00:00:04 oklopol: you mean you want to be known as "that guy who's reading ANKOS"? 00:00:29 hmm 00:00:31 indeed 00:00:57 that's only if you have a long-term fact and a varying short-term fact 00:01:04 that'd be my short-term fact 00:01:19 my long-term facts i have no idea about 00:01:29 something negative, most likely 00:02:17 "That vile-smelling individual who's reading ANKOS"? 00:03:09 that's better 00:15:20 -!- GreaseMonkey has joined. 00:19:39 -!- Sgeo has joined. 00:23:47 "That guy that should worship me?" 00:26:31 i do worship you a bit 00:26:40 Oh, really? Sweet. 00:26:41 XD 00:26:45 even though i haven't actually *looked* at pebble. 00:26:50 -_-' 00:27:02 Well, you've got a book that you're reading, so that's excusable. 00:27:07 heh, yeah :) 00:27:15 i dl'd it though! 00:27:36 :) 00:27:46 Version 1.0, not 1.0-preview? 00:27:59 errr.... i dl'd something :) 00:28:11 Version 1.0 has this nice thing called "documentation". ;) 00:28:20 i promise i'll check it out. 00:28:28 Mmkay. 00:28:47 but, beware, once i look at it, i most likely won't worship it as much 00:28:58 Ah. 00:29:06 on the other hand, it might get another status in my head 00:29:55 of course you'd most likely rather be worshipped than having made something that somewhat steers a random persons thoughts. 00:30:02 *have 00:30:09 *person's 00:30:25 I'd rather have both, since the last option is exactly what it does to me. :p 00:30:46 both is possible as well 00:31:11 argh, so many pages srijg 00:34:58 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+"). 00:36:32 -!- immibis has joined. 00:36:50 and i have a hard time continuing reading when i know i haven't implemented all this cool stuff in the book 00:36:54 hi immibis 00:37:28 stop reading. 00:38:24 nah, i enjoy a challenge... on some level 00:39:14 hi oklopol 00:58:52 -!- Tritonio_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 00:59:29 -!- Tritonio_ has joined. 01:26:32 -!- oerjan has quit (anthony.freenode.net irc.freenode.net). 01:27:09 -!- oerjan has joined. 02:45:08 -!- Tritonio_ has quit ("Bye..."). 03:15:31 -!- cosmic_string has joined. 03:47:03 does forth have first class functions? 03:47:15 no. 03:47:39 or, well not lambdas. 03:47:50 function pointers, then? 03:48:48 i guess so, since it does low-level things like addresses 03:51:19 bsmntbombdood: i suggest you look at forth more closely 03:51:34 bsmntbombdood: it's so different from everything else, the usual terms like "first-class foo" don't really apply to it 03:51:56 i should probably look at it again, it's been a loooong time 03:53:42 lament: So, nothing is first-class? 03:54:10 :p 03:55:31 forth is much less of an abstract formal system than other languages 03:55:43 it's strongly tied to the underlying hardware model 03:56:28 so there're several levels of abstraction, that are normally kept completely separate; here they all interleave 03:57:05 "First-class". Is a function a normal datatype? 03:57:24 If yes, it's first-class. Otherwise, it's not. 03:57:38 what if a language doesn't have datatypes? 03:58:21 Then there are no first-class types. 03:58:45 Although I doubt there are any such languages. . . 03:58:53 i think in forth the only type is a cell 03:59:10 Even the Turing machine has a type. 04:07:48 forth has only one type. 04:09:05 still, terms "first-class" aren't really applicable to it. 04:09:23 i suppose forth has first-class integers and first-class memory addresses. 04:10:24 Looking at it, I see that it has first-class stack entries. 04:10:38 i don't think it has that. 04:11:21 i mean i don't think that's a type :) 04:11:31 Well. . . Yes. 04:11:40 But it's still the first-class object. 04:12:04 Hmm. I *think* words are first-class, but I'm not sure. 04:12:20 no 04:12:23 they're not 04:12:45 Can you set a variable to a word? 04:13:28 no 04:13:30 * pikhq doesn't really know FORTH; know a *tiny* bit of HP's Reverse Polish Lisp, which is Lisp+Forth 04:13:38 like i said, look at forth in more detail 04:13:50 it helps to think of it as a program, not as a language 04:14:23 a self-modifying program running on bare metal 04:14:28 I'm thinking of it more as a clever hack. :p 04:14:49 (forth doesn't HAVE to run on bare metal, but if you think of it that way it helps to understand the design philosophy) 04:15:08 s/if you think/thinking 04:15:54 Damned clever. 