Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated?

Date	2012-04-04 07:44 -1000
From	"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com>
Organization	FORTH, Inc.
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated?
References	(3 earlier) <jl6bti$n7n$1@speranza.aioe.org> <3bf86935-a9f5-4ae2-a9c6-f1d7136d969b@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <jlehp2$smu$1@speranza.aioe.org> <55udnad-9MI23ubSnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com> <jlh412$frs$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Message-ID	<LI6dnfCxLNT4FeHSnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/3/12 11:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather"<erather@forth.com>  wrote in message
> news:55udnad-9MI23ubSnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On 4/3/12 12:01 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>
>>> Well, despite simplicity, I decided to not use Ms. Rather's suggestion.
>>> You're correct that a "dummy" jump is not needed, nor wanted by me as a
>>> matter of fact ...  However, Ms. Rather's suggestion adds two branches
>>> for LOOP and +LOOP
>>
>> What?  LOOP and +LOOP only have one branch, back to the location
>> immediately following DO.
>
> Correct.  One branch each.  LOOP has one branch.  +LOOP has one branch.
> That's two.
>
> word (branches)
>
> You: DO (0)  ?DO (1)  LOOP (1)  +LOOP (1)
> Me: DO (1)  ?DO (1)  LOOP (0)  +LOOP (0)

Wait, when your code gets to LOOP or +LOOP how does it get back to the 
instruction following the DO assuming the test fails if there isn't a 
branch there?

...
>> "Convoluted messes" are never a good idea, and not necessary in Forth.
>>
>
> I agree that's counter to the ideology.  But, if such situations are not
> necessary, then I think Forth would be somewhat different:
>
> a) CREATE .. DOES>  would never have been introduced
> b) ?DO would be removed since DO is so much simpler without it
> c) LEAVE would never have been introduced
> d) LEAVE would be removed, if introduced
> e) POSTPONE wouldn't exist
> f) ' would still be state aware
> g) interpreted Forth wouldn't have ever had any control flow words
> since the saved return address of high-level words interfere with them
>
> etc...

Not sure I understand your point. None of those involve what I'd 
consider a "convoluted mess". Forth is largely constructed of simple 
definitions, typically 1-3 lines long, with few exceptions.

> I'm sure you have your own list of Forth problem areas.  I'm sure you have a
> list of complicated or long definition words.  I'm sure there are words you
> avoid and others you embrace.  I'm sure there are programming techniques and
> coding situations you avoid too.  C'mon post them!

Windows system calls are pretty messy, but that's not Forth's problem. 
I'll try to look up the longest definition in a SwiftX kernel and get 
back to you on that.

> I have a list of many issues for C, yet it's still a great language.

Cheers,
Elizabeth


-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

Thread

Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-30 18:40 -0400
  Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 13:24 -1000
    Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 20:56 +0200
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-04-01 06:06 -0400
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-01 07:57 -1000
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-02 19:14 +0200
          Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-03 06:02 -0400
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 12:32 -0700
  Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-30 23:46 +0000
    Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 20:58 -1000
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-31 03:31 -0400
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-31 08:25 -1000
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 12:02 -0700
          Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-03 06:01 -0400
            Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-03 08:38 -1000
              Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-04 05:24 -0400
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-04 07:44 -1000
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-05 11:51 +0000
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-04-05 21:10 +0200
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-05 09:33 -0400
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-05 08:12 -1000
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-04 07:23 -0700
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-05 09:50 -0400
                Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-05 12:26 -0700
    Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-31 03:29 -0400
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-31 09:58 +0000
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? segher <segher@kernel.crashing.org> - 2012-03-31 04:21 -0700
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 07:19 -0700
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-31 15:29 +0200
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-31 20:28 -0400
        Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 19:48 -0700
      Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-31 07:43 -0700

csiph-web