00:51:36 -!- ivan`_ has joined. 01:03:09 -!- bsmntbombdood has joined. 01:09:23 -!- ivan` has quit (Connection timed out). 01:09:24 -!- ivan`_ has changed nick to ivan`. 01:31:08 -!- tgwizard has quit (Remote closed the connection). 02:26:17 -!- jix_ has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht"). 03:07:21 -!- RodgerTheGreat has joined. 03:07:37 howdy, everyone 03:07:46 vcnbv 03:07:47 ;'kl;k' 03:07:49 l' 03:07:50 k 03:08:06 nice to see you too, CakeProphet 03:08:08 * CakeProphet made a semi-broken Lisp-like list constructor in Glass. 03:08:23 howdy. 03:08:26 and an incomplete BF interpreter. 03:08:26 interesting 03:09:07 http://esolangs.org/wiki/User:CakeProphet#Glass_stuff 03:09:39 The con glass works fine (although I haven't tested the iter method yet) 03:09:47 but List doesn't work right yet. 03:09:56 ++++++++++>,<[>.,<-] | World's stupidest Brainfuck program. 03:09:57 Wheee. 03:11:40 a 10-character cat command? 03:11:51 Yup. 03:12:03 Actually 03:12:04 Stupid, no? 03:12:17 !bf +. 03:12:20 03:12:23 Is probably worse. 03:12:34 or even just... 03:12:37 !bf . 03:12:43 My program at least indicates some knowledge of Brainfuck. 03:12:51 -.- 03:12:54 Thus... less stupid. 03:12:57 !bf -.- 03:13:00 ÿ 03:13:01 haha 03:13:07 I always thought the most stupid BF program was "[]", because it's what n00bs assume will i-loop an interpreter 03:13:18 they always forget the + 03:13:19 It's not even a quine. 03:13:23 -!- cmeme has quit ("Client terminated by server"). 03:13:24 !bf 03:13:27 I WIN! 03:13:34 -!- cmeme has joined. 03:13:37 hmmm... has anyone done a quine in BF? 03:13:43 Several. 03:13:44 the null program isn't all that special in BF 03:13:44 that's not huge... and is something I would understand? 03:14:09 most quines end up being rather brute-force, but the basic design is simple 03:14:34 you need the source of your program stored in an encoded form and a decoder stub 03:14:54 the stub will print out the encoded form and then the unencoded form (itself) 03:15:00 bingo- quine 03:15:02 http://esoteric.sange.fi/brainfuck/bf-source/quine/quine410_with_comments.b 03:15:03 :D 03:15:21 print (lambda x:x%x)("print (lambda x:x%%x)(%r)") is one of the coolest quines ever. 03:15:44 wow- that's pretty readable 03:15:51 That's the commented version. 03:15:56 kudos to the guy who wrote that one 03:16:06 clarity in BF takes some skill 03:18:00 !bf ;+++++++++++++. 03:18:02 03:18:06 !ps 03:18:08 2 CakeProphet: ps 03:18:16 !bf ,+++++++++++++. 03:18:19 !ps 03:18:23 2 CakeProphet: bf 03:18:23 !bf ] 03:18:24 3 CakeProphet: ps 03:18:38 !i 2 A 03:18:42 N 03:18:48 hehehe... ROT13 03:19:58 !bf +[,+++++++++++++.[-]+] 03:20:04 !i 2 Hello 03:20:12 !ps 03:20:16 2 CakeProphet: bf 03:20:18 3 CakeProphet: ps 03:20:24 !i 2 B 03:20:47 >.< 03:20:51 !kill 2 03:20:54 Uryy|O 03:20:57 Process 2 killed. 03:20:59 ooooh 03:21:04 Didn't give a newline. ;) 03:21:19 Thought it just spouted output on the spot. 03:21:22 but it buffers it. 03:21:44 !bf +[,+++++++++++++.[-]+] 03:21:52 !i 2 a 03:21:53 !i 2 b 03:21:55 !i 2 b 03:21:56 !i 2 a 03:21:58 !i 2 \n 03:21:58 !kill 2 03:22:00 noon 03:22:03 Process 2 killed. 03:22:03 .... 03:22:25 !bf +[,+++++++++++++.[-]+] 03:22:28 !i 2 a 03:22:30 !i 2 b 03:22:32 !i noon 03:22:32 !i 2 b 03:22:38 ...oh 03:22:43 !i 2 noon 03:22:52 !i 2 \n 03:22:53 I don't think it works fully. 03:22:57 !kill 2 03:23:00 noo{||{- 03:23:02 Process 2 killed. 03:23:04 haha 03:23:04 wait, when did gregor decide to bring back EgoBot? 03:23:14 !bf +[,+++++++++++++.[-]+] 03:23:18 !i 2 a 03:23:20 !i 2 b 03:23:23 !i 2 b 03:23:27 !i 2 o 03:23:31 !i 2 \n 03:23:38 >.> 03:23:51 !kill 2 03:23:52 noo| 03:23:54 Process 2 killed. 03:23:57 :( 03:24:11 But yeah... it's a crude ROT13 03:24:15 otherwise that would have said "noob" 03:24:23 it doesn't wrap at the end. 03:28:09 hmmm... 03:28:16 so... I've been working on my IRP iterating quine. 03:28:23 so here's a test run: 03:28:28 Could someone please ask someone to repeat this request? 