04:16:06 with other lang, we try to be careful to not mix the language and the implementation 04:16:09 *langs 04:16:17 with forth, there's only the implementation :) 04:17:42 Seems like there's barely anything beyond the basic set of words and a *very* bare-bones parser. . . 04:19:19 that's also true of lisp, and yet lisp manages to be much more sane 04:20:45 Lisp has a large amount of builtin functions, a bit less of a parser, and a more flexible datatype. 04:21:05 forth can have as many builtin function as you wish 04:21:10 Although technically you could build almost all of the builtins from (lambda). 04:21:13 the key difference is in the nature of the parser 04:21:23 And in the basic datatyp.e 04:21:33 right 04:21:41 Which are related in Lisp. . . 04:21:50 in early lisps, which lived near the metal, the basic datatype is a pointer. 04:22:10 or something else, but to the programmer it always seems like a pointer. 04:22:12 After all, all the Lisp parser does is load in a list. . . 04:22:16 you can use the forth like that, too. 04:22:19 lament: Still is. 04:22:37 pikhq: the key difference is that the lisp parser is passive 04:22:49 it reads lisp code, process it according to the rules, and then does something with the result. 04:22:52 Although it's not really a pointer. . . It's a cons cell, which has both a pointer and data. . . 04:22:55 True. 04:22:58 the forth parser works interactively 04:23:22 it's not "set in stone"" 04:23:33 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out). 04:23:41 you can extend and change it from inside forth 04:23:45 I think I prefer the Lisp idea. 04:23:54 the lisp idea is sanity. 04:23:57 the forth way is madness. 04:24:01 but it's still pretty neat. 04:24:02 Yeah. 04:24:21 The Lisp idea is actually *excessive* sanity. :p 04:24:36 (what do you expect from an academic language, anyways?) 04:33:37 -!- oerjan has quit ("leaving"). 04:38:52 -!- immibis has quit ("Going off to play SimCity 3000"). 04:48:50 pikhq: perfection 04:48:58 True. 04:52:32 cya everyone 04:52:41 -!- RodgerTheGreat has quit. 05:16:55 -!- boily has joined. 06:26:41 -!- Sgeo has quit (Remote closed the connection). 07:36:28 -!- boily has quit ("WeeChat 0.2.5"). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 09:17:40 -!- Sukoshi has joined. 10:46:54 gonna sleep, gnight 10:48:25 -!- GreaseMonkey has quit ("(contains offensive language) http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/HowTo:Break_stuff"). 11:21:27 -!- Toyd has joined. 11:21:36 this is the plot of that wonderful movie star crossed its an american movie: Darren and Connor are two star-crossed lovers bound together by blood. Set in a suburban neighborhood, Star-crossed is an atmospheric story of two brothers who's relationship develops into something more than society could ever handle. Unable to deny their feelings for each other the two brothers try to hide their relationship from an unkind world but fail. The 11:21:36 boys decide that a world that cant understand them is a world thats not for them. <-- i cried at the end so sad :'( 11:58:28 -!- helios24 has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 12:18:09 -!- ihope_ has joined. 12:41:24 -!- helios24 has joined. 13:58:41 -!- jix has joined. 14:44:02 happy 4th 15:11:38 Toyd: pretty touching 15:27:25 -!- oerjan has joined. 16:00:51 -!- ihope_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 16:14:42 -!- sebbu has joined. 16:20:20 -!- jix__ has joined. 16:29:51 -!- jix has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 16:40:42 -!- ihope_ has joined. 16:46:42 Happy "cons4 today : tmp"! 16:51:11 natural selection is highly overestimated 16:51:47 We have a lot of time. 16:52:06 Maybe 10000000000000000000000000000 squared years. 16:52:14 Wait, no. 16:52:18 Uh... something? 16:52:25 squarerooted 16:52:38 * ihope_ ponders 16:53:02 ankos has a pretty plausible explanation for most complexity we see in organisms 16:53:12 Ankos? 16:53:17 a new kind of science 16:53:31 * ihope_ nods 16:53:33 What's it say? 16:53:48 pretty cool how shells and pigmentation is duplicated with cellular automatons :P 16:54:07 so that you can compare a real picture with a strikingly similar ca 16:54:14 What's that have to do with complexity? 