarutian_HTC>
talking about floating point math
<Zarutian_HTC>
been fidling with using delta sigma based digital signal processing instead of the usual multiply accumulate inside a tight loop paradigm
<veltas>
"One documented application, authored by Laning and Zierler themselves, involved a problem in aeronautics. The problem required seven systems of differential equations to express, and had been given to the Whirlwind because..."
<veltas>
"...it was too large for MIT's Differential Analyzer to handle. The authors, exploiting the Runge-Kutta feature of their programming system, produced a 97-statement program in two and half hours. The program ran successfully the first time."