03:28:49 Could someone please repeat the previous request? 03:29:02 "Could someone please ask someone to repeat this request?" 03:29:06 NOOB 03:29:08 NO QUOTES 03:29:22 * CakeProphet adds to the wiki 03:29:43 ERROR 8: DON'T_BE_A_DOUCHE_TO_YOUR_INTERPRETER ERROR 03:29:45 with someone like "as you can see, the results are not always accurate" or something. 03:30:18 or I can just... strip the quotes and pretend the run went successfully. 03:31:13 heh 03:31:20 ERROR 9: THE INTERPRETER DOESN'T EXECUTE THE LANGUAGE 03:32:15 the only real problem with a quine in this format is that it could easily lead to infinite recursion, until the interpreters get bored. You might want to add a clause for that 03:32:23 -!- digital_me has joined. 03:32:31 hi 03:32:31 That'd be SIGKILL. 03:36:11 -!- ihope_ has quit (Connection timed out). 03:37:21 IRP isn't Turing complete because it consists entirely of undefined behavior. 03:37:35 Nothing in the specification guarantees the a defined result. 03:39:05 It's occasionally Turing complete, but that's just out of sheer luck. 03:40:14 !help 03:40:17 help ps kill i eof flush show ls bf_txtgen usertrig daemon undaemon 03:40:18 1l 2l adjust axo bch bf{8,[16],32,64} funge93 fyb fybs glass glypho kipple lambda lazyk linguine malbolge pbrain qbf rail rhotor sadol sceql trigger udage01 unlambda whirl 03:40:27 I'm going to assume that Turing-completeness requires a certain degree of reliability, because it deals with solving computable problems in a finite amount of time 03:40:57 !daemon bf irp ,[.,] 03:41:00 Huh? 03:41:05 Grr. 03:41:06 One of the requirements for Turing completeness is well-defined behavior. 03:41:08 !help daemon 03:41:10 Use: daemon

Function: start a daemon process. 03:41:15 there you go 03:41:23 !daemon irp bf ,[.,] 03:41:30 EgoBot now does IRP. 03:41:46 !irp Please say "Hello, world!" 03:42:00 !irp \n 03:42:01 * CakeProphet has some weird Python classes that implement various forms of the computational classes. 03:42:01 XD 03:42:06 as they're formally defined. 03:42:11 perhaps IRP would benefit from the use of legalese, it being a more precisely defined form of English 03:42:35 The problem isn't undefined input. 03:42:39 it's undefined output. 03:42:48 The interpreter can choose to output what it wishes. 03:43:08 which makes IRP intelligent... but not very Turing machiney. 03:43:14 my point was that a more precisely defined program would at least make some progress toward predictable output 03:43:23 true 03:43:25 IRP would benefit from gnomes that smack bad interpreters. 03:43:33 Yes. 03:44:04 or like... ops that kickban interpreters for "not adhering to the specification". 03:44:14 heh 03:44:47 Ah yes, the Merriam-Webster IRP spec. 03:44:50 Maybe... such interpreters just simply aren't adhering to the specification of the language.... which (should) state that output MUST be performed exactly as requested. 03:44:50 I've got a good idea. 03:44:53 #irp. 03:45:05 discussion about the irp language? 03:45:47 But is IRP truly esoteric? 03:45:56 No, for a controlled region where IRP may be interpreted. 03:46:26 Hmmm... I want to build a genetic programming language. 03:46:45 Are there any that I could take as an example? 03:48:08 Ideas for #irp policies? 03:49:20 how about limiting maximum depth of execution stack? 03:49:43 that's stupid. 03:49:50 our stack should be HUGE-ABLE 03:50:09 Send me suggestions; I'll write up an IRP#irp spec and set of policies. 03:50:36 perhaps some sort of certification system to confirm the reliability of interpreter nodes 03:51:08 I prefer a kicking system to remove unreliable nodes. 03:51:54 -!- ihope_ has joined. 03:52:08 -!- ihope_ has changed nick to ihope. 03:54:13 * CakeProphet demands an example of a genetic/natural-selection-ish programming language. 03:55:14 well, I've been working on one primarily based around self-modifying code- it's kinda the same base idea 03:57:02 hmmm.... maybe object-oriented? 