16:54:19 well 16:54:53 most people like to think most details in organisms are there because they're optimal 16:55:16 like how branches emerging from plants are always in the optimal angle 16:56:50 he creates cellular automata to show they're actually just the most likely angles to occur 16:56:50 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined. 16:56:59 howdy 16:57:05 which i find neat <3 16:57:12 hi 16:57:34 ihope_ is square-free 16:57:57 wow, a shell with rule 90 painted on it :D 16:58:28 not painted 16:58:35 ...formed 16:58:38 or smth 16:58:51 rule 90? 16:59:03 1d cellular automaton rule 90 16:59:14 it's not perfect, but pretty much 16:59:27 ? 16:59:36 ?? 16:59:40 Is rule 90 Turing-complete? 16:59:45 :P 16:59:48 i doubt that 16:59:54 If so, it makes it a really, really slow computer. 17:00:03 well 17:00:18 One that may not have any method of input. 17:00:25 it's basically just a simple nested shape... so i'd say no 17:00:48 nothing has been said about tc or qm :< 17:00:50 quantum mechanics 17:01:10 i hate it when it's like the perfect time to start talking about them... and no 17:01:33 and 17:01:47 you'll get to it for rule 110 17:01:57 (tc) 17:02:02 oh 17:02:04 don't know about qm. 17:02:07 Or rule 30, which some cells exhibit. 17:02:23 i don't know if rule 30 has been proven 17:03:22 ANKOS hasn't mentioned Turing-completeness or quantum mechanics yet? 17:03:27 nope 17:03:30 muahahaha! I have successfully assimilated yet another denizen of #Esoteric! 17:03:37 the construction in the book for rule 110 is a really, really slow computer too 17:03:59 oerjan: has anything been done with it? 17:04:02 but a more efficient one has been made by others later 17:04:09 You have successfully assimilated yet another denizen of #Esoteric? 17:04:18 yes indeed. 17:04:27 (Did I retype that?) 17:04:35 (Silly me.) 17:04:38 Nonlogic continues to grow. 17:04:41 I think I was the first (you will be assimilated into our likeness and being), thank you. 17:06:11 I believe that is correct 17:08:32 hi 17:08:40 hey, lament 17:09:20 who's toyd? 17:09:40 Happy Independence Day to the Americans! 17:10:02 oh yeah, they're finally independent from that horrible Britain 17:10:03 oerjan: Thank you, Norway. 17:10:13 what a waste of blood that was :D 17:10:31 (you can thank us by congratulating our queen with her birthday :) 17:10:31 * lament checks the recent changes and discovers there're none 17:10:58 didn't norway have an independence day of some kind? 17:11:10 or was that sweden, newly independent from norway? 17:11:16 oerjan: When is it? (I find it more difficult to keep note of such important days in European history, due to the high number of sovereign states over there) 17:11:29 sweden independent from norway, now that is a thought... 17:11:54 "Suddenly, Sweden declared its independence in 1523, but Norway remained under the Oldenburg dynasty for 434 years until 1814." 17:12:02 i don't remember when that is on the spot, lessee... 17:12:07 okay, so Norway independent from Denmark. 17:12:34 aha, and sweden too. 17:12:36 "However, Sweden militarily forced Norway into a personal union with Sweden, establishing the Bernadotte dynasty as rulers of Norway" 17:14:10 okay, so May 17, constitution day, seems a direct analogue of the independence day. 17:14:20 "The Constitution of Norway was signed at Eidsvoll on May 17 in the year 1814. The constitution declared Norway to be an independent nation." 17:14:21 And the horribly evil Swedenators enslaved us (Finland) too, in the 13th century. 17:14:25 except it wasn't quite independence 17:15:12 and btw the intention of the constitution makers were to keep the Danish king :) 17:15:24 *was 17:15:54 the independence day from Sweden isn't even an official holiday 17:16:28 ah, under flag days 17:16:45 7th of June - dissolution of the union 1905 17:16:57 We have an independence day (from being part of Russia) 6th of December. And we had a king, too - for two months. Imported from Germany. 17:17:19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Finland_%281918%29 -- that was fast. 17:17:41 yeah i read about that on wikipedia the other day 17:18:01 apparently it was not considered wise to keep him after the Germans lost WWI 17:18:52 argh history :< 17:19:23 yeah, history is complicated 17:20:11 i don't know about that, but i do find it very useless :) 17:20:37 -!