IRC log started Wed Jun  7 00:00:00 2000
[msg(TUNES)] permlog 2000.0607
-:- SignOff water: #TUNES (The Tao went that-a-way!)
-:- SignOff lar1: #TUNES (Yaaaaaawn.)
-:- SignOff eihrul: #TUNES ([x]chat)
-:- SignOff I440r: #TUNES (Ping timeout for I440r[purplecoder.com])
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has joined #tunes
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has left #tunes []
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> What, ho, no activity?
<lmaxson> So much for the invitation to the dance.
<lmaxson> I will return later.
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has left #tunes []
07:10am
-:- SignOff Fare: #TUNES (Ping timeout for Fare[esmeralda.enst.fr])
-:- Kyle_L [kyle@cr168790-a.nmkt1.on.wave.home.com] has joined #Tunes
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> Hello.
<lmaxson> Switching to lurker mode.
<Kyle_L> hello lmaxson
<lmaxson> Hi, Kyle_L.
<lmaxson> I'm something of a newbie to this channel.
<Kyle_L> I read that you extended PL/1 to make a new language.  Is there a link to it?
<Kyle_L> Yes, I have not seen you before, I think.
<lmaxson> As I have an interest in programming languages as a subject I thought this might be the place to explore and gain some challenges.
<lmaxson> I did not extend PL/I in the normal sense.
<Kyle_L> Challenges, like what more specifically? 
08:50am
<lmaxson> For example, my specification language is intended as a universal language in which all other languages have expression.
<lmaxson> It would be more of a challenge, I guess, if it were not based strictly on logic programming and predicate logic.
<Kyle_L> I do not mind if PL/1 is not even recognizable in your language.
<Kyle_L> The point is you have a language. 
<lmaxson> I use the PL/I syntax for its simplicity (and conformance to pure ascii character set).
<lmaxson> Yes, I have a language which combines the features of PL/I, Prolog, and APL.
<Kyle_L> Did you learn your skills (ones used in making this Spec Lang of yours) by theory or application?
<lmaxson> Both.
<Kyle_L> :) I did not like that answer, but it was expected.
<lmaxson> I have 44 years of programming or application development experience which covers hundreds of accounts (clients) and thousands of applications.
<lmaxson> I thought it would be appropriate in any discussion of reflective thinking.
<Kyle_L> I guess you have much to reflect on ;)
<lmaxson> :-)
<lmaxson> May I ask why you did not like the answer?
-:- m0rt0n [morton@98AFE1A6.ipt.aol.com] has joined #tunes
<m0rt0n> hey hey
<Kyle_L> Of the three possible answers it provides the least information to me.
<Kyle_L> Nevermind
<Kyle_L> I would like to see what you have.  I do not nessesarily want to download it.
<Kyle_L> I would like a manual, or tutorial first.
<lmaxson> I chose PL/I for its syntax (simplicity) and its broad range of explicit data types.
<m0rt0n> lmaxson: what project are you hawking?
<lmaxson> I chose Prolog (whose syntax I don't care for) for its logic programming, its two-stage logic engine.
<lmaxson> I chose APL2 for its use of textbook operator symbols and its array capability.
<lmaxson> I believe that a the purpose of language lies in communicating to people not machines.
<m0rt0n> every lang. has array capability, and textbook operator symbols are not neccessarily good
<m0rt0n> practically every lang. at least
09:00am
<lmaxson> Every language may have array capability, but except for APL and PL/I they exist only at the element level.
<m0rt0n> element level? care to communicate that to humans, sir?
-:- NetSplit: sterling.openprojects.net split from lackey.openprojects.net [09:08am]
-:- BitchX+Deb1an: Press Ctrl-F to see who left Ctrl-E to change to [sterling.openprojects.net]
-:- Netjoined: sterling.openprojects.net lackey.openprojects.net
-:- abi [nef@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
-:- coreyr [coreyr@net255ip95.parklink.com] has joined #tunes
-:- Kyle_L [kyle@cr168790-a.nmkt1.on.wave.home.com] has joined #tunes
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has joined #tunes
-:- m0rt0n [morton@98AFE1A6.ipt.aol.com] has joined #tunes
<m0rt0n> may i make a purely objective criticism?
<lmaxson> I believe in open source.  I believe in open source in which you have to engage in no protections or restrictions on use to guarantee it remains so.
<lmaxson> Criticize at will.
<m0rt0n> heh
<lmaxson> Objective or otherwise.
09:10am
<m0rt0n> ur conversation reads like a textbook
-:- hcf [nef@207-172-225-237.s237.tnt1.pld.me.dialup.rcn.com] has joined #tunes
<m0rt0n> :-P
<lmaxson> A textbook.
<m0rt0n> correct, sir.
<lmaxson> ?
<lmaxson> Interesting.
<m0rt0n> is that intelligence or pretense? :-)
<lmaxson> Having just perused the Arrow document by Brian Rice, I wonder what is wrong with a textbook approach even in a chat session.
<lmaxson> I have a language, a specification language, not a programming language, but a language from which programs get produced using no other language.
<m0rt0n> water doesn't talk in such a manner, but rather limits that diction to documents
<m0rt0n> but anway
<lmaxson> If he were talking about Arrow, how would he talk?
<m0rt0n> arrow and common topics are different things
<lmaxson> I want to reduce the cost of software maintenance.
<m0rt0n> are u stating ur manifesto or something?
<lmaxson> What I am trying to do here is engage in a discussion about making software affordable, both in terms of purchase price and production price.
-:- eihrul [lee@usr5-ppp173.lvdi.net] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> You have two models, build to order and build to stock.
<lmaxson> Currently build to stock dominates.
<lmaxson> I would like more of a parity of build to order with build to stock.
<m0rt0n> what's the difference between a spec. lang. and a programming lang.?
<lmaxson> Well, Prolog is a specification language which is offered as a programming language.
<m0rt0n> that's an example, what about a definition?
<lmaxson> You write programs in Prolog.
<lmaxson> Take a step back if you will.
09:20am
<lmaxson> You have the software development process which takes as input user requirements and produces as output a version of software.
<lmaxson> Somehow you must translate the user requirements into something that produces a software product.
<lmaxson> The first step in that process lies in translating the user requirements into specifications.
<lmaxson> Using a specification language for that purpose.
<lmaxson> Normally those specifications go through a process of analysis and design before construction, the stage in which coding (or programming) occurs.
<lmaxson> Prolog as a specification language produces no interim stage results corresponding to analysis and design.
<lmaxson> Somehow the interim stages get skipped.
<lmaxson> OO methodology has the same problem except that now they have UML, a pre-construction stage.
<lmaxson> I say "kiss it".  Just use a specification language from the specification stage through the analysis, design, and construction stages.  Don't skip anything.
<lmaxson> One language for all stages.
<lmaxson> So all you write are specifications.  The rest are automatically produced by the tool.
<lmaxson> In so doing you need only a single tool.
<lmaxson> For the entire process.
<lmaxson> Only one translation and thus one source of error occurs, that from the user requirements to the formal specification.
09:30am
<eihrul> the programmer will just make more errors in a single stage :)
<lmaxson> The developer will make errors only at one point and they will immediately be noticed.
<lmaxson> There is no "human time" lapse.
<lmaxson> All the implications of the specifications is visible essentially immediately, almost as fast as it is keyboarded.
<m0rt0n> lmaxson: of all currently used programming languages, which do you think is closest to being the "ultimate", as you talk about your language being?
<lmaxson> Obviously I favor PL/I, principally for its data types.
<lmaxson> And simply syntax.
<eihrul> 1maxson: and software construction is inherently multi-staged by the mere presence of the computer :)
<lmaxson> simple syntax.
<lmaxson> Yes.  That and the tool using the computer.
<lmaxson> The tool is key.
<m0rt0n> i've never used PL/I, but how does its syntax compare to, say, FORTH?
<eihrul> lmaxson: "one tool fits all" isn't necessarily so
<lmaxson> It does not look like FORTH.
<eihrul> yes, forth is elegant :)
<lmaxson> In PL/I the only program elements are statements.  Every statement ends with a semi-colon.
<eihrul> in forth, you have words, and nothing else
<lmaxson> Even statement delimiters are statements.
<m0rt0n> what could be simpler than forth?
<lmaxson> I have some familiarity with forth.
<lmaxson> I have no problems with forth or lisp as programming languages with simple syntaxes.
<m0rt0n> for some reason, you bear an uncanny resemblence to a AI program called "eliza" i played with at MIT once
<m0rt0n> heh
<lmaxson> makes for great "reflection" doesn't it?
-:- billh [billh@cx739861-a.dt1.sdca.home.com] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> I choose something because it is simple, not necessarily the simplest.
<lmaxson> Forth does not support the data types of PL/I.
<eihrul> so, add data-types :)
<lmaxson> Yes.
<eihrul> it is not as if you're quite using PL/I verbatim either, as you said yourself
<lmaxson> Then add operations on aggregates.
<lmaxson> I use only the PL/I syntax.
09:40am
<lmaxson> C <- A + B;
<lmaxson> Where C, A, and B can be data elements or aggregates not necessarily of the same type.
<eihrul> m0rt0n: eliza resembles its victims... its safe to say lmaxson is a modified aliza :)
<lmaxson> Better yet the generalized matrix product of APL C <- A +.x B
<billh> Does Scheme have OOP aggregate types ?
<lmaxson> Is Scheme a LISP derivative?
<m0rt0n> sheme is a lisp derivative
<billh> lmaxson Yes, it is. But I'm just now learning it.