03:57:16 a "species"... which is basically a class. 03:57:30 with some other base data structures. 03:57:38 hmmm... self-modifying seems interesting. 03:58:53 inheritane would be like creating a genus, phylum, etc. 03:59:34 hmm... I don't like the sound of that. 03:59:36 but.. eh. 04:00:10 the approach I took was to make a command that can execute a string as a subroutine. Thus, you can treat strings as functions. Since the functions can be changed by other functions (or themselves), you have a powerful recursive programming language on your hands 04:00:20 Sounds like Redcode. 04:01:07 redcode is essentially assembly with entirely relative addressing. And yes, it's a good language for genetic programming 04:01:26 And it's self-modifying. 04:02:06 yeah 04:02:30 redcode has a way of creating wonderfully elegant code. 04:02:35 MOV 0,1 04:02:48 I wonder if the imp can be considered a quine? 04:02:56 Not really. 04:03:15 The binary version could be, though. 04:06:39 oooh... 04:06:44 string functions... that's cool. 04:07:22 so like... each character reacts differently to other characters in other functions or something? 04:08:39 kinda 04:11:21 the basic idea is that everything is built around a stack- you push some parameters, then a reference to a function, and then do an "execute string" call. The function runs, with it's parameters sitting on the stack. If the contents of the string being used as a function is changed before it's "called" again, it may do something completely (or subtly) different 04:11:23 * CakeProphet will expand on his object-oriented idea. 04:11:43 stack-based? 04:11:50 yes 04:11:56 Like how Glass does functions -nod- 04:12:14 it seemed like the simplest way to make function calls. 04:12:19 oooh. 04:12:30 The function call can be altered mid-execution? 04:12:33 I didn't realize that was how glass worked... heh 04:12:46 Well.. the parameters are sitting on the stack. 04:13:00 well, I hadn't planned on that initially, but it's an interesting idea 04:13:05 * CakeProphet nods. 04:13:22 it might make it needlessly tricky to do self-modyfying recursion, though 04:15:18 -!- ihope has quit (Connection timed out). 04:16:43 !glass {M[m(_e)I! (_o)O! (_e)i.(_o)o.?]} 04:16:57 !i 2 Lol cat 04:17:06 ... >.< 04:17:11 oooh 04:17:21 !glass {M[m(_e)I! (_o)O! (_e)i.?(_o)o.?]} 04:17:26 !i 2 Lol cat 04:17:29 ? 04:17:46 should be a cat program. -.- 04:17:50 !ps 04:18:02 or... EgoBot isn't here? 04:18:18 perhaps it broke again 04:18:26 How to fix?? 04:18:40 I could summon my bot, but it only speaks brainfuck and doublefuck. 04:19:09 Well... everything in Glass runs on a global stack... so function calls are basically the same as copying and pasting the functions code where the wall is... 04:19:34 hm 04:19:39 and since the language allows you to access data based on its location on the stack... functions can access the last bits of data on the stack and manipulate them like parameters 04:20:27 It fits with the rest of the languages syntax... being postfix and all. 04:22:23 -!- ihope_ has joined. 04:22:37 * CakeProphet hits EgoBot with a hammer. 04:22:44 -!- ihope_ has changed nick to ihope. 04:22:45 :( 04:22:52 I thought my best idea for my language was the datatype- everything is a string, and operators you'd expect to work with numbers deal with the first char in the top string. That way, everything on the stack can have the same type and you can use it for both math and function calls easily 04:23:07 is egobot broken, gregor? 04:23:12 Yeah... I would have never thought of it. 04:23:16 Idonno, maybe? :P 04:23:27 string == function WTFerror 04:23:32 heh 04:23:40 -!- EgoBot has quit (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)). 04:23:41 hmmm... 04:23:44 -!- EgoBot has joined. 04:23:46 maybe linked lists as functions? 