00:10:46 -!- ivan` has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
00:20:05 * pikhq has been contemplating making C2BF target BFM instead of raw Brainfuck. . .
00:23:46 -!- ihope_ has quit ("http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/06.08.09").
01:27:00 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
01:37:44 -!- ivan` has joined.
01:39:22 -!- tgwizard has quit (Remote closed the connection).
01:48:27 -!- NoneGiven has joined.
01:49:12 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
01:50:09 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
01:50:28 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
01:51:25 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
01:52:22 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
01:53:21 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
02:15:29 -!- wooby has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
02:17:08 -!- wooby has joined.
02:23:09 -!- oerjan has quit ("Good night.").
02:27:58 -!- xor has changed nick to bsmntbombdood.
02:37:05 -!- NoneGiven has quit ("Leaving").
02:42:48 -!- bsmntbombdood has changed nick to xor_.
03:06:35 -!- thematrixeatsyou has joined.
03:07:10 <thematrixeatsyou> printf("HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!");
03:07:16 -!- wooby has quit.
03:08:27 <xor_> while(1) eat(&candy);
03:08:42 -!- Roger_The_Bum has joined.
03:08:48 -!- Roger_The_Bum has left (?).
03:20:55 <xor_> if( candy_count > 15 ) vomit();
03:32:51 -!- calamari has joined.
03:44:21 -!- CakeProphet has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
03:49:34 <pikhq> printf("HELLO");for(char i=0;i!=255;i++) {putch('!');}putch('\n');
03:49:55 -!- Sgeo has quit (Remote closed the connection).
03:51:49 <xor_> for(int i=0;i<100000;i++) { *0; }
03:54:03 <xor_> for(int i=0;i<100000;i++) { *(void*)0; }
04:01:28 <pikhq> cons32 bar : foo;while bar {out bar}
04:04:56 <xor_> (setq x (cons 1 2))(cons (car x) (cdr x))
04:10:04 <xor_> ++++++++[>++++++++++++<-]>+.+.+.
04:11:50 <thematrixeatsyou> declare_brainfuck_funct("++++++++[>++++++++++++<-]>+.+.+.",printf,"cba");
04:13:57 <xor_> me->flags |= F_TIRED;
04:13:59 <pikhq> @ bar 0;@ foo 1;cons96 foo : bar;add foo 1;out foo;add foo 1;out foo;add foo 1;out foo
04:14:09 <xor_> wtf language is that
04:14:30 <pikhq> It's the equivalent of your Brainfuck code.
04:15:20 <xor_> me->flags |= F_CONFUSED;
04:19:37 <pikhq> BFM is a macro language for Brainfuck.
04:21:06 <pikhq> I'm fond of it (I designed it). . .
04:21:14 <pikhq> Just not understanding how it works?
04:24:05 <xor_> What is the cons stuff?
04:29:24 <pikhq> Shortest Brainfuck version of constants (for wrapping implementations).
04:29:58 <pikhq> From the Esolangs wiki.
04:31:00 <pikhq> Only recently heard of it.
04:31:06 <pikhq> Recommend any implementations?
04:35:59 <pikhq> Free software, please.
04:37:20 <pikhq> Ah, so I can use, study, share, and change?
04:45:33 <Razor-X> I tried making a sort (Sequential?) in Forth.
04:46:09 * xor_ hasn't coded forth for a long time
04:46:16 <Razor-X> Don't have that much time in a day.
04:46:46 <Razor-X> Pfft. Just getting it to iterate over an array took me a good while to understand.
04:47:03 <xor_> yep, I don't remember how to do that
04:47:13 <Razor-X> Well, it's really logical....
04:47:40 <Razor-X> Looks something like: ( addr length -- addr ) CELLS SWAP DUP ROT + SWAP
04:47:48 <pikhq> thematrixeatsyou: That's not freedom.
04:48:11 <Razor-X> Then you can enter a DO loop and it will iterate over the array, as long as you write to the memory location of the index.
04:48:50 <Razor-X> Err.., just ( addr length ) describes the stack in the beginning.
04:58:26 <pikhq> Only if I were allowed to change it.
04:58:40 <GregorR> There's more to source than the function.
04:58:52 <pikhq> Without this, it cannot truly be called Free.
04:59:42 <GregorR> thematrixeatsyou: You are oblivious
04:59:46 <Razor-X> thematrixeatsyou: What's GNU?
