<siraben>
CHICKEN also has good library support and C FFI
cp- has quit [Quit: Disappeared in a puff of smoke]
cp- has joined #forth
<tabemann>
maintenance is important
<tabemann>
especially since scheme is one of those languages that, like forth, have many poorly-maintained implementations
<tabemann>
and especially since that once you've chosen a scheme impl you're basically stuck with it, because of little standardization of anything beyond the core language
<tabemann>
I'd go with guile if you're ever planning on embedding it in C code
cp- has quit [Quit: Disappeared in a puff of smoke]
cp- has joined #forth
rpcope has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
rpcope has joined #forth
sts-q has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
dave0 has joined #forth
<dave0>
maw
sts-q has joined #forth
<KipIngram>
Evening dave0.
<dave0>
hey KipIngram
mtsd has joined #forth
gravicappa has joined #forth
andrei-n has joined #forth
jedb_ has joined #forth
jedb has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
MrMobius has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rann has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ovf has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
rann has joined #forth
ovf has joined #forth
jedb__ has joined #forth
jedb_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
neuro_sys has joined #forth
<neuro_sys>
If I want to factor out a group of words that use return stack into another word, how can I force-inline it so that return stack order is not messed up due to the return value usage of word calls?
<neuro_sys>
I thought of using a combination of immediate and postpone, but it didn't work as I inteded.
<neuro_sys>
Ah it actually worked, I had to postpone each word in the immediate word definition.
<neuro_sys>
Looking at some code i see this in a word definition: [ 1 CELLS ] LITERAL
<neuro_sys>
I don't understand why it's not just 1 CELLS
<dave0>
i'm still a forth newbie, but 1 CELLS is a constant, so rather then compute it everytime, compute it once when you compile the word, and then you don't have to compute it at run time
<dave0>
say CELLS always multiplies by 4, because that's how big a cell is... then you have 1 4 * but why not directly just use 4 ?
<veltas>
neuro_sys: Basically, as dave0 says, it's a way to do constant optimisation
<veltas>
Although in some Forths that would happen automatically
<veltas>
It's a pattern you'll see in my code a lot
<veltas>
Although I tend to define 1 CELLS CONSTANT CELL
<neuro_sys>
Ah right, :facepalm: I missed the optimization.
<neuro_sys>
CELLS is 8 on my gforth BTW.
f-a has joined #forth
f-a has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
f-a has joined #forth
proteusguy has joined #forth
dave0 has quit [Quit: dave's not here]
jedb__ is now known as jedb
f-a has quit [Quit: leaving]
f-a has joined #forth
Zarutian_HTC has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
tech_exorcist has joined #forth
Zarutian_HTC has joined #forth
Zarutian_HTC1 has joined #forth
Zarutian_HTC has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<KipIngram>
dave0, I don't think you qualify as a full newbie anymore. You've been around the oasis for a little while now.
<KipIngram>
neuro_sys: defining CELL as you do is better for something that gets used a lot, since each of those [ 1 cells ] literal invocations consumes two cells in the definition rather than one.
<KipIngram>
I'm guessing CELL is probably slightly faster too, but that might not be universal.
Zarutian_HTC1 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
f-a has quit [Quit: leaving]
mark4 has joined #forth
mark4 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
elioat1 has joined #forth
Zarutian_HTC has joined #forth
f-a has joined #forth
elioat1 has left #forth [#forth]
Zarutian_HTC has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
gravicappa has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gravicappa has joined #forth
gravicappa has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Zarutian_HTC has joined #forth
gravicappa has joined #forth
MrMobius has joined #forth
<KipIngram>
So, this Lisp 1.5 document is very methodical and clear.
<KipIngram>
I'm about a third of the way through it, pickinng at it off and on.
<KipIngram>
Unfortunately I also have 4.5 hours of mandatory training to get my company's "Agile Explorer" "badge." I'm... so excited. :-(
<KipIngram>
I'll be honest - I think there are some good ideas in the agile mindset (ideas that were around long before they were called "agile"), but the extent to which they push the hype and the cheerleading and the happy talk really does make me want to vomit a little.
<lispmacs[work]>
KipIngram: hardly anything in life sounds less appealing to me than the idea of "pair programming"
<lispmacs[work]>
do they really make you do that?
<remexre>
I dunno, we pair program (wholly voluntarily) rarely, and it's usually a valuable experience
<remexre>
but pair programming is XP, not agile, right?