<m0rt0n> billh: is scheme easier to learn than other variants like common lisp?
<lmaxson> It is one thing to have an aggregate type, either an array or a structure or an array of structures or a structure of arrays or any combination thereof.  It is another to allow them as operands without element references.
<billh> it's definitely more regular, but it's not as feature rich as CL. I believe most folks just add what they need to Scheme as they see fit.
<eihrul> lmaxson: shrug, in Scheme or Lisp, you can easily do that
<lmaxson> I like to get some things right.  I haven't used LISP for a number of years now.
<eihrul> there's very little difference between a "primitive" operator and a "derived" operator
<m0rt0n> root@tunes# mv irc.log PLI-textbook
<lmaxson> Are you familiar with APL.
<eihrul> nope
<lmaxson> That creates some difficulty to explain what it means to have operators work equally well with element or aggregate operands.
09:50am
<lmaxson> The ability, for example, to reset all the elements of a multi-dimensional array to a common value like 0 with a single expression, e.g. a <- 0;
<eihrul> you could just as easily make a lisp function to do that
<eihrul> (setf (all a) 0)
<lmaxson> Or to add the first row of an array to the second, a(2,*) <- a(2,*) + a(1,*);
<lmaxson> No argument.
<eihrul> again, could be done with lisp functions/macros :)
<lmaxson> You will not find me arguing against lisp.
<eihrul> lisp is not about providing primitive behavior that you're stuck with
<eihrul> it is about giving you tools to provide your own "primitive" behavior :)
<billh> that's what a first class type is. ;-)
<lmaxson> I would not disagree.
<eihrul> and that's why i believe it is fundamentally superior to any language that is noteworthy because of statically supplied primitive behavior
<lmaxson> LISP uses "strong" typing.
* billh/#tunes is thinking about learning Scheme as a tool for helping build his compiler technology.
<lmaxson> I happen to have great respect for lisp, forth, and apl and their authors.
<lmaxson> Behind me I still have my manuals on IQLISP though I doubt if I still have the product in any usable form.
* billh/#tunes is just relearning LISP/Scheme properly.
<lmaxson> It's a programming language.
<lmaxson> That means it is used in writing programs.
* billh/#tunes likes Kawa which is a Scheme interpreter on top of Java.
<billh> Anybody with experience with Guile here ?
<eihrul> billh: CMUCL is pretty nice
<billh> I didn't know that was design to interface as a library with normal C programs.
<billh> eihrul What do you like about it ?
<billh> I found it too cluttery for me.
<eihrul> its a full compiler and environment for Common Lisp and its free software
<eihrul> those are getting pretty rare these days :)
<lmaxson> Does it reduce the time and cost of maintaining software?
<billh> eihrul Yeah, It just seems too complex and irregular for me when I looked at it.
<billh> I can't really tell until I use it more.
10:00am
<eihrul> if CMUCL did, it would be on the behalf of Common Lisp
<billh> which is why I'm going to make an attempt at learn Scheme for now.
<lmaxson> Has common lisp reduced the time and cost of maintaining software?
<m0rt0n> lmaxson: everything has a commercial slant in your life, doesn't it?
<eihrul> lmaxson: i'd assume so
<billh> Well, CL use to stuff that other languages environement wish they could have in the late 80s.
<billh> But I don't know much about the technology back then, so I can't comment.
<lmaxson> How many years has common lisp been available?
<billh> Fuck, a *long* time.
<eihrul> lisp itself is quite old
<m0rt0n> since the 50s
<eihrul> common lisp is only about half so
<lmaxson> Have you seen lisp-based systems with any particular maintenance advantage over other systems?
<eihrul> lmaxson: lisp machines?
<lmaxson> But where are the lisp machines today?
<eihrul> museums
<lmaxson> yes.
<eihrul> but that's because general-purpose hardware has outclassed them
<eihrul> not because of any fault of lisp
<lmaxson> I do not fault lisp.
<lmaxson> it did have its chance in the sun.
<lmaxson> For awhile there it went toe-to-toe with C as did Forth.
<eihrul> worse-is-better
<billh> and adaptive compiler make technology like Symbolic obsolete.
<lmaxson> Nevertheless the cost spiral of software development and maintenance has continued to rise.
<m0rt0n> lmaxson: what advantages does PL/i have over C?
<lmaxson> Data types.
<lmaxson> Today C is a subset of PL/I.
-:- eihrul_ [lee@usr5-ppp36.lvdi.net] has joined #tunes
-:- SignOff eihrul: #TUNES (Ping timeout for eihrul[usr5-ppp173.lvdi.net])
-:- eihrul_ is now known as eihrul
<m0rt0n> c is a subset of pli?
<lmaxson> Unfortunately (IMHO) the PL/I compiler (OS/2) has incorporated most of C "features" within its boundaries.
<lmaxson> I would have preferred more of APL2.
<lmaxson> You even have things like "union" which has never been needed in PL/I.
10:10am
<lmaxson> FWIW, a better answer lies in K&R's "The C Programming Language".
<lmaxson> Once you see what they left out and deemed "unnecessary" you get an idea of what PL/I actually offers.<g>
<lmaxson> PL/I, for example, uses strong typing but supports automatic conversion between different data types, e.g. numeric and string.
<lmaxson> You can have an arithmetic expression (an assignment statement) that has a mixture of numeric (real (variable precision float, binary, and decimal) and integer (binary and decimal)) along with character operands.
<lmaxson> It offers all of the strengths of PASCAL with none of the weaknesses.
<lmaxson> PL/I offers stream i-o support where C cannot go as well as a full range of record i-o (sequential, direct, and indexed).
<lmaxson> You have no means in C (or lisp for that matter) to have a "fixed bin(31,8)" numeric.
<lmaxson> You have support for variable precision binary and decimal arithmetic.
<eihrul> as i said before
<lmaxson> An integer can be either binary or decimal.
<eihrul> lisp is not about providing primitives
<eihrul> its about giving you everything you need to provide them
10:20am
<lmaxson> I have no doubt you can do it in lisp, but it doesn't not come with it.
<eihrul> lisp has arbitrary precision arithmetic
<eihrul> as well as fixed precision
<lmaxson> You have to have an understanding that PL/I was meant to be a single language for command and control (lisp and jovial functions), scientific, and commercial (business) applications.
<lmaxson> As such it has all the features of Algol, Lisp, Fortran, Cobol, Jovial, etc..
<eihrul> so is lisp
<eihrul> i don't think so...
<eihrul> does PL/I have meta-programming facilities?
<lmaxson> You would be right.  "all" is a stretch.
<lmaxson> Some.
<eihrul> define "Some."
<lmaxson> It has a macro facility.
<m0rt0n> lmaxson: expand on that
<eihrul> lmaxson: turing complete? :)
<lmaxson> Which one first?
<eihrul> mine first
<eihrul> but, they're the same question essentially
<m0rt0n> lmaxson: talk a couple paragraphs about PL/I again. maybe we could have some real fun this time
<lmaxson> What is "turing complete"?
<eihrul> has a language capable of expressing another language that is turing complete :)
<lmaxson> The PL/I macro language is a subset of the PL/I language in terms of expressions allowed.
<eihrul> the Common Lisp macro language is ALL of Common Lisp and whatever you wish to add to that in the normal course of programming
-:- smoke [smoke@16dyn176.delft.casema.net] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> Then it is more than the PL/I macro language.
<eihrul> and that's partially what many other languages like Self and Slate are about
<eihrul> moving meta-level functionality to first-class functionality
<lmaxson> What you describe for common lisp seems more equivalent to what IBM offers in its advanced assembly language.
10:30am
<eihrul> which i doubt is one of the main goals of PL/I :)
<lmaxson> The main goal of PL/I was to eliminate the need for other languages.
<lmaxson> Of that time.
<lmaxson> command and control, scientific, and business.
<eihrul> that's a flawed goal
<eihrul> especially if you go about it by trying to provide all the primitive functionality of the assimilated languagesd
<lmaxson> Why?
<eihrul> because... it is a principle that you can't ALWAYS anticipate the programmer!
<lmaxson> Ah!
<eihrul> that is IMPOSSIBLE
<lmaxson> Here we have a fundamental disagreement.
<lmaxson> No programmer can express a non-logical expression in a program.  Never.
<lmaxson> At least never correctly.
<eihrul> it is not so much the what as the how
<lmaxson> If your language permits every possible logical expression, then it includes both the what and the how.
<lmaxson> Nothing is left out.
<eihrul> yes it is
<lmaxson> What?
<eihrul> well, mainly notions like unnecessary explicitness, etc that require you to extend the semantics of the language itself :)
<lmaxson> All machines, all software is based on 100% pure logic.
<lmaxson> All.
<eihrul> shrug, if all turing complete languages are the same...
<lmaxson> That's why we engage in logical design for both.
<eihrul> then why choose PL/I over C? :)
<eihrul> why choose C over assembly for that matter?
<lmaxson> The domain of a language determines its range of universes.  PL/I has a larger domain than C.
<eihrul> not really
<lmaxson> Now you enter why do we have hlls.
<lmaxson> Yes it does.
<eihrul> C can be used for any problem domain
<eihrul> you just said that :P
<lmaxson> No. It cannot.
<eihrul> but C's meta-level semantics are fixed
<lmaxson> Particularly without a library.
<eihrul> anything you add to C is woe-fully stilted above the language 
<lmaxson> Let's not confuse issues here.
<lmaxson> We are talking about native, standard, supplied support.
<eihrul> PL/I is no different if its method is to anticipate the needs of programmers
<lmaxson> All I said was that no programmer could have a need not expressible in pure logic terms.