05:00:09 <GregorR> OK, just ridiculously massive amounts of software.
05:00:17 <Razor-X> GNU isn't just a drop in a bucket, you know?
05:00:20 <pikhq> GNU/Linux is free.
05:00:29 <thematrixeatsyou> GNU = you can change it but you still have to say who it's by and that
05:00:49 <GregorR> Attribution is not a restriction X_X
05:00:49 <pikhq> That's not an issue of freedom.
05:01:17 <pikhq> A comment doesn't restrict what you can do with the code.
05:01:56 <thematrixeatsyou> well, you can use it and study it, and should be able to share it. if you can disassemble it and change it im pretty sure mirek won't mind.
05:03:51 <pikhq> An explicit guarantee that I'm allowed to change it.
05:05:52 <pikhq> I'll ask him for the source and a BSD or GPL license.
05:12:38 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving").
05:28:17 <pikhq> Communism != liberty.
05:28:56 <pikhq> The GPL does not provide for a commune, it provides for a system where by the free market may work in truth.
05:36:55 <xor_> gpl is annoying
05:37:15 <pikhq> It provides freedom.
05:37:22 <pikhq> Surely freedom is anything but annoying?
05:37:35 <xor_> More free than microsoft, sure
05:37:39 <xor_> But still not free
05:37:45 <pikhq> How is it not free?
05:37:54 <pikhq> The only freedom you lack is to take away freedom.
05:38:09 <xor_> I can't license my derivitave work how I like
05:38:17 <pikhq> You can't take away freedom.
05:38:35 <xor_> to be free I have to be able to do whatever the hell I want with it
05:38:41 <xor_> GPL isn't like that
05:38:59 <pikhq> The GPL allows you to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't prevent anyone *else* from doing the same.
05:39:34 <pikhq> Give me one right you don't have with the GNU General Public License.
05:39:42 <xor_> I can't license it with any license but the GPL
05:40:09 <pikhq> There is no "right to take away freedom from others".
05:40:47 <xor_> The only truley free license is public domain
05:40:51 <pikhq> It's the power to enslave.
05:41:03 <xor_> GPL is the power to enslave
05:41:13 <xor_> enslave everyone with the GPL
05:41:18 <pikhq> No, GPL removes the power to enslave.
05:41:26 <xor_> BSD, MIT licenses, they are free enough
05:41:27 <RodgerTheGreat> basically, what xor_ is saying is that the GPL takes away the freedom of the programmer to choose open-source or not once they build upon the work of others.
05:41:47 <pikhq> Basically, it takes away the freedom of the programmer to hurt others.
05:42:11 <RodgerTheGreat> Open-source should *always* be a choice made by a creator, not a requirement.
05:42:40 <pikhq> Freedom shouldn't be a choice; it should be a natural result.
05:42:58 <RodgerTheGreat> I don't have a problem with the existence of open-source software, but I sure as hell don't like being bullied into giving my creations away when I don't want to.
05:43:15 <pikhq> I don't like being bullied into not sharing with others.
05:43:26 <pikhq> A non-copyleft free software license allows this.
05:43:30 <xor_> the GPL bullies you into using the GPL
05:44:09 <pikhq> The GPL prevents a few programmers from hurting others. A BSD license allows a few programmers to hurt the rest of society.
05:44:16 <pikhq> Tell me, which is better for society?
05:44:45 <xor_> GPL hurts the programmers
05:44:58 <xor_> I know of projects that weren't released because of the gpl
05:45:04 <RodgerTheGreat> if I'm trying to make a living, screw "society" and the "free everything" culture that pervades the internet.
05:45:18 <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: It's not about cost, it's about freedom.
05:45:45 <RodgerTheGreat> for every one person that wants open-source to look at the code and learn, ten people want it so that they don't have to hand over cash.
05:45:47 <xor_> the freedom to do _whatever_ you want with my code
05:46:02 <pikhq> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
05:46:19 <xor_> I'm all for free software
05:46:46 <pikhq> xor_: With a non-copyleft license, freedom is only granted to those who receive it directly from you.
05:47:14 <pikhq> If someone receives it through a third party, they are as surely enslaved as they would be by something that's fully proprietary.
05:47:22 <xor_> with a GPL it never was free
05:47:34 <pikhq> No, GPL ensures that everyone is free.