- Sgeo has joined. 17:20:54 guess i don't care enough about country borders now to want to know their history 17:22:13 oklopol; Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Watch out - sooner or later you'll end up accidentally becoming a kingdom of your own for two months. 17:22:27 that'd be neat :P 17:22:34 family guy ! 17:23:15 i wouldn't call things useless without investigating all possible uses first 17:23:21 but it's certainly complicated. 17:23:22 i know history, it's just for me it's a bunch of useless make-belive stuff. 17:23:41 -!- Tritonio has joined. 17:23:51 hello! 17:23:55 hi 17:24:02 oklopol: it shouldn't be, it's not any different from what's happening now, it just happened earlier. 17:24:06 lament: i'm pretty sure there are no uses for me 17:24:53 i don't belive a mass of people as big as a country can have a well-defined identity 17:25:06 oklopol: history doesn't assume that 17:25:22 but the wtuff history teaches is redundant to me 17:25:23 oklopol: in fact, most events do contradict that assumption 17:25:26 *stuff 17:25:33 yes, they do 17:26:45 that isn't really a good comeback 17:26:51 but that's all i have :) 17:27:19 anyway, i don't see how anything history teaches could have any effect in me 17:28:45 history shows how bad things can get, for one 17:29:01 would you believe holocaust was possible if it didn't happen? 17:32:17 i'm expected to say no, i think :P 17:32:22 i don't know 17:32:24 i think history is rewritten all the time to influence people.. ..911 was a holocaust. ..a ritualistic sacrificial bruned offer to the gods 17:33:10 okay, if there really is a germany, and there really was a holochaust, i admit that's actually worth knowing 17:33:15 but 911 was nothing 17:33:28 i laughed out loud when it was broadcast all over the world :D 17:33:38 haha 17:33:41 oklopol: it is helpful to accept the existence of both germany and the holocaust. 17:33:44 A HUNDRED PEOPLE DIED A MILLION MILES AWAY 17:33:45 OMFG 17:33:52 lament: true 17:34:08 i do, actually 17:34:15 but you can never be too sure 17:34:35 (i've been to germany, so i somewhat have to) 17:34:51 right, you could go too far, like believing Bielefeld exists 17:35:22 oklopol: It's a bit more meaningful when you're in the country that that happened in. . . 17:35:57 pikhq: if i lived in the city and it happened twice, i'd move out 17:36:07 but i don't like talking about this 17:36:07 Agreed. 17:36:20 oerjan: did you just vandalize that page? :) 17:36:21 i fell i'm a wacko when talking about this stuff :) 17:36:36 wasn't even looking at it today 17:37:25 *feel 17:37:45 because i always seem to differ a bit from the general opinion 17:37:51 now read 17:39:17 oklopol: everybody always differs a bit from the "general opinion". 17:40:24 yes, but i often get banned for my opinions, even though they rarely insult anyone 17:40:31 well, not often 17:40:33 sometimes :) 17:41:17 you probably get banned for behaving like an asshole, and not for your opinions. 17:41:37 maybe i just don't notice it 17:41:41 am i doing it now? 17:42:23 not really. 17:42:29 but then, you aren't getting banned either. 17:42:39 indeed 17:42:41 I suppose the whole "A HUNDRED PEOPLE DIED A MILLION MILES AWAY" thing was kind bad. 17:42:47 oh indeed :D 17:42:57 that would probably get you banned in many places. 17:43:05 perhaps finding that hilarious is, actually, pretty insulting 17:43:23 because it might seem i don't care about their lives 17:43:35 which wasn't my point, of course 17:43:47 hm, a million miles is about 40 times the circumference of the Earth... 17:43:47 that's what i'm saying 17:43:59 it's not your actual opinion that gets you in trouble, but the way you present it 17:44:57 in retrospect, the WTC certainly was a very important event, although I agree its importance was overblown at the time. It makes for a good symbol. 17:45:06 * oerjan recalls an old norwegian song called "Ingen nordmenn med" 17:45:13 well, the fact it was overblown is what made it important 17:45:32 it's about how lots of terrible things happen, but it's ok because no norwegians were involved 17:45:45 heh 17:46:21 oklopol: yes, but that's true of very many things 17:46:42 oklopol: much of history :) 17:47:01 I'd say that it's been overblown enough to make those who did it quite succesful at sewing fear and uncertainty. . . 