Re: Managing custom words [Re: "Back & Forth" is back!]

On 03-12-2024 13:10, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <nnd$549643c7$6fbb6e4e@1b875ad64c871ecb>,
Hans Bezemer  <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:

On 25-11-2024 11:00, mhx wrote:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 5:24:37 +0000, dxf wrote:
>

On 23/11/2024 2:46 am, Buzz McCool wrote:

On 11/19/2024 9:48 AM, Buzz McCool wrote:

[..]

Is this still widely used? I ask since all the commits are over a
decade old.
...

>
AFAIK it was never widely used.  When the question as to why arose
on c.l.f, everyone had an excuse as to why it didn't suit them.

[..]
>
I use(d) the XML tools of the Forth Foundation Library two years
back. They were a delight to work with.
>
Normally, I don't use other people's code when I'm deeply
interested in the subject matter but in this case my daytime
job required it. I just wanted to get results, but still with
the option to completely understand the nuts and bolts.
>
-marcel

>
I've ported a couple of members from the FFL, but they're HUGE!
Over 600 lines for an XML library. For comparison: my 4tH preprocessor
is a 100 lines LESS!
>
I'm sure they're quite powerful, but often I just need some tools that
take the edge off. I'm capable enough to handle whatever comes myself.
>
So:
https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/4th.src/lib/parsexml.4th
>
E.g. I used it in my "Kjots to Gnote" converter.. and at work at several
occasions.

 My observation with arg.fs were the same. 500 lines versus 2 screens.
 ciforth is sufficiently mainstream that I can port ffl to ciforth,
however it is a bit troublesome that it means to turn ciforth in
a fat forth loading virtually most of its library code.
 I guess that is the price to pay to be in the company of swiftforth,
mpeforth and gforth.
 

>
Hans Bezemer

My feeling exactly.
IMHO I have a finely knit collection of about 550 libraries. Only twelve are above 10K source. Four of those are original 4tH programs, three are ported Toolbelt programs, two from the FFL and the remaining three are from various other sources, like FSL.
And those who think I chose that cut-off point strategically, 515 are BELOW 5K.
The idea is that you can pick exactly those functionalities you need, so you can keep its size DOWN.
Also, the compiler will resolve most dependencies automatically without pulling in masses of code - and hence creating "fat" executables.
If you have a compiler that doesn't produce turnkey executables, that may be of lesser importance, but that's another kind of discussion/flamewar.
Hans Bezemer