05:48:09 <pikhq> Because the GPL is constructed in such a way that one cannot take freedom away.
05:48:26 <Razor-X> Doesen't that sound a lot like anti-freedom?
05:48:43 <Razor-X> When you force someone to subscribe to freedom, you're removing the freedom of using freedom.
05:48:57 <pikhq> We force people to not have slaves.
05:49:03 <pikhq> Does this make us not free?
05:49:16 <xor_> If I get some free code from you, I should have the freedom to use a BSD license
05:49:34 <pikhq> Does it make those who would be slaves not free?
05:49:39 <pikhq> Or does it liberate the slaves?
05:49:51 <xor_> The are free to rebel against their enslavers
05:50:09 <RodgerTheGreat> that's a heavily loaded metaphor, and one rife with logical fallacy
05:50:44 <pikhq> And the slave owners are free to have them hung.
05:50:55 <Razor-X> I'm not arguing for the reinstatement of human slavery, but it's a situation in which the removal of a freedom prevents attrocity.
05:51:11 <Razor-X> These aren't humans. This is source code.
05:51:28 <pikhq> Which affects large sections of humanity.
05:51:40 <xor_> the paralell could be made that closed source code is an atrocity
05:51:41 <pikhq> Far more people than slavery, I believe.
05:51:49 <pikhq> Which is what I believe.
05:52:14 <pikhq> It prevents cooperation, holds back knowledge, and tells people that sharing is wrong and immoral.
05:52:14 <RodgerTheGreat> you are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to impose your beliefs upon others.
05:52:15 <Razor-X> Unless you can radically change the corporate world, closed source cannot die from an economic perspective.
05:52:50 <Razor-X> I should not only have the freedom to distribute my source code, but I should have the freedom to release it under any license. The GPL is also picky about a whole bunch of other matters.
05:53:02 <RodgerTheGreat> and precisely the culture that feeds upon open-source is why it cannot fill the same niche as closed-source.
05:53:05 <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: Nonfree surely imposes beliefs on others just as much as copyleft free?
05:53:12 <xor_> RodgerTheGreat: you are
05:53:49 <xor_> I'm not familiar with the creative commons licenses
05:53:53 <pikhq> Specifically, nonfree enforces the idea on others that software is property, sharing is wrong, and you shouldn't learn.
05:53:57 <Razor-X> For example, the GPL allows you to charge money for the distribution of source code at a price related to the price of distribution. Talk about loophole.
05:54:19 <Razor-X> I prefer a sort of software patent system, personally.
05:54:23 <pikhq> Actually, the GPL doesn't specify a limit on selling the software.
05:54:42 <xor_> You just have to give the source with it
05:54:55 <pikhq> The limit is merely provided by what people are willing to pay.
05:55:12 <Razor-X> Legal vendor lockin, with distributed source code. The knowledge is free, but for a certain number of years, the implementation is locked in.
05:55:12 <thematrixeatsyou> My personal favourite: "This is made by <insert-name-here>; if you redistribute or use parts of this program, you must include this sentence somewhere readable."
05:55:32 <xor_> thematrixeatsyou: exactly
05:55:36 <Razor-X> At that point if you still want more, that implies that you want to do away with the notion of software profit.
05:55:46 <xor_> an MIT license
05:55:55 <xor_> free enought for me
05:56:12 <pikhq> I'd prefer a system whereby the length of copyright is brought down, and, upon being released in the public domain, the source code is also released.
05:56:26 <Razor-X> Copyright is horrendous. I agree.
05:56:34 <pikhq> This would be a signifigant improvement on how things are now. . .
05:56:36 <Razor-X> GPL is good, but I feel it can be better.
05:56:43 <xor_> no one should be forced to reveal code
05:56:48 <pikhq> Of course, I'd still prefer software that's free *now*, but. . .
05:56:57 <Razor-X> xor_: Why not? Distribute knowledge.
05:57:14 <Razor-X> Of course, only the vendor can receive profit from the knowledge, but the knowledge is free.
05:57:16 <xor_> keeping secrets is a freedom you deserve to have
05:57:22 <pikhq> xor_: The idea of the public domain is simple: the copyright owner has had enough time to make a profit, and now it's time that the public get back what they deserve.
05:57:35 <xor_> I'm not saying they should, just that they should be able to
05:57:50 <xor_> pikhq: the public doesn't deserve jack shit
05:58:02 <Razor-X> Are you vehement anti-Socialist?
