Re: [Factor-talk] High DPI displays

[Benjamin Pollack]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017, at 01:14 PM, Timothy Hobbs wrote:

> Hi, I cannot see the text on my relatively new laptop, when I
> launch the
> factor IDE. Is there any option to make it larger?



On Windows 10, it should just be scaled up. It'll be blocky/low-
resolution, but should be totally readable. Is that not what
you're seeing?


I did do a dive on getting it to run in high-res on Windows 10, but hit
some weird issues with scaling and haven't had a chance to circle back
and wrap that up yet.


--Benjamin
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk

Re: [Factor-talk] Startup time

[petern]

On 2017-01-30 18:14, Timothy Hobbs wrote:
> If you are on linux, you might try this very new feature:
> https://criu.org/Main_Page
> 
> On 01/30/2017 17:29, Jim Mack wrote:
>> You could also set up factor as a local web server, and send bash
>> requests to it through a web page, and it would be able to accomplish
>> them locally (or remotely) and report you the results.  It would be a
>> quick round-trip cycle with great feedback and the ability to bookmark
>> commands.
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:39 PM, > > wrote:
>> 
>> On 2017-01-29 16:20, John Benediktsson wrote:
>> > It would be nice to improve startup time. I imagine some low 
>> hanging
>> > fruits if we looked deeply into it. I'll make a note to get that
>> on my
>> > list, unless someone looks into it sooner.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Jan 28, 2017, at 2:25 PM, pet...@riseup.net
>>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I spend a lot of time writing small scripts, often in bash. 
>> That is
>> >> becoming a more and more painful task as bash is a nice-enough
>> >> language
>> >> on the first look but in the end it seems to go out of it's way 
>> to
>> >> trip
>> >> you up with every character you type. I don't mean to rant, I 
>> know
>> >> it's
>> >> an old language that has to keep a lot of backward
>> compatibility and
>> >> it
>> >> actually still serves very well for what it was designed for,
>> as long
>> >> as
>> >> your script stays <100 lines. Still, there's a lot to be 
>> desired.
>> >>
>> >> Factor is a cool language, it's very expressive, mature, has a
>> lot of
>> >> libraries and has all sorts of tricks up its sleaves to bend it 
>> to
>> >> your
>> >> will (much like lisp in that regard). It would be a fun
>> experiment to
>> >> write a library or EDSL (embedded DSL) for bash-like scripting.
>> >> However
>> >> there's a bone to be picked:
>> >>
>> >> $ time bash -c ''
>> >> bash -c ''  0.00s user 0.00s system 94% cpu 0.004 total
>> >>
>> >> $ time factor-vm -e=''
>> >> factor-vm -e=''  0.12s user 0.05s system 99% cpu 0.178 total
>> >>
>> >> I know one can create a custom image and maybe cut down on the
>> startup
>> >> a
>> >> bit, but my question is - would it be possible to cut it down 
>> to
>> >> bash's
>> >> startup time *and* still have all the necessary vocabularies in
>> it? I
>> >> don't want to know the startup time with a small image that has
>> like
>> >> nothing in it, I can quickly test that myself. I'd need help to
>> answer
>> >> -
>> >> if you imagine the use case I'm talking about, include all the
>> vocabs
>> >> that use case would need and make all other possible
>> optimizations (if
>> >> there are) without sacrificing too much, can the startup reach
>> similar
>> >> times?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 
>> >>   Peter Nagy
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>> --
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> ___
>> >> Factor-talk mailing list
>> >> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
>> 
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> --
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > ___
>> > Factor-talk mailing list
>> > Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
>> 
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>> 
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> you think you can reach similar startup times? That would be 
>> really
>> cool. I guess your todo list is rather long though.
>> 
>> As a side note, are there other concatenative languages you know I
>> could
>> look at?
>> 
>> --
>> 
>>Peter Nagy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> ___
>> Factor-talk mailing list
>> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
>> 
>> https://

Re: [Factor-talk] Startup time

[Timothy Hobbs]

If you are on linux, you might try this very new feature:
https://criu.org/Main_Page

