I moved

By the way, I moved my blog - good-bye tumblr, hello octopress! You can find me on http://sleepomeno.github.io now!

1 The FORTH challenge

What is Forth? - Forth is a pretty old programming language! As we all know, programming languages just get better directly proportional to wine. That’s why I recently started to learn Forth. However, the so-far learning experience had no taste of my favorite wine in it, it rather made me whine and cry. That’s to some extent due to Forth’s basic strangeness as it’s a stack-based, concatenative language but the lack of detailed explanations in my learning resources have played quite a role, too. Just recently I have discovered Starting Forth which is a nice online Forth introduction. It helped me a lot to understand Forth’s fundamental words of POSTPONE, IMMEDIATE and LITERAL which are used in Forth’s “grey” area of compilation vs. interpretation semantics. Starting Forth should be your choice if you want to study Forth. Anyway, flashed with my new Forth knowledge I decided to collect my findings on those exciting words for my fellow to-be-born Forth comrades so that they may find their way to Forth illumination earlier than I did; this is my legacy for you!


You can use IMMEDIATE to change the compilation semantics of the last defined word to be equal to the interpretation semantics. In the below example that means that [FOO] already is executed upon bar's compilation.

: [FOO] ( -- )
5 . ; immediate

: bar ( -- ) [FOO] ;
see bar

1.2 : ; [ and ]

: switches into compile state and ; switches back to interpret state. They contain the factors ] (switch to compile state) and [ (switch to interpret state), that do nothing but switch the state.

: xxx ( -- ) [ 5 . ] ;

see xxx

It is worth mentioning that ; expects the data stack to be empty, usually. Otherwise an “unstructured” exception gets thrown.


POSTPONE has different effects. Either it gets called on an immediate word or on a word which isn’t immediate.

1.3.1 POSTPONE and immediate words

That’s the easy case. Called on an immediate word POSTPONE just undos the “immediate nature” of that word.

: GREET1 SAY-HELLO ." I speak Forth " ; \ upon compilation "Hello" is printed
: GREET2 POSTPONE SAY-HELLO ." I speak Forth " ; \ nothing is printed upon compilation. On execution both strings are printed.

1.3.2 POSTPONE and not so immediate words

POSTPONE finds the address of the next word in the definition (in the below case it is x) and compiles its address into the compilee (y) definition.

: x + ;
: y postpone x ; immediate
see y 
\ : y 140635553271192 compile, ; immediate ok
: z ( n1 n2 -- n3 ) y ;
8 3 z .

In the definition of y POSTPONE is called on x which is a non- immediate-word. As a result, the address of + and the word “compile,” are compiled into y. I made y immediate so that during the definition of z y gets executed immediately so that “140635553271192 compile,” is run, which compiles the addition function into z.


LITERAL is an immediate word. During the compilation of a word x its effect consists of consuming a number from the stack; when x is run LITERAL then pushes that number onto the stack.

#FUN-FACT: The runtime part of literal (its word is (LITERAL)) is often used without really knowing. In the following example bla just pushes 5 onto the stack - what gets compiled into bla behind the scenes is the “run-time code for LITERAL" (the mentioned (LITERAL)) and just then the number itself.

: bla 5 ;

Have a look at the definition of LITERAL. It compiles the address of the run-time pushing code with POSTPONE and then compiles a number with “,”. Consequently, a resulting compilee’s compiled code just pushes that number onto the stack.


1.5 Case Study - IMMEDIATE, POSTPONE and LITERAL in the wild

: x 5 ; immediate
: y x ; \ unstructured!

: y postpone x ;
: y x literal ;

For : y x ; we get an exception since the word ; finds 5 on the data stack, the stack should be empty, though. There are two ways how to solve our problem.

Using POSTPONE: With POSTPONE we can easily undo the immediate effect of x. As a result, x gets compiled into y like a “normal” word.

Using LITERAL: Knowing that x pushes a number onto the stack we take that number and compile it into y. You wanna do that? Then LITERAL is your man!

Let’s play evolution in my imaginary console world! 