17:47:43 i learned in youtube, that wtc was a conspiracy! 17:47:58 Did they also say that the moon landing was one? 17:48:03 yes yes! 17:48:08 And the sky? 17:48:08 and family guy as well 17:48:13 the sky? 17:48:37 family guy and simpsons both say the moon landing was a fake, but futurama says it happened 17:49:16 i'm pretty sure those are pretty official sources 17:49:17 well duh, futurama is set thousands of years in the future, of course they've managed to land on the moon 17:49:31 no, they show neil's footprints! 17:49:44 ouch! horrible lies 17:49:50 :D 17:50:00 maybe it was a parallel universe or something 17:50:15 hmm, they do go into the past in at least one episode 17:50:30 but i'm pretty sure they don't change that 17:50:51 so it must've happened, or futurama is fake :| 17:51:16 everytime when someone travels to the past, a new worldline is created through a parallel universe 17:51:59 so our past cannot be changed unless we do it ourselves? 17:52:50 yes 17:52:52 i think so 17:53:10 (i'm pretty sure time travel has been proven impossible though :) 17:53:22 oklopol: i don't think so 17:53:30 they're still undecided 17:53:35 you cant take yourself out of existence, when you go to the past to kill you grandfather before you were born 17:54:18 Tok-A-Mak: why not? 17:54:41 Tok-A-Mak: if you return, how many yous will there be if you ) kill yourself in the past b) don't 17:54:45 because a new worldline is created as soo as you appear there.. ..it differs from the existing one because of the fact that you are there 17:54:47 s/)/a) 17:55:08 returning is to the present is more difficult 17:55:59 the worldline can be a tiny bit offsetted and some datails might be different from the point of time when you left 17:56:02 time travel cannot exist because anyone who invents it inevitably changes history so that they didn't :) 17:56:20 time travels!?! 17:56:27 oerjan: no, because that wouldn't effect this university 17:56:30 but create a new one 17:56:32 oerjan: cute 17:56:41 university 17:56:52 .... 17:56:53 :DDD 17:56:58 okay, i need coffee 17:56:59 -> 17:57:08 Tok-A-Mak: so you're assuming that simply traveling in time splits the entire universe in two? I don't think that passes Occam's Razor 17:58:11 Time travel can't exist because we don't see time travelers taking a tourist trip here. 17:58:16 yes.. like all decisions do 17:58:17 Tok-A-Mak: what about regular space-like teleportation? Does that create a new universe? 17:58:35 Tok-A-Mak: or do you assume that time travel can exist and teleportation can't? 17:58:45 We'd notice because, of course, any futuristic ideas of what the past looks like would *suck*. 17:58:55 lament: Obviously one implies the other. 18:00:11 yea.. i think so.. every event does.. john titor explained how this works, a few years ago 18:00:44 Tok-A-Mak: okay, define "event" and we all will be happy 18:02:19 something that happens on a defined point in time and space.. like an atom decaying 18:02:55 an atom decaying creates a new universe? I object to this theory on esthetic grounds. 18:03:35 the parallel universe creates its own space and time, so it doesnt affect the one it was coming from 18:03:53 i'd say that's exactly what quantum mechanics estates 18:04:03 Tok-A-Mak: actually, you need the universes to interact in order to explain things like the double slit experiment. 18:04:06 splittidy split 18:04:15 Tok-A-Mak: sometimes split universes do merge together. 18:04:28 i have no idea about that 18:04:32 oklopol: no, it's not what QM states, but it is a way to explain its effects. 18:04:44 oklopol: it's not the only or a particularly popular way. 18:06:39 i guess... indeed now that i come to think of it i've read two book about it, neither had that opinion 18:06:55 *books 18:06:58 oklopol: this theory is caled "Many worlds" 18:07:11 it makes more sense than Copenhagen but it's still ugly 18:09:16 i don't know Copenhagen 18:09:23 (unless you mean the city) 18:09:33 you read two books about QM and you don't know the copenhagen interpretation? 