<eihrul> native, standard, supplied support is flawed
-:- smklsmkl [sami@ppp53.dial-in.verkkotieto.fi] has joined #tunes
<eihrul> ever here of incompleteness? :)
<lmaxson> However flawed, one certainly differs from the other.
<eihrul> s/here/hear
<eihrul> also, what if the programmer DISAGREES with the primitive behavior? 
<eihrul> what then?
<lmaxson> Yes, and my specification language covers incompleteness.
<eihrul> you're assuming the programmer will necessary like everything you've decided for him
<lmaxson> The programmer cannot disagree with logic.
<eihrul> some would disagree with that statement :)
<lmaxson> I am deciding nothing for him.
<eihrul> sure you are
<lmaxson> I am enabling him.
10:40am
<eihrul> every little rigid primitive you provide is a little chunk of freedom you've ripped away from him
<lmaxson> The language is self-defining.  Therefore there are no "rigid" primitives.
<smklsmkl> which logic?
<lmaxson> predicate logic.
<lmaxson> Remember that the "correct" operation of all machines, all software is based 100% in pure logic.
<lmaxson> No programmer can violate that usefully.
<lmaxson> It's not a choice.
<lmaxson> The programmer has never had a choice.
<lmaxson> The machines were a given.
<lmaxson> The programmer had to conform to the rules of the machine.
<lmaxson> That hasn't changed since day one.
<lmaxson> Give up this concept of "freedom" independent of the machines, the software, and the languages.
<lmaxson> 100% pure logic.
<lmaxson> If you combine the machine's logic within the same framework as the operating system as well as the applications within a single language, then you have the means to "cross-check" to insure logical compatibility.
<lmaxson> That's what I do within this specification language, the specifications of the machine, the operating system, and the applications within a single scope (all at once).
-:- m0rt0n is now known as morton
10:50am
<lmaxson> I only require a single tool for the entire development process.
-:- kc-shower [kc5tja@cx248891-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com] has joined #tunes
-:- kc-shower is now known as kc5tja
<lmaxson> One language, one tool.  The tool is written in the language.  The language is self-defining and thus self-extensible.
<lmaxson> When you get the tool you get the source and you don't need to agree to anything regarding its use because it does not make any difference what you do with what you have relative to what others can do.
<lmaxson> It's more open source than open source.
<lmaxson> You don't need standards, because you cannot create a non-standard version.
<Kyle_L> So, do you have a link or docs or anything?
<lmaxson> I thought I might add what I have to the links currently present on the website.
<Kyle_L> what is the website url?
<lmaxson> I don't have a website per se.  Basically I have just used CompuServe.
<lmaxson> I'm speaking of the tunes website.
<Kyle_L> I am unfamiliar with Compuserve and its practices.
<lmaxson> Compuserve is available through a browser.
<lmaxson> To anyone.
<lmaxson> That has been a recent change.
<kc5tja> Hmm...AOL getting desparate for customers, are they?
<lmaxson> I don't think they know what to do with CompuServe after they bought it.
<hcf> lmaxson: so how does one get to ur shit?
<kc5tja> Doesn't surprise me.  AOL hasn't a clue what to do with most of their acquisitions.  :)
<Kyle_L> lmaxson: yes, how do we get to your shit?
<lmaxson> I will send material I have written to anyone requesting it (lmaxson@pacbell.net).
<lmaxson> I am focused in my efforts on the cost and time to produce software.
<lmaxson> I have to plead guilty to charges of commercial interests.
<lmaxson> I want to make "build to order" competitive with "build to stock".  That basically says it should be affordable on a one-on-one basis between the producer and the user.
11:00am
<eihrul> haven't we been here before? :)
<Kyle_L> h0w c0m3 1 th1nk Lmaxs0n 1s a cl3v3r b0t? 
<lmaxson> Wrong man.
<hcf> lmaxson: if "I have just used CompuServe." and "Compuserve is available through a browser." how does one get to ur shit?! i dont want it mailed
<lmaxson> You go to the IBMFORUM and to my section 18 Projects OS/2-related.
<kc5tja> Well, I need to get going.  Have work to do.  :)
<eihrul> lmaxson: build-to-order assumes you have some party providing for another party, and you can't optimize the interactions between two parties :)
-:- kc5tja [kc5tja@cx248891-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com] has left #Tunes []
<lmaxson> There are various levels of optimization.  A perfect world you cannot have.  But a more nearly perfect one is also worth considering.
<eihrul> sure, but that's a rigid model of software
<eihrul> you're asserting that programmer != user
<lmaxson> You raise two issues.  Let me tackle them one at a time.
<lmaxson> When you engage in software maintenance, changing something from one state to another, you already have a "rigid" base to begin with.  What you want is to make a change in the easiest manner.
<lmaxson> You have code.  You have to change it.  Now what you have to do to make the change says just how rigid or flexible your offering is.
<lmaxson> I don't talk of a programmer as no programming occurs (no specific human writing of code).  I speak of a "developer", one who engages in the entire development process from specification through analysis, design, construction, and testing.  In my system that is one person, the only one necessary.
<eihrul> well, i have a less business-oriented definition of programmer
<eihrul> and my definition of "programmer" corresponds to your definition of "developer"
<eihrul> so you're just arguing terms here
<eihrul> also... being that this is #tunes
<eihrul> how does your language fulfill the HLL requirements? :)
<lmaxson> Ah!  A HLL depends upon a level (or levels) of abstraction.
<Kyle_L> I do not know how to get to the IBMFORUM from the compuserve main page.  Lmaxon, can you help?
<lmaxson> Try go.compuserve.com.
<eihrul> http://www.tunes.org/HLL/requirements.html
<eihrul> go there, those are the requirements i'm speaking of :)
<morton> lmaxson: can u give us a complete URL?
11:10am
<lmaxson> Yes, I can.
<Kyle_L> :)  This is getting bad. 
<lmaxson> Let me peruse the requirements html first.
<lmaxson> Then let you peruse http://forumsa.compuserve.com/ContentLink.asp?SRV=IBMForum&Area=Msgs&SEC=18 
<morton> lmaxson: when can one expect your language to be widely used?
<lmaxson> Maybe never.
<lmaxson> Not my concern.
-:- dalvarez [dalvarez@tristan.sc.cs.tu-bs.de] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> People complain about the high cost of software maintenance.
<lmaxson> I addressed it in a manner consistent with what we do for our clients, through automation, through process improvement.
<lmaxson> Whether anyone does it or not is not my concern.
<lmaxson> If they want to do it. all they need has been published.
<lmaxson> The key to the automation is to have the tool do all document maintenance.
<lmaxson> The developer simply writes and rewrites.  The tool does the remainder in terms of maintenance.
<eihrul> now...
<lmaxson> Now?
<eihrul> again, i ask that you explain how this language fulfills the goals of Tunes as this is a forum for Tunes :)
<lmaxson> So far in my perusal I have not seen a conflict.
<morton> maybe if u use your robot eye to zoom in on the text...
<lmaxson> After all it is a specification language capable of specifying itself as well as any level of abstraction necessary.
<eihrul> sure, but if you must explain something in the channel, you may as well explain why it fulfills tunes :)
-:- ult [ult@user-38lccs8.dialup.mindspring.com] has joined #Tunes
<lmaxson> The document is quite extensive.  Where would you like me to begin?
<eihrul> anywhere :)
<ult> lmaxson where do you live?
<ult> Can you give me your exact longitude/latitude coords?
11:20am
<lmaxson> It certainly meets the genericity, precision, uniformity, consistency (and orthonality) of the founding principles.
<lmaxson> I say this with absolute certainty.  Otherwise you have a non-logical basis.
<lmaxson> I live in Southern California in Simi Valley in Ventura County.
<ult> And lmax...where the hell did you get the money to buy all the crack you've got to be snorting?
<lmaxson> Never did drugs.  Never even got to where I could inhale anything.
<lmaxson> You seem not to have an appreciation for logic, the subject, not my logic.
<lmaxson> A specification language that allows any specification expressible in predicate logic.
<lmaxson> As far as I know that includes everything in formal logic.
<ult> And eihrul, Forth can be extended beyond words
<lmaxson> You have some written form beyond words.
-:- water [water@tnt-9-125.tscnet.net] has joined #tunes
<water> stop
<ult> heh heh heh
-:- Ghyll [karltk@msx-osl-1d-13.ppp.cybercity.no] has joined #tunes
<water> this discussion is stopping right now
<ult> water reading logs too? ;)
<Ghyll> water: no. please continue.
<water> lmaxson: you have stepped all over our good hospitality
<water> you have drastically stretched the #tunes welcome
<lmaxson> I have done no more than where questions have lead me.
<lmaxson> I didn't create the questions.
<water> we have seen a lot of newbies here... everyone here was once a tunes newbie
<water> bullshit
<lmaxson> There's an opinion.
<lmaxson> Or does it constitute a judgement on this channel?
-:- Fufie [stig@tunnel-44-29.vpn.uib.no] has joined #tunes
<ult> lmax: The least you should do when "designing" a language is not copy your language from a popular book :)
* Fufie/#tunes is not really here.. (will be leaving shortly)
<water> lmaxson: nevertheless, it is not your channel, and you do not define your relevance to it
<lmaxson> Well, try "Simply Logical" by Flach.
<water> i will, just to find out why the hell you rant
<dalvarez> his relevance is the interest of some ppl in here, and that should be enough
<water> but rant you are
<water> and this must stop
<lmaxson> Rant?
