Re: Avoid treating the stack as an array [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]

On 19/09/2024 6:10 am, Paul Rubin wrote:

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

I think we're retreading old ground.  Orders of 30% reduction in code
size were in respect of optimizing compilers (VFX).

 
That 30% difference was because VFX doesn't attempt to optimize locals.
If two pieces of code are obviously equivalent (the locals and no-locals
version of EMITS) then a fancier optimizing compiler is likely to
generate the same code for both.

What's the evidence?  My observation is compilers do not generate native
code independently of the language.  Parameter passing strategies differ
between C and Forth and this necessarily affects the code compilers lay
down.

...

Forth is a niche language.  If there's success to be had, it will be
on its own merits and not ideas imported from other languages.

 
That seems to support looking at any particular feature on its merits.
Adding to that a dislike of standardization, it would seem to be up to
the programmer, with most choices being legitmate for any particular
programmer.

For me it comes down why have I chosen to use Forth.  The philosophy of
it appeals to me in a way other languages don't.  There's the question
which forth - because forth has essentially split down two paths with
rather incompatible motivations.