18:09:53 did either book mention schroedinger's cat? 18:10:39 yeah 18:10:41 both i think 18:11:12 i've read two random books about it 18:11:20 both written for noobs 18:11:21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation 18:14:00 even better 18:14:01 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat 18:14:05 just read that 18:15:04 * Tok-A-Mak thinks schrödinger was a sick pervert ;p 18:16:03 -!- RedDak has joined. 18:16:50 i know schrödinger's cat 18:17:00 oh 18:17:27 that might not mean i need not rad it 18:17:29 *ead 18:17:35 *read 18:17:56 * oklopol wonders what the definition of * is... 18:21:03 -!- lament has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 18:24:22 -!- lament has joined. 19:00:04 *** 19:09:58 -!- RedDak has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 19:34:19 -!- oerjan has quit ("Supper"). 19:41:27 -!- Toyd has quit ("Leaving"). 19:47:14 -!- Sgeo has quit (Remote closed the connection). 20:49:19 -!- jix__ has quit ("CommandQ"). 21:02:11 I invented a language 21:02:17 well, more of a variant of Self 21:06:53 unless i'm mistaken, the factorial function is like this: 21:06:53 N.set.factorial[@.=1.if[1][@.-1.*@]] 21:07:11 now 5.factorial! will return 120 21:07:14 gotta love dense languages 21:08:58 also 21:09:16 but really, dc wins 21:10:09 assuming Bar is a child of Foo, running a method Method of Bar on Foo (as opposed to Foo.Method) is done like this: 21:10:13 I prefer my personal dc implementation. . . 21:10:20 pikhq: ? 21:10:26 Bar.Method.set.@ Foo ! 21:10:44 isn't it pretty? :) 21:11:07 spaces unnecessary, make that Bar.Method.set.@Foo! 21:11:09 Push-down automaton. 21:11:15 implementing dc would probably be fun 21:11:32 I don't like stacks. 21:11:57 i lurv stacks 21:11:58 It's fairly trivial, even if you write the stack implementation yourself. 21:13:03 http://pikhq.nonlogic.org/dc.c.tar.bz2 Only a subset, but still fairly trivial. 21:14:56 a very very subset 21:15:23 This is how you define the cons-cell datatype: 21:15:23 set.cons[ab|new!.set.car a .set.cdr b] 21:15:27 i don't think it's even turing complete 21:15:44 lament: that language looks extremely different from Haskell... 21:16:04 Now you can express the list (1 2 3) as 21:16:05 cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 EmptyList)) 21:16:17 ihope_: it's extremely similar to smalltalk/self 21:16:20 so yes. 21:16:53 Io is a very nice variant of Self, Smalltalk, Lisp, and NewtonScript's Actors. 21:16:56 I oughta look at Smalltalk or something. 21:16:57 and constant width numbers... 21:17:20 Or I could make an esolang based on generic zippers! >:-) 21:17:24 Io is a bit too verbose 21:17:39 I want something like Io but for interactive development over IRC. 21:17:40 (Generic zippers are why I need to keep looking at delimited continuations.) 21:17:41 Well, it's meant to be readable, like SmallTalk. 21:17:48 i wonder how to hack closures onto dc 21:17:57 I have to say, I prefer Io over Plof, GregorR. 21:18:35 Especially since it takes some 5-10 minutes to learn, depending on your reading speed. 21:22:31 adjusted syntax a little, now factorial is 21:22:32 N.set.factorial[@=1.if[1][@-1*@]] 21:25:19 do explain ! 21:26:03 .foo is like 'foo in scheme - a first-class name 21:26:15 foo bar means "run foo with argument bar" 21:26:41 when foo is an object (not a procedure) and bar is a name, "running" foo with bar returns the attribute 'bar' of the object. 21:27:05 [] lambda @ args 21:27:49 [body] is a block taking no arguments 21:27:58 @ is "this" 21:28:03 ah 21:29:42 Adding the While loop to the language: 21:29:43 B.set.whileTrue [l|@!?[l!;@.whileTrue l]] 21:29:59 now we can do: 21:30:37 [pigs.canFly].whileTrue["hello world".print!] 21:31:35 (loops endlessly or dies depending on the value of pigs.canFly) 21:35:29 from my experience that's false 21:37:41 printing numbers from 99 down to 1: [n|n==0.if[][n.print;#(n-1)]]99! 21:38:03 er, no exclamation mark 21:38:59 (out-$1..99 in oklotalk :P) 21:39:20 hmm 21:39:27 [] takes no args? 21:39:34 in this case, it takes one, called n 21:39:38 ah 21:39:50 #? 21:39:53 recursion 21:39:54 ? 21:39:59 # refers to the current block. 21:40:05 bsmntbombdood: I never said mine was Turing complete. 