04:24:06 it would be like strings... except higher-up... 04:24:16 !undaemon cat 04:24:26 well, my earlier idea was to represent functions as stacks of characters, but it's not functionally all that different from a string depending on how your operators work 04:24:27 instead of characters you have elements. 04:24:54 yeah... it wouldn't be that different. 04:25:27 Glass is kinda like that... since each character means something different. 04:25:33 but not -everything- is an item on a stack. 04:25:33 I ask you, television commercial, how do you dent your car when crashing into a tent? 04:26:01 the concept is different. 04:27:24 hmmm... I've considered doing a queue-based language... or a deque-based lanauge (which is basically a cross between a stack-based language and a queue-based language) 04:27:41 double-ended queues are essentially stack-ques. 04:27:43 queues 04:27:48 ...meh 04:28:46 set-based language as well. :D 04:28:57 lol- I remember hearing stories about a CS professor that insisted "deque" was pronounced "deck" 04:29:20 I prenounce it "deek" 04:29:31 or just... don't pronounce it at all. 04:29:38 it's "Dee-kyoo" 04:29:48 that's how I originally pronounced it. 04:29:53 but that's like dequeue 04:30:00 exactly 04:30:44 hmmm... wonder if you could combined a set with a queue. 04:31:01 even though... the definition of a set specifically states "a collection of unordered elemenets" 04:31:24 which makes storing code a bit problematic 04:31:34 hehe 04:31:49 associative-array-based language? 04:31:55 ooo... how about a language based around my favorite data structure? Hashes. 04:32:03 Most popular languages can be described as a stack and a hash table of some sort. 04:32:06 ... 04:32:07 Suicide-note based language. 04:32:08 man, we're on the same wavelength 04:32:21 hashes are pretty awesome. 04:32:32 GregorR: Destructive-Execute programming? :) 04:32:35 Lua's base data-type is a hash (called a "table") 04:32:49 like cons in Lisp. 04:33:16 hmmm... it would be interesting to remove the stack from the picture... and just use -only- hash. 04:33:38 but if you did it wrong... it would just be a series of variable assignments. 04:35:21 Plof's only stack is a stack of hashes (the scope) 04:35:50 object oriented is something like a hash-based system. 04:36:05 I was thinking about it a while back, and I think you could build a UTM out of nothing but LET statements and computed GOTOs in BASIC 04:36:20 since objects are typically just a hash with some rules for accessing a different hash when nessicary. 04:36:52 of course, that idea is really a natural consequence of the Z3 turing-completeness proof 04:37:25 (while-loop, variables, and the four arithmetic operators = UTM) 04:38:34 pfft... 04:38:38 while loops are so overrated. 04:38:46 and overused. >.< 04:39:43 A while loop is two ifs and a goto. 04:39:49 I'm personally a fan of FOR...NEXT loops. 04:40:06 wassat? 04:40:17 ... 04:40:23 Like a for loop in Python? 04:40:33 (iterators) 04:40:48 for(int x=0;x<5;x++) {System.out.println(x);} 04:40:54 ^ For...Next loop. 04:41:01 Ah... yeah that's a for loop in Python. 04:41:11 you're speaking to someone who's never bothered to touch C. 04:41:34 10 FOR X = 0 TO 4 STEP 1: PRINT X: NEXT X 04:41:40 screw C 04:41:41 O.o 04:41:51 Indeed. 04:41:53 I use BASIC, PHP and Java to do my dirty work 04:41:54 * CakeProphet doesn't like C. 04:42:10 and I'm starting to warm up to Perl 04:42:12 Python... and... well just Python. But I also do a litle Scheme. 04:42:17 Perl is kinda cool. 04:42:36 I only really dislike 3 languages: C, C++, and Ruby. 04:42:40 I haven't used it much... but I like the design concept... if a little unpredictable. 04:42:54 C and C++ are inelegant, and Ruby is just a monstrosity 04:43:01 C, C++ here 04:43:11 Ruby looks kinda cool... but I've never used it or looked into it much. 04:43:48 C is one of those languages that sacrifices for the machine. 