<water> publish what you have to say in concise form on the WWW
<lmaxson> I'll be happy to.
<water> once that is finished, then return here and discuss it
<lmaxson> Sorry I didn't understand the rules about author first, then speak.
<water> but you have to be the rudest, least well-educated person to come to tunes that i have seen, save the youngsters
11:30am
<Fufie> lmax: people hail me from somewhere else, what language did you say was suitable as the Tunes HLL?
<lmaxson> Am I allowed to answer that?
<water> yes. succinctly
<Fufie> lmax: yes, indeed
<lmaxson> Specification Language/I.
<Fufie> PL/I?
<ult> hahahaha
<lmaxson> No.  It's a specification language that looks similar to PL/I.
<lmaxson> It's a specification language in the same sense as Prolog.
<smklsmkl> lmaxson: note that the channel doesn't really have rules, you can do whatever you want
<water> lmax: i think you will find about 15 people here who disagree that your principles are in line with tunes'
<water> smkl: it doesn't have rules because Tril doesn't enforce them
<Fufie> water: the same 15 people disagree violently about everything else, let the guy talk
<lmaxson> I would think that's the purpose of discussion, not pre-judgement.
<water> fufie: read the logs
<hcf> thats it
<ult> hmm
<Fufie> water: I have, honey
<hcf> take all SL/I stuff to #SL/I
<hcf> now!
<water> yes, creating channels is cheap
<lmaxson> What did I miss here.
<ult> heh
<ult> hcf is flaming :)
<Fufie> lmax: how is SL/I for creating DSL's?
<water> oh great
<water> fufie: it's macro language is not turing-complete
<Fufie> water: that's what I though SL/I was too
<Fufie> and PL/I looks like line-noise
<lmaxson> SL/I is not the issue here.
<lmaxson> You can forget SL/I.
<morton> done and done
<lmaxson> That has never been important.
<water> whatever
<water> your rants have extended far beyond sl/i
<lmaxson> The classic issue is the mapping of the solution set onto the problem set.
<Fufie> lmax: is it a gedanken language you have planned you speak of then?
<lmaxson> Die Gedanken sind frei.
<water> iow "of course not" ;)
<ult> lmaxson: I just sacrificed your liver to Nyarlathotep. He'll be by to collect tonight. I hope you don't mind.
<Fufie> I think #tunes is getting quite used to gedanken languages that will revolutionise the world :)
<water> yes and we're sick of it
<Fufie> water: stop that, now I agree with you :)
<water> sorry, but this guy came in and pissed me off yesterday when i was in the middle of working on slate
* ult/#Tunes gives lmaxson a cookie and pats him on the head.
<lmaxson> I missed slate, but I started Arrow.
<ult> Er
<water> arrow is just a pipe dream right now.... you'll find better stuff about arrow in the tunes mailing list logs
11:40am
<Fufie> lmax: don't feel bad.. ponder some more on your idea, write something on the idea and let us hear again
<lmaxson> There's a lot offered out there.  I just picked from the top of the list.
<lmaxson> To whom do I send the material?
<water> post it online
<water> send it to Fare
<ult> heh
<ult> yeah. send it to fare!
<water> he wrote the tunes stuff
<Fufie> lmax: the tunes mailing-list is spammed by others arguing whether Joy (a Forth thingie) is the Meaning of Liff anyway.. so a different post won't hurt
<water> so he'll be able to better express the differences between your ideas and those of Tunes
<Fufie> (ok the Joy posts have stopped.. ;)
<water> no, the joy posts moved to another list
<water> as they should have
<Fufie> ahh ok
<water> and i think you missed the point of that thread, but that's irrelevant
<water> the point is that lmaxson should present his ideas to Fare
<water> on the mailing list or otherwise
<water> why aren't people using SL/I?
<lmaxson> No. I probably with stick with the forum on CompuServe.
<water> er... #SL/I?
<lmaxson> Don't ask.
<lmaxson> They're using Prolog.
<ult> Maybe cus no one cares ;)
<water> lmaxson: people don't understand why your ideas are mis-guided on compuserve, i'll wager
<lmaxson> Same thing only different syntax.
<water> i don't care either
<lmaxson> That's obvious.
<water> good
<water> now.... finally... can we discuss tunes?
<water> i was wondering what ideas people here have on how the documentation could be improved
<Fufie> make it readable, fewer long words, shorter sentences..
<water> since obviously people like lmaxson here can't tell the difference between Tunes HLL specs and APL specs
<water> fufie: more specific, though
<water> like taking the ideas presented there and ensuring we aren't specifying something trivial like Cobol or Algol or Prolog derivatives
<water> ping
11:50am
<water> i suppose you guys want to discuss the brilliant philosophies that inhabit lmaxson here?
<water> and not anywhere else, since he refuses to use other channels?
<lmaxson> It's not a matter of refusing.  It's one of subdued respect.
<water> whatever
<lmaxson> You may actually have something to say.  I'm willing to wait for that moment.
<morton> it's easier to laugh than think :-)
<water> morton: ease is power
<water> you fellows were laughing at lmaxson earlier
<lmaxson> They were having fun at my expense.  Why not?
<water> but even eihrul was not successful in getting him to back down
<ult> scary
<ult> even *water* was not successful
<water> eihrul is much more patient than i, but you still wouldn't listen to him
<water> ult: thanks :P
<ult> water: We need to whip out the secret weapon...what's Fare's phone #?!
<water> lmaxson: submit a url that technically documents SL/I to review@tunes.org
<lmaxson> Thank you.
<water> if you want to argue that your ideas are good for tunes, apply to tunes@tunes.org
<water> i'm sure you will find many to disagree with you there
<water> but not i
<water> lmaxson: your kind comes to tunes about once a month
<water> lmaxson: half of them rant on the mailing list. the others, on irc
<morton> lmaxson: /join #linpeople, i think they might like PL/I
<lmaxson> I'm sorry to occupy to much of your time.  It is not my intent.
<Fufie> lmax: don't take the criticism too hard though.  if you've gotten this far you have definite learning potential.. though I can't understand why you left lisp for SL/I
<ult> morton: Heh...drop a few buzzwords...and you get worshipped like a god in there ;)
<ult> Fufie: Er
<ult> SHUT UP
<Fufie> ult: :)
<Fufie> ult: I think it's better that people discuss languages here than remaining silent/idling
<water> lmax: as long as i still recall this... the specific reasons for saying that anything like SL/I cannot satisfy tunes hll requirements is that....
12:00pm
<water> the items of "purity", "higher-order", and "uniformity" are not what you think they mean
<water> as well as "lazy evaluation"
<water> keep in mind that these things have to be language features, not implementation or library features
<water> and you have no language to show.... unless you have a url to a specification itself
<lmaxson> A "lazy evaluation" does not take place in the language but in the tool implementing the language.
<lmaxson> The language allows only for its expression.
<water> and i doubt you grok the implications of "partial evaluation"... few do
<water> wait... you claim predicate logic as a basis, yes?
<water> if you do, then you inherit all of the problems of predicate logic
<water> and you also have no hope of uniformity
<water> predicate logic is no panacea
<lmaxson> All I claim is the ability to write any formal logic expression.
<water> so?
<water> i can do so in any string
<lmaxson> That's all I need to define any machine architecture or software.
<water> in any programming language
<water> lol
<water> i can do the same in lisp, more cleanly
<water> fufie: care to step in?
<Fufie> not really, I am having a good time reading about you suggesting lisp :)
<water> hardware is complex.... and people do not think in predicate logic when they design things
<water> fufie: i always have liked lisp... it's the environments for it that are terrible
<lmaxson> It's not my argument.  My argument is only that the machine logic is expressible in the language.  I have two such definitions in APL as a guide.
<water> predicate logic often turns out to be the most complex way to specify something
<water> then your argument is quite weak
<water> it proves little if at all
<water> because i can express hardware logic in a much less expressive language
<Fufie> lmax: predicate logic can be powerful, but it can be very cumbersome
<lmaxson> Again I am not here to argue.  I am here to state that a single language can express all the levels of abstraction from the real machine to any hardware, all defined in the language itself.
* water/#tunes thinks lmax should read "why a new os" thoroughly
12:10pm
<water> then you are here to state a well-known statement
<Fufie> lmax: yes, that is true.. but such a language must be defined with care
<lmaxson> There is much that I should do advisedly that does not change what I can do.
<water> your statement is true but not useful... i could say the same of any programming language
<Fufie> lmax: such a language already exist in (common) lisp though (with extensions)
<lmaxson> Again I have no argument with lisp.
<water> but even lisp is not good enough for tunes
<lmaxson> To the best of my knowledge it does not support assertions, the language of logic programming.
<water> but it does
<ult> yeah
<ult> and Slate is :)
<water> ult: it's closer
<Fufie> water: not any other lisp, but a designed lisp could be good enough
<water> fufie: such a design would be alien to modern lisp programmers
<Fufie> maybe, maybe not
-:- Fare [rideaufr@esmeralda.enst.fr] has joined #Tunes
<water> fufie: i believe i can prove it, but that i must write down first
<Fufie> remember that most modern lisp programmers know a lot of languages already and are quite capable of learning a new system once it has been proven good enough ;)
<water> fufie: yes but most modern languages are trivial to produce with lisp
<dalvarez> ok
<water> fufie: even lisp itself is lame
<water> wrt tunes
<dalvarez> sorry - wrong window , just ignore
<water> bbiaf
<lmaxson> Fare, I am told you are the one to whom I should submit documentation on my specification language.
<lmaxson> The more I read of the tunes hll, the more it seems to fit.