05:58:07 <pikhq> xor_: Tell that to the US Constitution.
05:58:22 <pikhq> Or the Declaration of Independence.
05:58:33 <Razor-X> Or the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
05:58:37 <xor_> I'm talking about a world where freedoms aren't limited by the constitution
05:58:50 <Razor-X> xor_: When we get that world, we'll see.
05:59:02 <pikhq> The government is limited by the US Constitution, not the public.
05:59:12 <Razor-X> xor_: Given the will of the people, I wholeheartedly believe that Communism is the best way.
05:59:26 <Razor-X> xor_: But the push needs to be uniform, something that won't happen any time soon, as I can see it.
05:59:26 <pikhq> (the public's limitations are enforced in blatent violation of the US Constitution)
06:00:03 <RodgerTheGreat> the problem with communism isn't the system itself, it's the people who create and use it.
06:00:07 <xor_> "Given the will of the people" -- this means not forcing out secrets
06:00:28 <Razor-X> xor_: But Communism encourages no secrets.
06:00:36 <pikhq> xor_: Funny. . . This is about forcing out secrets to benefit the public.
06:01:19 <Razor-X> The whole point of the non-frothy-revolution-kill-kill portion of Marx-Engel's manifesto was to say that the aristocracy needs to sacrifice for the good of the people.
06:01:26 <RodgerTheGreat> forcing people to release sourcecode against their will would be equivalent to forcing people to release medical records so that they might be studied by doctors for the "common good"
06:01:29 <xor_> MS has the right to keep its code secret
06:01:47 <Razor-X> I don't think it can indefinitely.
06:01:55 <Razor-X> Or else you'll have monopolies a la Industrial Revolution.
06:02:28 <xor_> If the public wants MS's code, they can convince MS to give it to them
06:02:44 <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: No, it's more akin to forcing someone to release the workings of an invention. . . Which we happen to do daily; we call it "the patent system".
06:02:47 <Razor-X> I firmly believe knowledge is not property.
06:02:57 <Razor-X> Knowledge is a birthright.
06:03:16 <xor_> Once knowledge is released, it's out there
06:03:16 <RodgerTheGreat> knowledge isn't property, but the application of knowledge can most certainly be.
06:03:25 <pikhq> xor_: The problem is that MS excercises this 'right', and in doing so, prevents *everyone else* from having knowledge.
06:03:32 <Razor-X> Now, you have the capability to use knowledge as property, that can and should be encouraged, but only temporarily.
06:03:47 <Razor-X> RodgerTheGreat: Which is why I advocate a legal vendor lockin, while distributing the source code.
06:03:54 <pikhq> Preventing others from having knowledge *surely* holds back society as a whole.
06:04:05 <xor_> anyway, bed time
06:04:13 <Razor-X> We have Window's source, sure, but we can't make money selling modifications.
06:04:25 <Razor-X> Go ahead, hack at it all you want for free.
06:04:26 <RodgerTheGreat> Razor-X: such a system would be an acceptable alternative to forced release of code, assuming it was enforceable
06:04:41 <Razor-X> RodgerTheGreat: I hope we can do something like that.
06:05:21 <pikhq> My position is quite simple:
06:05:31 <RodgerTheGreat> considering rampant abuse of source available for commercial products by pirates and the like, I don't see such a system working in the near future...
06:05:37 <pikhq> The rights of all of society overrule the rights of a select handful of people.
06:05:52 <xor_> neither is more important
06:06:28 <Razor-X> It's happening though RodgerTheGreat. Look at the stupidity at patenting emoticons.
06:06:34 <RodgerTheGreat> we need look no further than the OSX86 project and apple's open-source efforts to see examples of the abuse I mentioned.
06:06:53 <Razor-X> Or that stupid iPod interface fiasco.
06:07:07 <Razor-X> I patented the MENU SYSTEM!!11!!
06:08:08 <RodgerTheGreat> well, it was a bit narrower than that, but primarily they were trying to avoid blatant ripoffs of their design. I admit, most major software companies are guilty of frivolous patents.
06:09:15 <RodgerTheGreat> I see it the same way as some forms of DRM- you can't blame companies for trying to protect their interests from a general public that feels no guilt for what amounts to stealing, at least when this DRM remains within reasonable limits.