04:43:58 it's painful... Imagine an unholy mix of Javascript, Perl, and a little bit of BF. 04:44:00 which is partly why it's so common... because it's at the base of every OS. 04:44:24 hmmm... Ruby does look a little like a weird syntaxed version of Python and Perl. 04:44:36 * CakeProphet is, naturally, a fan of Python. 04:45:06 it's reasonably powerful, but it's syntax is all over the place. It's like it was designed by three people independently and then superglued together 04:45:21 Not because of any grand design concept... or because it does a paticular thing well... it's just -really- easy to work with and generally does what you think it would do. 04:45:44 I haven't used python much, but it's syntax for working with strings is fucking brilliant 04:45:56 Which part? 04:46:06 interpolation? 04:46:15 the way you access substrings or specific characters 04:46:21 slicing? 04:46:31 "Hello World!"[0] ? 04:46:33 is that what it's called? 04:46:48 That would be "H" 04:46:51 yes 04:47:10 Yeah... that's called slicing or indexing... it's basically like arrays. 04:47:20 Same exact thing... actually. 04:48:14 I'd say my favorite language will probably always be BASIC, because of how it combines extremely friendly syntax and ease of use with ridiculous levels of power via PEEK(), POKE and CALL 04:48:38 I've never used basic... but it doesn't seem popular. 04:48:54 I remember it doing some weird context-based stuff with = 04:49:07 plus, if you're fluent in BASIC you can instantly do cool things with any old machine from the 80's 04:49:20 which is a good idea for beginners.. but not too well for my tastes. 04:49:32 Python kinda reminds me of Lisp... in some ways. 04:49:54 = is used for both assignment and comparison in BASIC, but the way it's used almost never leads to problems 04:50:29 Yeah... but then you can't do things like x = y == 2 (which, honestly... isn't very useful... but it's still nice to have the freedom) 04:50:45 essentially, it solves the problem by making assignment done not by the = operator itself, but the LET statement 04:51:16 LET x = 2? 04:51:28 aaah. 04:51:34 x=y=2 in BASIC generally does the same as x=y==2 in other languages 04:51:52 thought more ambiguous when you read it. 04:52:08 LET is an interesting command, because it's usually implied. If a line doesn't contain a command, it's assumed to be prefixed with LET. 04:52:19 O.o 04:52:25 Weird. 04:52:38 so, "10 LET x=y=2" is the same as "10 x=y=2" 04:53:11 Python's main design goal seems to be readability and ease of use. 04:53:19 and both will store a boolean value (1 or 0, in BASIC's representation) representing wether y is equal to 2 or not to the variable x 04:54:03 BASIC's main design goal is minimal memory use and the ability to function as both an interpreter and a rudimentary OS, much like FORTH 04:54:36 there are a number of BASIC implementations that fit in less than 4k of ROM. 04:54:36 Python is OO at heart... but it has this weird conflicting idea of multi-paradigmism. 04:55:04 I've seen both "Python is an object-oriented language" and "Python supports multiple paradigms" as arguments for why something should be implemented into it. 04:55:40 hm 04:55:50 It basically works with multiple paradigms... while being object-oriented at the core. 04:56:22 ...which... isn't really what I would call being multi-paradigmed. 04:57:15 BASIC sounds interesting... not sure if I'd like using it though. Might be cool. 04:57:24 Doesn't it use sigils like Perl? 04:57:46 do you have a device that runs PalmOS? 04:57:54 Nope. 04:58:01 damn. 04:58:07 Python seems tons more consistent than what I've seen of C. 04:58:11 C makes absolutely no sense to me at all. 04:58:16 Cbaspad, one of my favorite BASIC implementations runs on PalmOS. 04:58:44 My other favorite, DarkBASIC, I can't really play with anymore because it's windows-based. 04:58:57 C's semantics seems to change upon context... 04:59:09 in a really weird way. 04:59:11 SmallBASIC is pretty nice- it runs on PalmOS, windows, and Linux. 