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

On 17/09/2024 2:26 am, Anton Ertl wrote:

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
...

I wonder whether Moore's 1999 aversion to locals had something to do
with his hardware designs of that era, where having more registers
(besides T and N) connected to the ALU would have cost silicon and
created timing bottlenecks.

 
I think he had the aversion long before he did such hardware designs.
He has been quoted as thinking that humans should do all they can to
make the computer's work easier (or something like that).  While his
sayings, like any religious text, are sufficiently fuzzy to be
interpretable in many ways, his denouncing of locals over the years
makes it clear that he thinks that humans should invest time to write
code with stack manipulation words and globals, so that the compiler
does not need to be bloated by the code for dealing with locals.

When has Moore required humans to do anything?  Did he stand up saying
'Follow me.  I'll make you a better programmer, more productive.  I'll
provide you with compilers and a Standard.'?  No.  That was others doing.
When the latter had attracted enough of a following they were self-
sufficient - didn't need Moore, other than perhaps his presence.  What
differentiates Moore and the group promoting Forth (their version of it),
is Moore has never changed his position, switched his tune, introduced
locals and mega-compilers - as the latter do today in an attempt to
maintain the interest, maintain a following.  Of what use are leaders
without followers.

"Let me use a tool which I appreciate and if everyone can't use this
 tool well, sorry, but that is not my goal." - C.M.