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

On 29/09/2024 6:49 am, Paul Rubin wrote:

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

That 30% difference was because VFX doesn't attempt to optimize locals.

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.

 
1) comparisons between VFX and other compilers like iForth, 2) the
observation that there is any difference at all between the generated
code for the two versions of EMITS under VFX.
 
This isn't a question of C vs Forth. 

Perhaps I misunderstood.  So we agree Forth locals are unlikely to ever
match C locals for performance?

It's two equivalent pieces of
Forth code being compiled by the same optimizing Forth compiler, one
version resulting in worse code instead of identical code.

I don't know whether it's possible to make forth code using locals as
efficient as forth code using stack operations.  What I do question is
the necessity for it and the wisdom of it.

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.

 
I gather that one path is industrial users who want there to be a
standard with well-supported commercial implementations, and who want to
run development projects with large teams of programmers (the Saudi
airport being the classic example).

According to Elizabeth polyFORTH was used for that project.  When c.l.f.
was aflame with 200x standards discussions, I recall asking how it was
no commercial programmers seemed to be participating.  She replied words
to the effect they were busy programming.  Certainly Forth Inc's early
successes didn't rely on the existence of a standard.

I guess the other path is something like solo practitioners who don't
really care about standardization, perhaps because they just want the
most direct way to an end result.  Philosophical appeal is another such
motivation.  That's fine too, but partly a matter of personal taste.

FWIW here's Jeff Fox' take on the topic:

https://www.ultratechnology.com/antiansi.htm