<MrMobius>
seems like it could be good if you're helping someone out or mentoring or something like that
f-a has left #forth [#forth]
<remexre>
I think it's really useful when there's some chunk of the problem that involves so many fiddly details that it's going to be easy for one person to forget / mess up one of them
<KipIngram>
lispmacs[work]: No kidding; I feel the same. But like remexre said, I think in isolated cases it can go well. Those cases will probably arise spontaneously - I think it's a terrible thing to try to "force."
Zarutian_HTC has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Zarutian_HTC has joined #forth
<KipIngram>
I just feel like the whole agile mindset downplays the importance of having a leader that possesses a deep understanding of the big picture goal that's being targeted. I'm not talking about a pure mannagement type person - I'm talking about a senior engineer of scientist, that is effectively the "owner" of the overall product.
<KipIngram>
I just don't believe groups working with no oversight and guidannce can spontaneously deliver top drawer products.
<KipIngram>
To put it in language that modern evangelists of all this stuff would hate, there needs to be a boss. I agree it's very important for that boss to listen to his people - good ideas can come from anywhere at any time. But in the end someonen needs to make decisions that the team then adheres to.
<KipIngram>
Someone with experience and deep knowledge.
<KipIngram>
So yeah, I'm just an old-fashioned guy about this stuff.
<KipIngram>
I want to re-iterate that there are certainly some practices that agile has laid claim to that are excellent practices. It's not like it's all "stupid."
<lispmacs[work]>
i noticed that the wikipedia article on Scrum has about 18 warnings on vague, unreliable, unverified, and biased information
<lispmacs[work]>
can anyone become a scrumlord millionaire?
<lispmacs[work]>
or does it require some talent/charisma?
<veltas>
It requires a 2 day training course
<lispmacs[work]>
how much does it cost, and does it get me qualified to teach the course to others (for a larger fee?)
<lispmacs[work]>
yes, I think I see how this works
<veltas>
I think some amount of charisma is probably required too
gravicappa has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
mtsd has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
X-Scale has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
X-Scale` has joined #forth
<cmtptr>
charisma is requored
<cmtptr>
damn touchscreen
<cmtptr>
charisma is required to go into politics
Zarutian_HTC has joined #forth
<KipIngram>
Ok, that's just OFFENSIVE. This guy narrating this training just implied that architecture "emerges" from the agile process. That's just complete bull. Maybe something you CALL architecture emerges, but that doesn't make it any good.
<KipIngram>
One of my core beliefs is that the best work you can possibly do is the planning and envisioning of how something should work before you start to build it.
<KipIngram>
Of course I'm not talking here about some little rinky dink thing that hardly even has a design. I'm talking about extremly sophisitcated high end products.
<KipIngram>
He was talking about the (disputed) notion of "iteration zero." He just blithely implied that a group of people can just "start working" and everything will turn out ok.
<KipIngram>
As long as they are doing the agile monkey dance.
<Zarutian_HTC>
what do you mean with the word product?
<Zarutian_HTC>
software only?
<KipIngram>
No, they claim agile works for anything.
<KipIngram>
That's something else I dispute, but that's their claim.
<Zarutian_HTC>
would not work for electronics
<KipIngram>
No, IT WOULD NOT.
<KipIngram>
Which is what I know best.
<KipIngram>
What he basically just said is that the very thing I considered to be my forte and strongest value add at the high point of my career isn't necessary.
<KipIngram>
I had a flock of engineers barely out of college, and we turned out some damn high end stuff, because I made sure all the work was going to come together in the end.
<KipIngram>
I walked around and paid attention to what they were doing, every day.
<KipIngram>
And steered and mentored.
<Zarutian_HTC>
though one can start with a rough output from the feasibility study and iterate on that design wise until you get something fir first prototype and usability study production
<KipIngram>
This was a 100 person company. We had no feasibility study or usability study.
<KipIngram>
We had a gleam in the boss's eye, and me walking around every day.
<KipIngram>
And a bunch of young kids willing ot work hard.
<Zarutian_HTC>
no feasibility study? you know, even if it is just the boss figuring out if this product could exists at all?
<KipIngram>
Well, I suppose he had a mental feasibility study. He had a marvelous grasp of our market.
<Zarutian_HTC>
I am not talking about some huge beurocratic process here
<KipIngram>
Ok - I misunderstood.
tech_exorcist has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<KipIngram>
Yes, he certainly believed that the product he specified would sell, and generally he was right.
<KipIngram>
We made manual and automated programmingn equipment for the device programming market.