21:40:05 hmm 21:40:14 [n.print;#(n-1)] refers to this? 21:40:14 oh, wait 21:40:21 right, that would be wrong 21:40:23 I claimed that it was a push-down automaton. ;) 21:40:28 in oklotalk, i had that problem 21:40:35 99[dp1-d0r>f]dsfx 21:40:35 but i solved it :) 21:40:37 dc wins 21:40:56 out-$1..99 < 99[dp1-d0r>f]dsfx ! 21:40:57 that prins the numbers from 99 down to 1 21:40:57 wins in terms of what? 21:41:03 shortness 21:41:15 i don't intend to engage in any shortness contests 21:41:21 though oklotalk's was pretty dull there 21:41:27 Sukoshi: I kind of like the general *flavor* of Plof, though. 21:41:38 It's like C, but much saner. . . 21:41:42 lament: ## ? 21:41:43 :) 21:42:12 a[b[c[###->a ##->b #->c]]] 21:42:26 maybe 21:42:35 or, actually, this, maybe? 21:42:52 what? 21:43:05 if you consider an argument taking function an object and a normal block not 21:43:07 then @ 21:43:13 this == @, i mean 21:43:19 i wan't exactly clear there :D 21:43:24 no, you weren't. 21:43:42 "or, actually, this, maybe?" is one of the most obscure things i've ever seen. 21:43:56 i don't think it's obscure. It's just nonsense. 21:44:08 If you think it means anything, you're confused about what means means. 21:44:30 "or, actually" == "on the other hand" 21:44:42 "this, maybe?" suggests you try using "this" 21:45:30 @ refers to the 'caller object', like 'this' in Python. 21:45:42 Or in most languages. 21:45:44 sorry, self in python, this in smalltalk. 21:46:04 (would be pretty if it were called 'python' in self) 21:50:25 lament: did you choose how to fix it yet? 21:50:50 this is very important to me, it seems 21:50:59 probably the way you suggested. 21:58:12 haha, a program written in a reversible language that allows metaprogramming that quines itself and then runs itself back to the beginning 21:58:16 hmm 21:58:32 that of course might be an infinite recursion 21:59:02 my sentences are very nonsensial 22:01:30 A language where every program is a quine. 22:02:18 yeah, and hidden turing completeness 22:02:21 like in nopol 22:02:29 hmm, i gotta finish nopol some day 22:07:03 pikhq: Io is like C but a lot saner too. 22:07:12 And a lot more introspective and interactive. 22:15:55 Io is like C??!?!?!?? 22:15:58 er what? 22:18:29 www.vjn.fi/s/fractum.exe good i get hooked easily :D 22:24:32 lament: More like C than Lisp or Haskell. 22:25:29 Sukoshi: i thought Io was almost exactly Smalltalk? 22:26:32 lament: Which is more C-like than Lisp and Haskell, no? 22:26:45 Sukoshi: i don't see how it's C-like in any way 22:27:01 lament: You have if, and foor, and while. 22:27:10 And you have parentheses delimiting blocks. 22:27:26 And arguments are given to messages just like arguments are given to a C function. 22:27:37 Sukoshi: that's syntax. 22:27:52 the closeness of languages is not normally judged by the syntax. 22:28:07 yeah 22:28:30 Well, strictly message-passing OOP is more-or-less imperative. 22:29:35 sounds like a good way to start a flamewar in some OOP channel :) 22:29:50 oop is imperative 22:30:09 bsmntbombdood: it is? 22:30:20 yes 22:30:26 How many very parallel programming languages are there? 22:30:53 bsmntbombdood: i don't se how... 22:30:55 *see 22:31:06 Cellular automaton-based and such... 22:34:47 lament: I'll bet your mom does, though. 22:35:17 lament: what's imperative? 22:38:29 -!- oerjan has joined. 22:45:57 Sukoshi: you were reading ankos then? 22:46:04 and uploaded it for me 22:46:12 Ankos? 22:46:14 Oh. 22:46:17 A New Kind of Science. 22:46:20 Yeah. 22:46:21 yeah 22:46:26 have you read it? 22:46:29 Not all of it. 22:46:35 I'm only on page 130 or so. 22:46:39 oh 22:46:43 Did you finish it? 22:46:49 i'm on 453... not much happened yet :D 22:47:02 I've gotten some nice ideas already. 22:47:11 until page 320 or so it's just looking for randomness 22:47:26 First, I wanna create a digital instrument that synthesizes waveforms based on cellular automata. 22:47:34 hot 22:47:52 hmm 22:48:22 i've thought of that, but with particles that move non discretely 22:48:32 cellular automata might make it easier to make 22:48:41 you mean, make it play it as music? 22:48:51 or just make the wave for the hell of it 22:49:47 Make it play music. 22:50:14 how would you aturrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrro 22:50:26 Aturo? 