06:09:27 <pikhq> I do believe several centuries of history are at odds with you.
06:10:02 <Razor-X> No, I agree. The public and the private are at fault with DRM.
06:10:17 <Razor-X> The private for shamelessly abusing concealement, the public for shamelessly lauding piracy.
06:10:48 <RodgerTheGreat> This is why I dislike outright demonization of DRM- there are many shades of gray in there.
06:10:53 <pikhq> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html Read and tell me again about the "right to take away freedom".
06:12:04 <RodgerTheGreat> I personally find FairPlay to offer me a fair balance between rights and restrictions, and I choose to support it with my money. If you don't like it, don't buy it, but don't simply cry foul "because it's DRM! OMFG!"
06:12:52 <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: I find that FairPlay is a misnomer, which restricts what I can and can't do with a work. . . It's merely a less harmful master.
06:14:07 <pikhq> Razor-X: The public is at fault for demanding the right to share, now that it can fully excercise this right?
06:14:59 <RodgerTheGreat> what right to share? Do you honestly think that the contents of a CD is entirely paid for by the cover price?
06:15:57 <pikhq> Once you've got one CD, the next copy is nearly free.
06:16:27 <RodgerTheGreat> simply because they can easily manipulate and convert data from modern formats seems to have convinced people that they have significantly more ownership over data they purchase licenses to than they could by any reasonable definition.
06:16:51 * pikhq would like to introduce you to copyright law, pre-printing-press. . .
06:17:00 <pikhq> "" -- The entirety of copyright law.
06:17:20 <RodgerTheGreat> preindustrial reasoning holds little bearing in the information age.
06:17:24 <pikhq> And we are now in post-meaningful times.
06:17:47 <pikhq> And copyright law is from the age of the printing press, not the information age.
06:17:52 <pikhq> It is time for concepts to change.
06:18:23 <pikhq> Copyright law made sense, once.
06:18:31 <RodgerTheGreat> are you implying that we should disregard all laws created in the last 50 years, on the grounds that the old way of doing things used to make sense?
06:18:33 <pikhq> It was a short restriction on what a publisher could do with a work.
06:18:53 <pikhq> Now, it is used as a long restriction on what the public can do with a work.
06:19:18 <pikhq> RodgerTheGreat: No, on the grounds that the old way of doing things is a slightly less fancy version of the new way of doing things.
06:19:39 <pikhq> (pre-printing-press=old way)
06:20:02 <pikhq> Before the printing press, everyone who could make use of a work could make a copy of a work.
06:20:24 <RodgerTheGreat> because before the printing press, it was insanely laborious.
06:20:27 <pikhq> It'd take no longer than anyone else, and would be no better than anyone else's (discounting differences in handwriting style).
06:20:37 <RodgerTheGreat> and before the word-processor, it was again more laborious
06:20:43 <pikhq> It was laborious, but everyone who could make use of a work could copy it.
06:20:57 <pikhq> Now, after the printing press, anyone can make a copy of a work.
06:21:24 <pikhq> It'll take no longer than anyone else, and be no better than anyone else's.
06:21:40 <pikhq> The difference is that copying is much less laborious than pre-printing-press days.
06:22:10 <pikhq> The printing press age was unique in that only a select few could make "professional" copies of a work.
06:22:23 <pikhq> This age is drawing to an end as we speak. . .
06:24:46 <RodgerTheGreat> the concept of "demanding the right to share" assumes that the creator of a work deserves no rights over what they build. No one has the right to *demand* unlimited access to the creations of another, be it software or music. The right to share must be balanced by the right to keep.
06:25:16 <pikhq> The right to hold back society, you mean?
06:26:23 <RodgerTheGreat> everyone has the right to value their personal interests above those of society if they so choose. It may not be popular amongst "society", but it is a right nevertheless.
06:26:54 <pikhq> A select few (monarchy, the Catholic church, aristocracy, corporations. . . The names change, but not the concepts) restrict what everyone else can do. . . Throughout the ages, this has been the balance.
06:27:14 <pikhq> Why should we respect the rights of a select few, so that the rest of us may be subservient?
06:28:15 <RodgerTheGreat> why should your work in school reward you personally with a high grade, while others in your class suffer with lower grades? Why should the work of your parents go to feed your family first, rather than hungrier families elsewhere?