12:20pm
<lmaxson> I won't take up any more of your space at the moment.  Thanks for the rough waters.  It was a fun ride.<g>
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has left #tunes []
-:- SignOff Fufie: #TUNES (oh well.. thanks for all the phish)
-:- SignOff smoke: #TUNES (Ping timeout for smoke[16dyn176.delft.casema.net])
<ult> Hey
<ult> Anyone here got a copy of a good IDE disk scanner?
12:30pm
<morton> scandisk.exe :-)
<water> geez
<ult> eh?
<water> of course we can have conversations about pointless languages until we're blue in the face. but to imrpove tunes? we'll never do that
* water/#tunes is just observing the irony
<water> i hate irony
12:40pm
<morton> i'd talk about tunes but i don't understand half of it
<morton> err most of it
<water> and there's the problem
<water> even improving the documentation (content not format) is unthinkable to Fare and co.
* water/#tunes opens a diktuon window and a tunes.org window
<morton> i'm reading Linux.com's interview with water right now
<water> that interview embarrasses me more every time i think about it
<morton> heh
-:- smoke [smoke@16dyn176.delft.casema.net] has joined #tunes
-:- vietyen [vietyen@apollo-hrn0248.multiweb.net] has joined #tunes
<water> hi
<vietyen> hi
12:50pm
<water> what brings you here?
<vietyen> eeh
<vietyen> channel hopping? :)
<water> ok
<vietyen> well
<water> are you curious about tunes at all?
<vietyen> what is tunes?
<vietyen> :)
<water> have you looked at the site?
<vietyen> which site?
-:- water has changed the topic on channel #tunes to: TUNES, Free Reflective Computing System: http://www.tunes.org/ || Slate Language: http://www.tunes.org/~water/slate-home.html
<vietyen> well
<vietyen> that is clear
<ult> echo <vietyen> what is tunes?
<ult> <vietyen> :)
<ult> *eihrul*         not             dst, src        ; dst = not src
<ult> <water> have you looked at the site?
<ult> <vietyen> which site?
<ult> -> *eihrul* hmm
<ult> -> *eihrul* not should do ones-complement right
<ult>  03:03PM ult (+f) #Tunes (+n)                    lp 0 Lag 1 [sofnlBmcaYp] Fuck 
<ult> > /msg eihrul 
<water> i'm sure something more concise would help
<ult> christ
<water> uh
<ult> mouse shit itself, sorry.
<water> no kidding
<water> anyway
<water> abi: tunes?
<abi> tunes is a free reflective computing system at http://www.tunes.org or to programming languages what the internet is to networks
<vietyen> too difficult for me to understand
<water> are you a programmer?
<vietyen> i'm too tired
<vietyen> yes
<vietyen> but a lazy one
<water> what languages?
<vietyen> as most programmers :)
<vietyen> only C and bash
<water> yes, most are :)
<billh> Eric Raymond is on #kernelnewbies.
<water> ok
<vietyen> i am trying to learn perl
<vietyen> but i love C too much
<water> billh: good for him
<ult> esr can blow me
<vietyen> oh dear
<ult> -> *esr* blow me
<ult> *esr* ok
<Ghyll> billh: I wonder what "brilliant stuff" he has to say today 
<water> in that case, it will take a bit to explain tunes
<water> have you heard of lisp?
<billh> I don't know. I'm kind of neutral to his philosophy, it doesn't really affect me either way as long.
<vietyen> lisp
<vietyen> yes
<vietyen> but i don't like it
<ult> viet, burn
<ult> BURN
<vietyen> haha
* vietyen/#tunes only loves C
<water> why not? (too (many (parentheses)))?
<vietyen> and britney ofcourse
<ult> ugh
<vietyen> water : indeed
<water> try to look beyond it
<vietyen> well i had a bad day, so i am listing to britney to cheer up :)
<water> at least let me explain the concept
<ult> bubblegum music! ugh!
<vietyen> ok
* vietyen/#tunes listens
<water> with lisp, you can pass around programs as list structures
<water> (yes i know the syntax sucks, i agree)
<vietyen> that is the reason
<vietyen> why i don't like it
<vietyen> the same for TCL and Python
<water> but the nice thing is that you have a very abstract and uniform way to manipulate programs themselves, not just data
<vietyen> programs themselves?
<water> tunes is not about lisp, but lisp is like tunes in some ways
<vietyen> you mean their way of operation?
<water> yes, programs themselves
<water> that too
<vietyen> hmm
<vietyen> well
<water> you can code prolog in lisp using only macros for example
<vietyen> you could do the same thing with C
<morton> who's eric raymond?
<ult> a moron
<water> yes but c is quite unsafe
<vietyen> morton : THE open source evangelist
<ult> morton: /msg esr blow me like you blow goats
<vietyen> water : depends what your style is
<water> c is a dangerous language no matter what your style is
<vietyen> well, dangerous in means of?
<vietyen> memory access at a higher level?
-:- SignOff ult: #TUNES (Leaving)
01:00pm
<water> it's very simple to screw things up if you don't remember lots of facts which are irrelevant to the program's logic
<water> among other things, yes
<vietyen> that is true
<vietyen> but i usually don't screw up my programs
<water> i'm not saying c isn't useful, though
<vietyen> i just like the syntax of C so much
<vietyen> i can breath it
<water> my point is that you can have a language where you don't have to worry about low-level details unless you want to
<vietyen> water : what about java
<vietyen> java is nice too
<vietyen> i am currently learning that too
<water> and if you do, you can change the language implementation dynamically so that you *can* deal with those details
<water> java's just c++ in sheep's clothing
<vietyen> so what is bad with sheep's clothing?
<water> nothing... it's the wolf inside that bugs me
<vietyen> :)
<water> it *is* better than c++, but that's saying nothing
<morton> why does everyone hate C++?
* vietyen/#tunes likes C++
<water> uh can you say language syntax bloat?
<water> can you say, OOP with 2000 lines of code per class at a minimum?
<water> i knew you could :)
<vietyen> i think developer apps is much better with C++
<vietyen> because of the OO model
<water> of course you do... you don't use anything else
<water> try python
<vietyen> well
<vietyen> i don't develop apps :)
<water> try eiffel
<vietyen> i don't know why
<vietyen> but i don't like python
<water> they're oop, and much easier to use for developing apps
<vietyen> it is just a feeling
<morton> did you get bitten by a snake when u were younger?
* billh/#tunes is semi-testing the esr on what he knows. ;-)
<water> you intend to spend your entire programming life picking languages based on relevance to C?
<morton> mayube that's it
<vietyen> water : well
<water> i can understand not being comfortable with other languages
<vietyen> water : i am picking languages because they offer a better way of developing a solution
<water> viet: i think you can't judge that
* billh/#tunes find this conversation more interesting. ;-)
<vietyen> water : why not?
<water> because not all applications need c (for example)
<vietyen> that is why i am learning Java and PERL too
<water> shell programming, for example
<vietyen> i need java for scientific and web programming
<water> need?
<vietyen> yes
<water> heh
<water> because everyone else uses those languages?
<vietyen> most workstations at school are running different OS'es
-:- SignOff hcf: #TUNES (Leaving)
<water> so? i can run smalltalk on anything
<vietyen> Java is - within limits - OS-independent
-:- hcf [nef@207-172-225-24.s24.tnt1.pld.me.dialup.rcn.com] has joined #tunes
<vietyen> even platform independent
<water> yes
<billh> water You play with Squeak just yet ?
<vietyen> water : also GUI apps?
<billh> It's pretty interesting stuff. ;-)
<water> yes
<water> bill: i've been squeaking for a year now
<vietyen> does it has a nice widget set?
<water> yes it does
<vietyen> and nice mathematical functions?
<vietyen> with CORBA?
<billh> water Wait, you turned me on to that didn't you ?
<water> i don't know if it has a corba binding yet, but i know it can easily be built
<water> bill: ;)
<water> yes it has very nice mathematical abilities
<vietyen> database?
01:10pm
<water> yes there's a database interface
<vietyen> hm
<water> http://www.squeak.org
<vietyen> sounds good
<water> it's not inducstry-supported, though
<vietyen> but Java is more mainstream
<water> there you go
<vietyen> compared to smalltalk
<vietyen> yes here i go again :)
<vietyen> water : i like the wealth of docs java is offering
<water> you either get what corporations tell you to want, or you try something else
<water> but java has limitations
<vietyen> lke?
<vietyen> like?
<water> iirc you have to re-load the vm in order to change the definition of a class
<water> java also has native threads, which make threading non-portable
<water> not to mention the fact that the java community doesn't share source code as much as smalltalk people do
<water> there are other things
<water> java has a static type system at the bottom
<water> in smalltalk, you can dynamically extend the primitives or change the primitive basis
<vietyen> re
* vietyen/#tunes went to the restroom
<water> oh
<vietyen> i don't know much about java yet
<vietyen> but i know i can do the things i want better than C
<water> heh
<water> btw there is a smalltalk-to-c translator within squeak
<vietyen> btw is smalltalk an interpreted language
<water> not necessarily
<water> but it's at the level of java
<vietyen> hmm
<vietyen> like that...
-:- SignOff Ghyll: #TUNES (blob)
<water> however, because of platform independence problems, the squeak JIT compiler only works on unix systems
<morton> are there any hll's that you espouse which are primarily not translated?
<water> (for now)
<vietyen> hmm
<water> "not translated"?
* vietyen/#tunes is still not convinced enough to immediately using smalltalk
<water> try squeak
<billh> water DrScheme is pretty cool too.