On 01/30/2017 17:29, Jim Mack wrote:
> You could also set up factor as a local web server, and send bash
> requests to it through a web page, and it would be able to accomplish
> them locally (or remotely) and report you the results.  It would be a
> quick round-trip cycle with great feedback and the ability to bookmark
> commands.
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:39 PM,  > wrote:
>
> On 2017-01-29 16:20, John Benediktsson wrote:
> > It would be nice to improve startup time. I imagine some low hanging
> > fruits if we looked deeply into it. I'll make a note to get that
> on my
> > list, unless someone looks into it sooner.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 28, 2017, at 2:25 PM, pet...@riseup.net
>  wrote:
> >>
> >> I spend a lot of time writing small scripts, often in bash. That is
> >> becoming a more and more painful task as bash is a nice-enough
> >> language
> >> on the first look but in the end it seems to go out of it's way to
> >> trip
> >> you up with every character you type. I don't mean to rant, I know
> >> it's
> >> an old language that has to keep a lot of backward
> compatibility and
> >> it
> >> actually still serves very well for what it was designed for,
> as long
> >> as
> >> your script stays <100 lines. Still, there's a lot to be desired.
> >>
> >> Factor is a cool language, it's very expressive, mature, has a
> lot of
> >> libraries and has all sorts of tricks up its sleaves to bend it to
> >> your
> >> will (much like lisp in that regard). It would be a fun
> experiment to
> >> write a library or EDSL (embedded DSL) for bash-like scripting.
> >> However
> >> there's a bone to be picked:
> >>
> >> $ time bash -c ''
> >> bash -c ''  0.00s user 0.00s system 94% cpu 0.004 total
> >>
> >> $ time factor-vm -e=''
> >> factor-vm -e=''  0.12s user 0.05s system 99% cpu 0.178 total
> >>
> >> I know one can create a custom image and maybe cut down on the
> startup
> >> a
> >> bit, but my question is - would it be possible to cut it down to
> >> bash's
> >> startup time *and* still have all the necessary vocabularies in
> it? I
> >> don't want to know the startup time with a small image that has
> like
> >> nothing in it, I can quickly test that myself. I'd need help to
> answer
> >> -
> >> if you imagine the use case I'm talking about, include all the
> vocabs
> >> that use case would need and make all other possible
> optimizations (if
> >> there are) without sacrificing too much, can the startup reach
> similar
> >> times?
> >>
> >> --
> >> 
> >>   Peter Nagy
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> 
> --
> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >> ___
> >> Factor-talk mailing list
> >> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
> 
> >
> >
> 
> --
> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > ___
> > Factor-talk mailing list
> > Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
> 
>
> Hi John,
>
> you think you can reach similar startup times? That would be really
> cool. I guess your todo list is rather long though.
>
> As a side note, are there other concatenative languages you know I
> could
> look at?
>
> --
> 
>Peter Nagy
> 
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Factor-talk mailing list
> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
> 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Check o

Re: [Factor-talk] Startup time

[Jim Mack]

You could also set up factor as a local web server, and send bash requests
to it through a web page, and it would be able to accomplish them locally
(or remotely) and report you the results.  It would be a quick round-trip
cycle with great feedback and the ability to bookmark commands.

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:39 PM,  wrote:

> On 2017-01-29 16:20, John Benediktsson wrote:
> > It would be nice to improve startup time. I imagine some low hanging
> > fruits if we looked deeply into it. I'll make a note to get that on my
> > list, unless someone looks into it sooner.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 28, 2017, at 2:25 PM, pet...@riseup.net wrote:
> >>
> >> I spend a lot of time writing small scripts, often in bash. That is
> >> becoming a more and more painful task as bash is a nice-enough
> >> language
> >> on the first look but in the end it seems to go out of it's way to
> >> trip
> >> you up with every character you type. I don't mean to rant, I know
> >> it's
> >> an old language that has to keep a lot of backward compatibility and
> >> it
> >> actually still serves very well for what it was designed for, as long
> >> as
> >> your script stays <100 lines. Still, there's a lot to be desired.
> >>
> >> Factor is a cool language, it's very expressive, mature, has a lot of
> >> libraries and has all sorts of tricks up its sleaves to bend it to
> >> your
> >> will (much like lisp in that regard). It would be a fun experiment to
> >> write a library or EDSL (embedded DSL) for bash-like scripting.
> >> However
> >> there's a bone to be picked:
> >>
> >> $ time bash -c ''
> >> bash -c ''  0.00s user 0.00s system 94% cpu 0.004 total
> >>
> >> $ time factor-vm -e=''
> >> factor-vm -e=''  0.12s user 0.05s system 99% cpu 0.178 total
> >>
> >> I know one can create a custom image and maybe cut down on the startup
> >> a
> >> bit, but my question is - would it be possible to cut it down to
> >> bash's
> >> startup time *and* still have all the necessary vocabularies in it? I
> >> don't want to know the startup time with a small image that has like
> >> nothing in it, I can quickly test that myself. I'd need help to answer
> >> -
> >> if you imagine the use case I'm talking about, include all the vocabs
> >> that use case would need and make all other possible optimizations (if
> >> there are) without sacrificing too much, can the startup reach similar
> >> times?
> >>
> >> --
> >> 
> >>   Peter Nagy
> >> 
> >>
> >> 
> --
> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >> ___
> >> Factor-talk mailing list
> >> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
> >
> > 
> --
> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > ___
> > Factor-talk mailing list
> > Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>
> Hi John,
>
> you think you can reach similar startup times? That would be really
> cool. I guess your todo list is rather long though.
>
> As a side note, are there other concatenative languages you know I could
> look at?
>
> --
> 
>Peter Nagy
> 
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Factor-talk mailing list
> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk

Re: [Factor-talk] maybe{

[Timothy Hobbs]

> Maybe (hahah) because it is part of the class algebra system and it is
> a complicated part of Factor. So no one has spent the time to
> understand it fully and write documentation for it.
You write as though GOD has left us with a book of Runes and no knows 
what they mean or do, and it is up to theologians to work out their 
meanings.

--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk