Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: multitasking vs multiple interpreters
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2025 14:37:39 +0000
Organization: Dbus-free station.
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <04hvMHZPzRBoG_BT@violet.siamics.net>
References: <871pq0uppw.fsf@nightsong.com> <nnd$36fa8656$3dede2e2@f9f97ec4bf262c4d> <87wm7ru0y4.fsf@nightsong.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2025 14:45:43 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15bf7b51ab4aff6c092646051edf7fe5"; logging-data="1436841"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/D9EKaVoDcz2DfAfpespuI"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k9spA+/dUAx9TwHgwNh5gMSU72M=
License: CC0-1.0 (original contributions only)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:134112

>>>>> On 2025-07-29, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>>> albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

 >> The other situation is that you take advantage of multiple cores
 >> to speed up the calculation.  There you use the fork system call.

 > The idea here is to multitask on an MCU with around 2kB of memory,
 > so no OS.

	That depends on the OS definition in use.  Contiki (say, [1])
	positioned itself as an OS, and it /did/ run on AVR MCUs.
	(Though I only have experience with it on STM32F4 myself.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki

 > Just a few tasks to monitor a pushbutton, control a LED, and some
 > similar things.

	My /guess/ is that time-slicing multiple interpreters will
	result in higher "save state / restore state" overhead overall.

	In any case, Contiki's cooperative multitasking / scheduling
	might be worth taking a look at.

	HTH.