<water> yes drscheme is also good
<water> abi: drscheme?
<abi> drscheme is Rice University's free multiplatform implementation of the Scheme language, at http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/packages/drscheme/
01:20pm
* water/#tunes does some diktuon work on slate
-:- ult [ultima@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #Tunes
<water> re
<ult> My hard drive decided to die...
-:- vietyen [vietyen@apollo-hrn0248.multiweb.net] has left #tunes []
-:- SignOff ult: #TUNES (getting into screen)
-:- ult [ultima@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
<billh> water, Yeah, I'm thinking seriously about moving the CPU description for the PowerPC frontend and x86 codegen over to Scheme.
01:30pm
<billh> It's getting to the point where I need to do some rule pattern matching, etc... I can write it in C, which is fine, but from a initial analysis of the problem it's going to out grow the stuff I'm doing now in C.
<water> ok
* water/#tunes tries to figure out how to convert the slate tutorial into nodes
<dalvarez> water: have you already finished the tutorial?
<water> i'm working on it
<water> it has to get revised.. that's why i didn't finish it
<water> yeah there are quite a few things to change
-:- SignOff hcf: #TUNES (Ping timeout for hcf[207-172-225-24.s24.tnt1.pld.me.dialup.rcn.com])
01:40pm
<water> damn it, the whole syntax has to change
<water> hm maybe not
<morton> what's happening, water?
<water> i'm debating syntactic changes
<water> and updating the tutorial in accordance
-:- hcf [nef@207-172-225-24.s24.tnt1.pld.me.dialup.rcn.com] has joined #tunes
<water> re
-:- SignOff ult: #TUNES (Ping timeout for ult[bespin.dhs.org])
<morton> this tutorial, what will it assume about the reader? how much experience/knowledge?
<water> same thing as before, for now
<water> sorry, i don't have a ridiculous amount of time to spend on it
<smklsmkl> slashdot.org, the most reliable source of news
-:- SignOff abi: #TUNES (Ping timeout for abi[bespin.dhs.org])
<morton> news for nerds. stuff that matters.
<water> uh right
<morton> heh
<water> why do you guys say that?
<morton> news for people out of touch with the real world.
<smklsmkl> we wanna be geeks!
-:- ult [ultima@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
<water> you and everybody else
* morton/#tunes wonders if tunes was ever mentioned on slashdot.org
-:- abi [nef@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
<smklsmkl> tunes is much older than /.
01:50pm
-:- SignOff water: #TUNES (The Tao went that-a-way!)
<smklsmkl> tunes members have been mentioned at slashdot though
-:- SignOff smoke: #TUNES (z)
<morton> was Fare more talkative in the past?
-:- NetSplit: varley.openprojects.net split from fastlane.openprojects.net [01:56pm]
-:- BitchX+Deb1an: Press Ctrl-F to see who left Ctrl-E to change to [varley.openprojects.net]
-:- Netjoined: varley.openprojects.net fastlane.openprojects.net
-:- ult [ultima@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
-:- abi [nef@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
02:00pm
-:- SignOff billh: #TUNES (changing servers)
-:- billh [billh@cx739861-a.dt1.sdca.home.com] has joined #tunes
-:- SignOff dalvarez: #TUNES (Leaving)
-:- SignOff morton: #TUNES (Ping timeout for morton[98AFE1A6.ipt.aol.com])
-:- SignOff abi: #TUNES (Ping timeout for abi[bespin.dhs.org])
-:- SignOff ult: #TUNES (Ping timeout for ult[bespin.dhs.org])
-:- SignOff hcf: #TUNES (Leaving)
-:- abi [nef@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
-:- ult [ultima@bespin.dhs.org] has joined #tunes
-:- hcf [nef@207-172-225-24.s24.tnt1.pld.me.dialup.rcn.com] has joined #tunes
-:- SignOff billh: #TUNES (BitchX-1.0c16 -- just do it.)
-:- SignOff smklsmkl: #TUNES (back tomorrow)
-:- AmICul2 [asdasd@node-64-248-41-203.dslspeed.zyan.com] has joined #tunes
-:- AmICul2 [asdasd@node-64-248-41-203.dslspeed.zyan.com] has left #tunes []
-:- SignOff hcf: #TUNES (Leaving)
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> Is the welcome mat still out?
<eihrul> its somewhere
<lmaxson> I'd hate to have it pulled from under me.
<lmaxson> It will take me awhile to read through the tunes documents and to grasp some of the nuances that seem so important to some here.
04:00pm
<lmaxson> However, from I have read so far of the hll requirements and the "Why a New Operating System" I see nothing in conflict with what I am offering.
<lmaxson> In particular I don't see that we have different "primary" goals.
<lmaxson> We have an agreement on features.  We differ principally on the means to their achievement.
<lmaxson> From my perspective the issue is not the hll, is not a language issue at all, but instead one of the tool which processes that language.
<eihrul> i've heard better politicians :)
<lmaxson> I would hope so.
<eihrul> you have a real talent for talking around a subject >:)
<lmaxson> That's an interesting comment.
<eihrul> i try
<lmaxson> You see in my world the computer does nothing except what it is told.
<lmaxson> To talk of leaving something up to the computer, as is done in the OS document, is talking around the subject.
<lmaxson> The only thing you can leave up to the computer is the execution of the software.
04:10pm
<lmaxson> Computers don't write software.  People do.
<lmaxson> So leaving it up to a computer means leaving it up to some other person to write.
<lmaxson> I don't cop out like that.
<eihrul> i think you're overlooking the point :)
<lmaxson> What is the point from your perspective?
<eihrul> the computer makes the assumptions you want it to
<lmaxson> The computer, none that have ever been built, makes assumptions.
<eihrul> sure they do :)
<lmaxson> It has an instruction set and an architecture that must be synchronized with software.
<eihrul> as a very rudimentary example at the lowest level: branch prediction
<eihrul> it assumes that if a branch has been taken, it is likely to be taken again :)
<lmaxson> Why do you call that an assumption.  It doesn't (or didn't) exist prior to virtual memory and caching.
<lmaxson> The computer makes no assumption not inherent in the memory access.
<lmaxson> In short it has no choice.
<eihrul> it makes an assumption
<lmaxson> Calling it an assumption implies that it has a choosing option.
<eihrul> just because it doesn't have a choice in the matter
<eihrul> doesn't mean it DOESN'T make it an assumption
<lmaxson> At least I understand what you mean by assumption.
<lmaxson> For me what a computer can do is based on its architecture.  What it does is based on software.
<lmaxson> Therefore leaving the details up to the computer means leaving it up to software means leaving it up to some programming exercise.
<eihrul> humans are not meant to be redundant :)
<eihrul> well, not ones to really enjoy the practice of it
04:20pm
<lmaxson> How well do you follow the precepts of information theory, not in terms of understanding (which I assume) but in terms of adherence in practice?
<eihrul> well, i have no formal education in information theory whatsoever :)
<eihrul> so i'll have to invoke my fifth amendment rights
<lmaxson> I remember in the 60's at a local ACM meeting hearing Claude Shannon predict that in the future 10 system programmers would write all the applications used world wide.
<lmaxson> At that time the audience laughed (as they would today).
<lmaxson> I chose, however, over the years to see what "assumptions" necessary to support his prophesy.
<lmaxson> The basic solution, the one that we have achieved for all our clients, is to turn more of the people-based clerical work over to software running on a computer.
<lmaxson> I don't see that tunes is seeking any more than to achieve the same result for our own profession.
<eihrul> Tunes is not about empowering professionals
<lmaxson> That means building tools (or in my case a tool) that assumes all those non-writing clerical functions.
<eihrul> Tunes is about empowering the user
<lmaxson> Why make a distinction, the tool user from the tool maker, by assuming that one is a user and the other is not.
<coreyr> why make a distinction between anything
<lmaxson> They are both users.  They both gained from empowerment.
<lmaxson> Primary act.
<eihrul> well, in tunes, the user is the programmer :)
<lmaxson> Then how does this user create his tools that empower him?
04:30pm
<eihrul> with tunes
<eihrul> the system is a tool
<eihrul> everything is first class and open
<eihrul> open to manipulation and exploration
<lmaxson> The system is software running on a computer interfacing with the user.  They (the triad) constitute the system.
<lmaxson> I simply quote your cybernetic roots.
<coreyr> lmaxson: have you talked to fare?
<lmaxson> When he logged on I didn't get a response.  The answer is no.
<lmaxson> I assume he is the author of the "Why a New..." document.
<coreyr> you can fault him for most of tunes.org
<lmaxson> I am not engaged in faulting.
<coreyr> i was being light.
<lmaxson> Accepted as such.
<coreyr> are you sure.
<lmaxson> Well, to venture into the rough waters here (no pun intended) I have to take my lumps as they come.
<coreyr> well i have no information to give, so i return to /lurk
<lmaxson> I'm in the process of preparing a document on SL/I that addresses the tuness hll point by point.
<coreyr> good, i think water will enjoy the company
<lmaxson> Please remember that when cybernetics was in its heyday I was in high school.  Nevertheless I schekel out the money to collect all the published proceedings.  Later I became quite "enamored" of the contributions by cybernetic author D. Ross Ashby who wrote "Design for a Brain" and "Introduction to Cybernetics".
04:40pm
<lmaxson> I did study Shannon's work on Information Theory as well as subscribe to the Bell Systems Journal.
<lmaxson> I have been a member of ACM since 1962 and of the IEEE Computer Society since its inception (and slightly before).