06:29:39 <RodgerTheGreat> it is built on the very concept I posited earlier, merely applied to different situations.
06:29:47 <pikhq> Software can be copied; if food were like software, nobody would need to starve.
06:30:03 <pikhq> Except, of course, for the wishes of farmers who wished to prevent food piracy.
06:44:55 <Razor-X> pikhq: I don't believe the public has, by birthright of being the public, any more power than a ruler.
06:45:48 <pikhq> We live in a society where (nominally) the ruler is a servant of the public. . .
06:46:07 <pikhq> By that notion, the public has power over the ruler.
06:46:20 <pikhq> (sadly, this isn't how it works in reality. . .)
06:47:07 <pikhq> As proven by the many organizations which are masters over us (Shall I list them?).
06:54:51 -!- GregorR-L has joined.
07:58:41 -!- wooby has joined.
07:59:08 -!- wooby has quit (Client Quit).
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
08:06:03 -!- GregorR-L has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)).
08:22:43 -!- thematrixeatsyou has quit ("Buyer beware: The orange ones fuck you up real fast").
10:45:39 -!- ihope has joined.
11:08:45 -!- tgwizard has joined.
11:26:24 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)).
12:02:04 -!- puzzlet has joined.
12:10:38 -!- puzzlet has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
12:20:09 -!- puzzlet has joined.
16:00:21 * SimonRC boggles at the mess that is the x86 register set
16:02:59 <SimonRC> all those "string" instructions
16:05:57 * SimonRC grins at the EAX vs AX vs AH vs AL distinction
16:06:30 <SimonRC> lol at the "addressing" registers
16:38:17 -!- GregorR-L has joined.
16:58:48 -!- GregorR-W has joined.
17:00:30 -!- GregorR-W has quit (Client Quit).
17:20:45 -!- xor_ has changed nick to xor.
17:34:00 -!- jix has joined.
18:07:32 -!- Asztal has quit ("Chatzilla 0.9.72-rdmsoft [XULRunner 1.8.1b2/0000000000]").
19:21:13 * pikhq has made a program to make strings.bfm maintainence much, much easier
20:00:40 <ihope> So x86 is an ugly kludge?
20:10:22 <ivan`> i want a modern OS that runs on a CA processor
20:39:20 -!- Sgeo has joined.
20:42:03 -!- ihope has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
20:52:02 -!- CakeProphet has joined.
21:59:42 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht").
22:14:54 -!- tgwizard has quit (Connection timed out).
22:22:46 <pikhq> ivan`: Design a PowerPC system in Wireworld.
22:33:08 -!- GregorR-L has quit ("Leaving").
22:51:31 -!- xor has changed nick to bsmntbombdood.
22:58:55 -!- oerjan has joined.
23:22:56 -!- meatmanek has joined.
23:23:10 <meatmanek> does postscript count as an esoteric language?
23:23:53 <meatmanek> I guess my first question should have been, what is the definition of an esoteric language?
23:24:18 <RodgerTheGreat> I think postscript counts as an esolang if you code it yourself.
23:24:30 <oerjan> one that was not primarily intended to be useful.
23:24:48 <RodgerTheGreat> those that say otherwise haven't seen the postscript game of life or raytracing simulations
23:25:04 <meatmanek> I just made a postfix graphing calculator
23:25:25 <pikhq> Calling it the HP-49G?
23:25:36 <pikhq> . . . Oh. Postscript.
23:26:48 <oerjan> i don't think postscript is any more esoteric than forth. and i have coded a little in it.
23:27:02 <meatmanek> by the 'not intended to be useful' definition, it probably isn't.
23:27:33 <meatmanek> but it certainly isn't a language most people consider a useful programming language
23:28:02 <oerjan> it is very useful in its domain.
23:38:03 -!- wooby has joined.
23:49:46 <Razor-X> I don't think Forth is esoteric.
23:50:08 <Razor-X> It just bridges the large gap between ASM and C.
23:50:17 <pikhq> I think Forth's just a whee bit quirky.
23:50:27 <Razor-X> Each operation is useful though.
23:50:32 <pikhq> Huge difference between "esoteric" and "quirky". ;)
23:50:45 <Razor-X> I think C is da** annoying. Not esoteric though ;)
23:51:51 <Razor-X> We all know that da** is dang.
23:57:58 <Razor-X> So much you know of the unwritten laws of censorship.