Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #4509

Re: Interesting article

Show all headers | View raw

Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes Re: Interesting article
[..]
> Nobody ever said it was bloated, so I did some soul-searching.
[..]
> Indeed, it is discouraging to see how this went up by 75%, but
> those 144 extra words get you:
> 1. file access, notably INCLUDED
> 2. exposed internals of headers
> 3. exposed factoring of interpreting/compiling
> 4. catch/throw based error mechanism
> 5. comprehensive operating system access.
> 6. ministring package
> 7. all CORE words

> In combination with a library mechanism this appears to be sufficient
> for some non-trivial programming, like ciasdis.
> I find it hard to imagine cutting fat, 
[..]

AFAIK your library mechanism is build on BLOCK, so obviously
1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and a large part of 7 could be a loadable option/extension.

The problem is ill-defined. What application of ciforth is hampered by
the fact that it is so large? What applications of ciforth are hampered by the
fact that users have to write basic stuff before they can get on with
currently popular programming problems?

There is something to be said for a system that easily fits in one's head,
but why is it better to memorize the (tremendously powerful) ABC but not 
TAOCP?

With current hardware (*), compiling iForth from scratch for a specific processor 
and OS takes about 400 ms. (4 of 5 passes are for optimizing size and could 
be disabled):

( from sym.tab )
  *** SYMBOL TABLE ***
  92043 lines processed.
  META time: 2.121 seconds.
  Generated: 00:27:26, June 27, 2011

It would therefore not really be unpractical to have a word-by-word customized Forth 
for any conceivable problem. (Or a Forth that simply recompiles and optimizes 
itself after each <CR> pressed by the user :-)

-marcel

BTW: On the same hardware, the C-based NGSPICE project I'm currently working on 
takes 45 minutes to recompile.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Interesting article Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 13:32 +0100
  Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-28 13:06 +0000
    Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-07-29 14:49 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-29 19:32 -0500
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:27 -0700
      Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-30 11:41 +0000
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:38 -0700
        Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 17:47 -0700
          Re: Interesting article Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2011-08-03 07:26 +0200
            Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-11 16:19 -0700
              Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-11 22:57 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-12 16:40 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:59 -0400
                Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 13:13 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-15 03:27 -0500
                Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-16 17:49 +0000
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-17 02:47 -0500
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-14 08:28 -1000
                Re: Interesting article Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 20:41 +0200
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:01 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-08-14 14:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-08-14 21:05 -0500
                Re: Interesting article BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-08-14 22:23 -0700
              Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 12:29 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 10:42 -1000
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 13:50 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-14 03:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 02:12 -0700
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 14:31 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:58 -0400
    Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 19:18 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 04:13 -0500
      Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 10:07 +0000
        Re: Interesting article mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-07-31 11:31 +0200
          Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 22:24 +0000
  Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-28 10:02 -0500

csiph-web