05:00:01 C just bugs me because it's obvious it was written by and for compiler writers, rather than as a clear or interesting way of expressing algorithms. 05:00:03 Like... function definitions are just... floating out in space with nothing defining them as such... and type declarations are kind of screwy and have different functions based on what other types are beig used. 05:00:36 yeah... its design goal is totally different than what it's being applied to. 05:01:29 which really frustrates me when I've been exposed to so many languages that are better designed. 05:01:38 C's static typing also bugs me... but then again my first dive into programming was from within the comfort of a dynamically typed language. 05:02:26 C maintains dominance in a circular fashion- applications are written in C because C is used to code other applications. Plus, it doesn't have a huge number of direct competitors. 05:02:52 * CakeProphet nods. 05:03:15 Makes me wish there was some other language that was really good at being a "base language" that didn't suck quite so much. 05:03:40 BASIC is weak-typed, but Java has taught me the structural value of strong-typing. I still really enjoy weak-typing when I'm doing simpler tasks in a language like PHP 05:03:47 There's some OS project being worked on with most of the source being in a Python implementation. 05:04:19 it's a pretty interesting concept... orthagonal persistency and a weird memory layout. 05:04:38 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unununium_%28operating_system%29 05:05:13 CakeProphet: well, I've been slowly working on a project to try to build an operating system, and that's pretty much what I thought, so I'm researching modern compiler design. Hopefully, I can come up with something that combines the positive aspects of C with the design of better structured languages. 05:06:06 hehe... an esoteric operating system? 05:06:22 possibly. 05:06:31 * CakeProphet will be your Python codemonkey. 05:06:58 although, I hope that it will one day become something on par with commercial OSes and the offerings of the open-source community. 05:08:55 hmmm.. orthogonal persistence is a neat idea. 05:09:21 uuu initializes the entire hard disk into the virtual memory... and manages it so that any changes to the virtual memory as saved to the hard disk. 05:09:28 I agree- Uuu has some fascinating ideas behind it. 05:10:18 it makes sense... why the hell are we required to use databases and persistence libraries to do something that could be handled by the OS? 05:14:13 you're talking to the person that thinks a kernel should consist primarily of a memory manager and an interpreter for a language that can serve in an interactive mode as a shell. :) 05:14:30 :D 05:14:46 I like the way uu did time. 05:14:54 solves the whole time problem. 05:16:11 heh- yeah, it works pretty well 05:17:56 -!- digital_me has quit ("night"). 05:20:45 * CakeProphet considers helping out uuu. 05:21:48 RodgerTheGreat, I'd love to do some crazy OS stuff... besides my totally lack of knowledge on how OSes are developed. 05:22:09 But... I'm sure there's new ways it could be done... so eh. 05:24:53 -!- wooby has joined. 05:25:15 operating system development is the grandest challenge out there in the world of commercial software development- if I'm going to do anything in the industry, that's what I want to build. 05:25:29 ...except a lot of the developers seem like total assholes. 05:25:36 well, yes. 05:25:41 Nothing annoys me more than grumpy coders. 05:25:49 which are strangely common. 05:25:57 lol yes 05:26:04 oh man OS dev is such a boondoggle 05:26:22 yeah, it generally happens when coders find themselves having to do administrative things. 05:26:27 Well... I'm a reckless and overconfident n00b... so I'm up for it. 05:26:35 boondoggle is an excellent word. 05:26:45 indeed 05:27:07 well, I think I need to get some sleep. G'night, guys. 05:27:24