Distributed Testing on OpenStack

I have recently finished a university course dealing with distributed
computing on top of the OpenStack platform. Among other tasks, I had
to create a project realizing distributed testing featuring the
OpenStack scaling facilities. Anyway, you can get the code on
https://github.com/sleepomeno/DistributedTestingOpenstack. It uses
the http://www.mozartspaces.org/ implementation as middleware. The goal is to get the tests started by mvn test executed on OpenStack.

One of the nice things about it was writing a remote classloader
transmitting the Java test classes and dependencies. I hadn’t done
that before - literally, treating Java classes like data - and it
somehow satisfied a deep desire in my programmer’s soul ;) It’s
remarkable how a feature like this seems that exciting implemented in
Java whereas it would just seem ordinary in a much older LISP
language due to homoiconity…

Today I’ve made a visit to my local bookstore, heading to the books-by-author shelves. Found a David-Foster-Wallace book I hadn’t seen so far: “Consider the Lobster” (in German: “Am Beispiel des Hummers”). It’s a report DFW wrote for a gourmet magazine about the Maine Lobster Festival. Lobsters get boiled alive, is that evil or too evil to tolerate? - It’s not surprising that this book isn’t rocket science (or whatever the literary pendant is), after all it’s just a report.

After some browsing the net, I noticed that the English edition “Consider the lobster” is a collection of diverse DFW reports whereas the German version only features that specific report. Obviously, the German reading majority is considered so desperate for some DFW material that they’d pay the 7 Euro for that single, average report.

To be honest, that book of 30 or 40 pages isn’t worth it - especially as the report is available online (http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster). So just read it like me - in the readers’ corner of the bookshelf. That’s still the best compromise between comfort and economy…

Don’t limit yourself. Many people limit themselves to what they think they can do. You can go as far as your mind lets you. What you believe, remember, you can achieve.

— Mary Kay Ash (via kari-shma)


Posted on July 21, 2013

Reblogged from: twentythree :

Notes: 1,716 notes

Comments: View comments

Privacy is not about what you are doing so much as about what you are not doing.

Stephanie Fontanel, Life Without Sex

(via stoweboyd)


Posted on July 21, 2013

Reblogged from: Stowe Boyd

Notes: 29 notes

Comments: View comments

The same story…

I’ve watched “Man of Steel” today - you know, the current Superman film. I better shouldn’t have done that.

Retelling super hero stories has been a great trend lately (just remember Batman or Spider Man), some actually quite entertaining (=> Batman), some a little bit awkward (=> Spider Man) and all of them being box office successes. Well, I guess “Man of Steel” lines up nicely in the box office respect and still introduces another category of super hero filming: the absolutely dispensable, useless warming up of old Superman material in a remarkable inept bad-style fashion!

It may be my mistake having expected something more than a mosaic of common Superman history, rearranging enemies and story line building blocks of former Superman films. I thought that they’d come up with something new. Instead they retell us the story of Krypton and how the planet fell apart for a good half an hour - at least there are some (unintendedly) funny scenes like the one in which Jor-El flees on top of a creature seemingly escaped from an Avatar filming set.

It goes without saying that the Louis Lane story line is neither creative nor romantic nor suprising; actually, the only suprising thing about the whole film is the fact that it doesn’t feature the American president giving impotent orders to attack the superior Krypton delinquents. There is no president, just some cliché general with a slight sense of humour. (Overall, there is very little humour in the whole movie. That’s a pity as comic screen adaptions generally do well taking themselves not too serious!)

It should be mentioned that Henry Cavill does moderately well playing the man of steel, though. You could even say that some other actors like Russel Crowe (Jor-El), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent) or Diane Lane (Martha Kent) make a good job, still most of these performances can’t really shine in the light of the uninspiring script. So once again the hollywood movie makers aim to provide two hours of special effects terror instead of serious acting and storytelling. Anyway, that’s probably the safest way to produce a blockbuster but a little bit sad for the fans.

Infinite Jest

Again it’s time to start reading "Infinite Jest" as I’ve never finished it so far. This summer should provide enough time to accomplish that, anyway, I should be finished on September 12th as this will be the 5-year anniversary date of the author’s, David Foster Wallace’s, suicide.

Book reading status updates and reviews coming soon…

But we live in a world where it’s 100x more socially acceptable for a stranger to tell me that I suck than for me to even just openly disagree with them. I think that’s really messed up. I don’t want to live in a world like that.

Top of Page