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

On 14/09/2024 4:07 am, Anton Ertl wrote:

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

Claims made in respect of locals in forth - ease of use, better performance
through less 'stack juggling', better readability/maintainability - were all
made in the 1980's.

 
Where can I find claims about better performance?  All I have read is
claims about worse performance. 

'Eliminate stack juggling' sounds like an argument for better performance.
It's a catch cry that's become synonymous with locals.  Identify something
wrong with forth and introduce a solution is the gameplay.

What has changed?  Forthers today are more willing to
believe, to accept the word of authority

 
Is that why you cite Chuck Moore on locals rather than arguing from
facts?

The facts AFAICT is locals are an appeal to prejudice.  If locals were a bona-
fide extension it ought to be crystal clear when to apply them and when not.
Vague statements about readability and maintainability don't cut it.  The fact
is locals challenge and contradict forth - why I'm vitally interested in getting
at the truth of it.  The best way I knew of doing that is see whether I needed
locals in practice.  When the result is good forth coding can stand on its own,
why shouldn't I quote Moore.