Re: Stack vs stackless operation

One example could be matrix multiplication.
It's rather trivial but cumbersome operation,
where usually a few transitional variables are
used to maintain clarity of the code.

>
Earlier you wrote about performance, now you switch to clarity of the
code.  What is the goal?

Both — one isn't contrary to another.

If we stick with performance, the fastest version in
[..]
Forth was designed for small machines and very simple implementations.
We have words like "1+" that are beneficial in that setting.  We also
have "+!", which is the closest to what you have in mind.  But even in
those times nobody went for a word like "+> ( addr1 addr2 addr3 -- )",
because it is not useful often enough.

What I have in mind is: by performing OOS operation
we don't have to employ the whole "Forth machine" to
do the usual things (I mean, of course, the usual
steps described by Brad Rodriguez in his "Moving
Forth" paper).
It comes with a cost: usual Forth words, that use
the stack, are versatile, while such OOS words
aren't that versatile anymore — yet (at least in
the case of ITC non-optimizing Forths) they should
be faster. I'll create a few of them and I'll compare
the processing time, then I'll publish the results.
Clarity of the code comes as a "bonus" :) yes, we've
got VALUEs and I use them when needed, but their use
still means employing the "Forth machine".
--