<coreyr> i was born in 80
<lmaxson> You are a 20 year-old discussing with a 68 year-old.
<lmaxson> Seems reasonable to me.
<coreyr> 19
<coreyr> i dont think it unreasobable at all
<lmaxson> Well, my birthday is this Saturday, so I was fudging a bit.
<lmaxson> My 44th year in the profession is on the 22nd of this month.
<lmaxson> While I was not at the beginning of the computer revolution I have certainly covered most of it.
<lmaxson> coreyr, I take it you are a student then?
<coreyr> yes, newly.
<lmaxson> University?
<coreyr> university of central florida, ill be a freshman in the fall.
<lmaxson> Too early for a major or have you decided?
<coreyr> comp sci
<lmaxson> What drives this interest?
<coreyr> computing is the foundation of everything that drives "my time"
<coreyr> and i foresee that it will continue to be a major aspect of society for the foreseable future
<coreyr> but i was lead into it from linguistics
<coreyr> i was poor so i did not gather much experience with computers until recently
<lmaxson> How did you feed your linguistic urgings?
<coreyr> library
04:50pm
<coreyr> i can not think of anyother valuable source
<lmaxson> In so doing did you bother with General Semantics?
<coreyr> sigh
<lmaxson> up or down.
<coreyr> i regrettably lack focus
<lmaxson> now or then?
<coreyr> hmm both
<lmaxson> :-)
<lmaxson> I mention it because I came into my linguistic studies through General Semantics which I started in high school and continue to this day.
<coreyr> your high school studied topics like that?
<coreyr> florida schools are the second worse in the country.
<coreyr> oh
<lmaxson> General Semantic texts are written to extend to the lowest grade levels including kindergarden.
<coreyr> hmm
* coreyr/#tunes thumbs thru a book.
<lmaxson> General Semantics is concerned with the effect of language on people.
<lmaxson> It's goal is to increase the communicative value of language.
<coreyr> hmm
<coreyr> id tell you to ask water something, but he probably wouldnt answer you
<lmaxson> I touched a nerve with water that I still don't understand.
<coreyr> he was like that to me also
<coreyr> but i think it was your language that sent him over the top
<lmaxson> It normally is something you say rather than what you meant.
<lmaxson> His language, of course, contributes to better communication.<g>
<coreyr> hmm
<coreyr> i cant say this without being insulting
<coreyr> your general view of computers seems not to moved out of the 60s
05:00pm
<lmaxson> You're not being insulting.
<coreyr> i hope thats not a compliment. :)
<lmaxson> You have to understand that I began this business truly repairing computer, particularly when a failure in a logic circuit occurred.
<eihrul> lmaxson: what annoyed water is that you spent a good amount of channel time ranting about things not necessarily directed AT tunes :)
<eihrul> we've gone through holy wars trying to keep discussions here relevant to tunes
<lmaxson> I have no problem with that.
<coreyr> if you want to speak off the record and/or subject you can do so in #{}
<lmaxson> Part of tunes is an integrated operating environment of machine, software (operating system and applications) and people.
<lmaxson> bbiab.
05:10pm
<lmaxson> Had to help in preparing dinner.
<lmaxson> That's off the record.<g>
<lmaxson> The truth is that I don't care what level of esoterics you want to achieve in a hll, however you want the user to be able to express his requirements, somehow a path must be possible from that point to organizing the sequence of instructions a computer responds to.
<lmaxson> The point is why have a hll which differs any from the lowest lll?
<lmaxson> The issue is the expression of ever higher levels of abstraction which must in execution translate into lll terms.
<eihrul> because lll's are not meant for humans :)
<lmaxson> That means the machine system, the software, and the user have a common communication system with no "breaks".
<lmaxson> You mean for human reading or execution?
<lmaxson> lll's are certainly for human reading (and writing).
<lmaxson> We call it machine language.
<lmaxson> When I began it was all we had to program in.  Symbolic assemblers, macros, and higher came later.
<eihrul> yes and no
<lmaxson> We wrote in "actual".<g>
<eihrul> its meant to be bearable
<eihrul> it is not optimal that a human deals with it anymore
<eihrul> it many ways its becoming unbearable for humans
<lmaxson> No argument, but some human must so that other humans need not.
<eihrul> well, we've already been there and done that
<eihrul> they're called compilers
<eihrul> magical little things they are :)
<lmaxson> The worst form of tool.
<eihrul> nope
<lmaxson> Unless they are realtime interactive.
<eihrul> the interface to compilers could be considered wrong
<lmaxson> Thus providing "immediate" feedback on the implications of what you have written.
<eihrul> not the compilers themselves
<eihrul> they can be used for both Good (tm) and Evil (tm)
<lmaxson> Actually the compilers (non-interactive) insert a delay which is error prone in human terms.
05:20pm
<lmaxson> You recognise as much in the "Why a New..." document.
<lmaxson> I condemn them no worse than they are there.
<lmaxson> The process is integrated.  We should not break it up into a (delayed) sequence of activities.
<lmaxson> When we do we have an implementation in which what we do differs from what we say.
<lmaxson> Once you have "source", the smallest information unit of it possible, the rest should flow automatically.
<lmaxson> That occurs today in the editor.
<lmaxson> It should not be separate from the compiling process.
<lmaxson> Nor the linking process.
<lmaxson> Nor the testing process.
<eihrul> well, that's already achieved in many environments like Smalltalk or Self
<eihrul> or Lisp, for that matter
<lmaxson> They should be integrated as defined as a single set of connected processes.
<lmaxson> No doubt.
<lmaxson> Again I have no argument with those languages in preferring to use something else.
-:- billh [billh@cx739861-a.dt1.sdca.home.com] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> I am not aware yet of Smalltalk being completely defined and written in Smalltalk and the same for Lisp.
<lmaxson> That means the use of multiple languages.
<eihrul> smalltalk is and so is lisp for the most part
* coreyr/#tunes is away: vnc disconnect
<lmaxson> For the most part is the "gotcha".
<billh> lmaxson They did that for the Self language.
<billh> and it ended up being the fastest Smalltalk implementation around.
<lmaxson> I am presenting an argument for doing something in a language without discriminating against any so imbued.
<lmaxson> Again it is not a language argument but the implementation, the tool used.
05:30pm
<lmaxson> The point as presented in the "Why a New..." document is taking what works well and not taking what doesn't.
<eihrul> in fact
<eihrul> Squeak is completely written in itself
<billh> lmaxson What ?
<lmaxson> Is it implemented entirely in Squeak.
<lmaxson> billh, I'm sorry, but "what" to what?
<eihrul> yes, its written in Squeak
<billh> lmaxson Just what the hell are you saying ?
<lmaxson> The compiler or whatevedr.
<billh> I can't figure it out.
<eihrul> yes, the Squeak VM is written in Squeak
<billh> lmaxson what do you think about a technology such as Java ?
<lmaxson> JAVA is fine for those who like it.
<lmaxson> I have no use for OO in terms of software development.
<eihrul> that reminds me
<eihrul> there is a Java VM called Jalapeno that is written in Java
<eihrul> ibm research no less!
<billh> eihrul Aren't they doing crazy stuff with it ?
<billh> like insane kinds of optimizations, etc... ?
<eihrul> not quite
<eihrul> they're planning on it
<billh> lmaxson Then what kind of SE do you do ?
<eihrul> but right now, it is merely competitive with other JVMs
<eihrul> which is no small feat in itself
<billh> Yeah, I remember reading an abstract on that subject.
<lmaxson> SE?
<billh> software engineering, your statement is rather peculiar.
<lmaxson> Ah, software engineering.  I'm sorry I spent 30+ years as an IBM SE (System Engineer).<g>
<billh> lmaxson That's suprising that you don't use some kind of OOP technique.
<lmaxson> I'm not saying I didn't, only that I prefer not to.
<billh> Most everything around current is built around OOP of some kind or another.
<lmaxson> What IBM paid me to do I did.
<lmaxson> billh, correct, and still the cost of software maintenance and number of errors increases.
<billh> lmaxson It depends on the choice of technologies and the design of the system itself.
<lmaxson> I have no argument with it other than it has not performed as promised when introduced.
<billh> That statement isn't categorically true.
<lmaxson> I have not ignored it, but have waited for it to show its reaching what it was designed to do: reduce software maintenance costs and time.
<billh> lmaxson look at GUI technologies.
<lmaxson> That's what it paradigm was supposed to offer.
05:40pm
<lmaxson> I have.
<billh> paradigms like any have a certain maturity time.
<billh> lmaxson Well, it sounds like you have in a very limited wayl
<billh> It takes about a year or two to really be able to use those techniques.
<lmaxson> I have to plead guilty.
<billh> and reference other OOP implementations to get an idea of how to use it.
<lmaxson> Why take something that has such a long gestation period.  It's higher than LISP, for example.
<billh> whether it be Collection classes, threading model, message resolution, etc...
<billh> lmaxson gestation time ?
<lmaxson> I am not saying that they have not produced useful results.
<billh> OOP is pretty mature technology.
<billh> lmaxson it's absolutely essential for GUI kit construction. There isn't really a better way of doing that most folks know as of yet.
<lmaxson> The time from when a novice enters until considered knowledgeable.
<lmaxson> Objects are.  OO technology is not necessary for that.  Objects per se preceeded OO by a number of years.<g>
<billh> same for list based, lambda calculus languages, but it's not that different that C from my viewings of Scheme.
<billh> lmaxson You should look at OpenStep. The views you have are kind of dates.
<billh> dated.
<lmaxson> Here in this short session we have mentioned multiple languages of interest.