22:50:50 i've played a lot with ca, perhaps that ruined my experience :) 22:51:01 but it's getting more and more interesting 22:51:25 I've played only marginally with them, I guess. 22:51:32 I never found them interesting until Ankos. 22:51:38 i've made a 1d cellular automata simulator and a fractal generator 22:51:47 so i guess it's somewhat inspiring 22:51:53 IIRC, he doesen't start the actual physical modelling 'till page 500? 22:51:58 (I scanned through the book for yucks.) 22:52:01 i mean, in the course of a few days just because of the book 22:52:46 i've made many cellular automata and fractals before of course, though it took me days to finish them then :P 22:54:08 Yeah. His register machine and arithmetic based ones are quite fun. 22:54:15 Guh. My RSI is coming back. 22:55:40 i think physical modelin started somewhere between 300...499 22:55:42 *400 22:55:46 *modeling 22:55:55 See, that's quite interesting for me. 22:56:13 Since I seem to be more of an engineer than a theoretician. 22:56:49 water flowing around a solid object is simulated 22:56:56 that was awesome 22:57:38 Not much of a fluids fan at all (actually, I can't stand fluids). 22:57:43 I'm an EE/RF person. 22:58:17 I wanna see if I can simulate antenna radiation patterns through cellular automata, because my math isn't quite sophisticated enough to solve the more complicated diff eqs. for antenna theory. 22:58:18 fluid is what flooooooows 22:59:00 fluid is great, the more particles the happier :) 23:02:44 I wonder if we can build a small FPGA with opcodes that simulate cellular automata waveforms, and then have it play in real time. 23:02:56 Finally, the futuristic instruments that Asimov and Heinlein wrote about :) 23:04:15 And the longer you hold the key, the cellular automata generates more of the waveform. 23:04:21 do you expect it to sound nice? 23:04:31 it has to :| 23:04:39 white noise, most likely 23:04:49 The waveforms that gave me the idea imply it will sound nice. 23:04:56 what are those? 23:05:10 Because I've seen many of those waveforms as I've edited music, and they're in actual instrumental portions, not just noise. 23:05:30 oklopol: He shows graphs which look like waveforms in the numeric rule automata section. 23:05:50 what makes you think the cellular-automata-produced waveforms will sound similar? 23:06:05 you mean the increment ones? 23:06:06 ... Because I saw the waveforms ... 23:06:12 oklopol: Yeah, around there. 23:06:16 hmm 23:06:18 i'll check 23:06:42 Sukoshi: you mean the waveforms in ankos? 23:07:00 lament: Yes. 23:07:44 mm 23:07:51 i remain unconvinced. 23:07:56 hmm, subsequent numbers form a nested shape 23:08:03 he probably picked the nicest-looking parts of the wave, too. 23:08:10 but you don't mean that? 23:09:26 Sukoshi: i'm not really sure what you mean 23:09:26 i don't see what makes using cellular automata to generate sound any different from using any other algorithm to generate sound 23:09:43 and all the sound i've heard that was generated by computers without direct human intervention sounded like ass. 23:09:56 noise is great <3 23:11:04 (direct human intervention - that is, changing the process on the fly) 23:14:10 i like the idea of simulating the movement of a spring in a box full of particles and sampling sound from pressure changes 23:14:34 i doubt that's sound anything even close to an actual instrument though 23:15:01 Well, if it's an instrument, you get human controllable parameters, obviously. 23:15:02 but would be fun to try at least 23:15:24 Sukoshi: i just don't understand what would using a non-traditional process achieve. You won't get a "new sound". 23:15:51 lament: It's a proof of concept. 23:17:19 the following concepts have been proven beyond any doubt: 23:17:22 1) programs produce output 23:17:32 2) any kind of information can be taken to represent a waveform 23:18:21 lament: ca might create a sound that hasn't been tried, even if it naturally could've been 23:36:23 lament: My Lisp program doesen't produce output, it only returns things. 23:36:33 Same with my Io program. 23:36:50 i don't think that's a crucial difference 23:37:05 actually, i don't think that's a difference 23:37:24 Sukoshi: are you implementing it? 23:39:02 yeah, i'm not sure what Sukoshi meant by that 23:40:30 -!- sebbu has quit ("@+").