<lmaxson> Now all have their basis in logic.  So why not simply a logic language?
<lmaxson> One that encompasses all logical expressions.
<eihrul> well, what about power of expression? :)
<lmaxson> Again what power of expression not logically derived?
<lmaxson> You have no programming (or other) languages not logically defined.
<eihrul> power, the rate at which work is done, or in this case, the rate at which something logically expressable may be logically expressed :)
<eihrul> power is often more important than work itself
<lmaxson> That is related to writing effort, primarily based in higher levels of abstraction.
<lmaxson> That's what you have to write.
<lmaxson> It does not change the logical basis when minimizing what you have to write or changing the written expression from one form to another.
05:50pm
<lmaxson> That, it seems to me, is part of the tunes philosophy.
<billh> Yeah, but you can't take all that Turing stuff all that serious if you need to get work done.l
<lmaxson> You can do nothing in tunes, in whatever choices you make, that "defies" logic.
<lmaxson> If you need to get work done, you want to expend the minimal amount of effort and time.
<billh> Otherwise you'd just end up hammering various logical languages to do stuff outside of it's domain.
* coreyr/#tunes is away: VGAPlanets
<lmaxson> Nothing lies outside the domain of formal logic in what we have discussed.  And nothing will that runs on a computer.
<billh> lmaxson Basically what you're saying it is the everybody should write in highly analysizable intermediate tree represenations.
<billh> lmaxson What about natural language ?
<lmaxson> I am saying that everyone should "write" however suits them, but that underneath it all is a single linguistic form.
<lmaxson> The form of formal logic.
<billh> lmax Yeah, but that's a meaningless statement.
<lmaxson> In so far as natural language stays "within the rules" I have no problem with it.
<lmaxson> Why is it meaningless?
<billh> It's like saying human beings are made up of atoms and therefore everything in nature is expressable by some kind of atom notation.
<billh> including complex social systems.
<lmaxson> To say that a single language with a single syntax, semantics, etc. supports all possible logical uses?
<billh> That doesn't really adequately describe a particular system in a semantically meaningful way.
<lmaxson> The difference is that computers and software have no other than a 100% formal logic basis.
<billh> lmaxson Yeah, but what the hell does that mean ?
<lmaxson> Human beings and the rest of the universe is not so similarly restricted.
<Fare> GAKUK
<Fare> oops
<lmaxson> It means you need only "the" language of logic.
<billh> lmaxson Ok, that's naive, but it's your life.
<lmaxson> I will accept that it is "naive", but it is one language from which all the others exist as specifications, a specification language.
<billh> So what ?
<lmaxson> So it has all the capabilities of the hll tunes is supposedly seeking.
<billh> lmaxson You're looking at the wrong level of description of the various SE problems.
06:00pm
<billh> you want something mathematically correct verses something that'll directly express what you immediately want without hammering the technology to behave in a certain way.
<lmaxson> For example, tunes seeks some means of migrating C source.  Why?  Why just pick on C.  Why not pick on every possible language to migrate?  How?  From what they have in common.  Their executable form.
-:- hcf [nef@207-172-225-11.s11.tnt1.pld.me.dialup.rcn.com] has joined #tunes
<lmaxson> Why not migrate them from their lowest common level?
<lmaxson> Automatically without concern for architecture.
<billh> That's what codegen and machine code is for.
<lmaxson> Again you are out into different languages when only one is necessary.
<Fare> lowest common level is atom
<billh> That's what codegen and portable byte code is for.
<Fare> I don't want to simulate quantum physics
<Fare> well, ok, with digital electronics, lowest level is bit diddling.
<lmaxson> No, but how do you tell a user to bring the remainder of his code into tunes compliance?
<billh> what's tunes compliance ?
<Fare> lmaxson: 1) to cope with legacy, have PIG -- PIG Is GNU, an emulator for the GNU OS
<lmaxson> It's not bit diddling.  It's logic programming, pattern matching, and recomposition into higher level of abstraction.
<Fare> lmaxson: then C hardly fits this "lowest common denominator"
<lmaxson> Fare, I have to go to dinner.  I will submit a document on SL/I along the guidelines presented in the tunes hll requirements.  Then hopefully it will become quite clear that SL/I provides all that "a" tunes hll can be.<g>
<billh> lmaxson But you excluded virtual machine technology and export those components and concept to an external language.
<billh> lmaxson But you excluded virtual machine technology and how it can export those components/concept to an external language.
<lmaxson> It's a specification language like Prolog and requires the use of the same two-stage proof process (completness and exhaustive true/false).
<billh> Sorry.
<billh> lmaxson Then it becomes a logical addon to something like C.
<lmaxson> billh, I haven't excluded anything that is logically expressible.
<lmaxson> It is complete within itself, self-defining, self-extensible.
<lmaxson> As is formal logic.
<billh> Your definition of logicallly expressible it too vague and not useable given the way you use the phrase.
<billh> and there are multipule domains of this kind of math that are orthogonal.
<billh> Like with graph theory.
<lmaxson> I would restrict it to mathematical and symbolic logic expressions, but even here I have probably left something out.
<billh> graph theory ?
<billh> Accomodate that.
<lmaxson> I do not propose it as a substitute only an alternative.
<billh> Then try something like logically expressing a graph.
<billh> They are orthogonal entities.
06:10pm
<billh> The point of modern programming is to unify all these structures.
<billh> make them be some how expressable in multipule domains, easily.
<lmaxson> That's all that I am saying.
<billh> what you're saying is too limited.
<billh> and isn't useable.
<lmaxson> That means there must be (at least) one domain in which all are expressible.
<billh> what about temporal relationships ?
<billh> lmaxson There isn't.
<lmaxson> If they fall within the domain of formal logic, something expressible ultimately in machine language, then there "is".
<lmaxson> I'm talking software.
<lmaxson> I'm also going to dinner.<g>
<billh> no you're not, you're mixing concepts in vague manner.
<billh> addressing graphs is an essential part of software engineering.
<lmaxson> We will meet again to discuss my vagueness.  At least I don't leave things up to a computer as if it occurred automatically or by magic.
<billh> You need to address the specific point I made about graphs.
<billh> Otherwise you're just barking up the wrong tree.
<lmaxson> As far as discussing graphs are concerned I refer you to Iverson "A Programming Language" (1962).
<billh> especially with temporal changing systems.
<lmaxson> Maybe I can reheat dinner.
<billh> But is that a unification of logical and graph systems ?
<billh> They are different domains of knowledge and have different rules of operation.
<lmaxson> In Iverson ingenuous manner it is.
<billh> do you have a URL to that paper ?
-:- ult_ [ult@user-38lccdh.dialup.mindspring.com] has joined #Tunes
<ult_> hmm
<lmaxson> No, I have to prepare the paper so that it fits within the "confines" of tunes' hll requirements.
<ult_> shit
<ult_>  /bin/sh: /dev/null: Permission denied
<ult_> Tril's been screwing around
<lmaxson> That's certainly not vague.
<lmaxson> See you.
-:- lmaxson [lmaxson@adsl-63-194-24-207.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net] has left #tunes []
<billh> This guy is on crack.
<ult_> I told you so!
-:- the_jacka [jej99001@d82-134.brptct.optonline.net] has joined #tunes
<billh> ult_ Uh, you didn't. ;-)
-:- SignOff ult: #TUNES (Leaving)
<ult_> dude
<ult_> go read irclogs
<billh> I wasn't around when that was said.
<ult_> i called him a crackhead 
-:- ult_ is now known as ult
<billh> ult It's not in my session log.
<billh> You said it before I came on. ;-)
<ult> no
<ult> the logs on the website
<ult> everything here is logged and archived :)
<billh> ult I just came on about a half hour ago and you're not in my logs.
<ult> so? moron
<ult> your a crackhead too.
<billh> Ok, and your a cock sucker !!!!
06:20pm
-:- SignOff the_jacka: #TUNES (Leaving)
-:- thejackal [jej99001@d82-134.brptct.optonline.net] has joined #tunes
<coreyr> hmm
* coreyr/#tunes is back
06:50pm
-:- AmICul2 [asdasd@node-64-248-41-203.dslspeed.zyan.com] has joined #tunes
-:- AmICul2 [asdasd@node-64-248-41-203.dslspeed.zyan.com] has left #tunes []
-:- SignOff eihrul: #TUNES (Ping timeout for eihrul[usr5-ppp36.lvdi.net])
-:- eihrul [lee@usr5-ppp97.lvdi.net] has joined #tunes
-:- SignOff thejackal: #TUNES (Ping timeout for thejackal[d82-134.brptct.optonline.net])
-:- morton [morton@AC91E242.ipt.aol.com] has joined #tunes
<morton> i wanna riot!
<coreyr> go downtown
08:10pm
-:- morton [morton@AC91E242.ipt.aol.com] has left #tunes []
-:- SignOff Kyle_L: #TUNES (Leaving)
-:- SignOff billh: #TUNES ([BX] I came, I saw, I ran away screaming)
-:- SignOff ult: #TUNES (Leaving)
-:- Terralthra [terralthra@c741758-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com] has joined #tunes
-:- SignOff Terralthra: #TUNES (Leaving)
-:- SignOff hcf: #TUNES (Ping timeout for hcf[207-172-225-11.s11.tnt1.pld.me.dialup.rcn.com])
-:- lar1 [larman@adsl-63-204-134-1.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net] has joined #tunes
-:- SignOff eihrul: #TUNES ([x]chat)
[msg(TUNES)] newlog 2000.0608
IRC log ended Thu Jun  8 00:00:02 2000