Re: docker, what could be the advantage?

From	mhx@iae.nl (mhx)
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: docker, what could be the advantage?
Date	2025-06-18 17:00 +0000
Organization	novaBBS
Message-ID	<a62335ceeae01e6bd187ca3701c7589a@www.novabbs.com> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <226b70d0a669bf19685be279cfe18835@www.novabbs.com> <5752fed4af5334e8399df6dc61006e1f@www.novabbs.com> <nnd$02513b3c$7f342c1a@629a96533c7c2e9d> <74ab0e538cdd302b99c407778d1408d8@www.novabbs.com> <606665525b3af3bc371b126b42b8149a@www.novabbs.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:48:37 +0000, LIT wrote:

> I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
> rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
> of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
> If the code can be made more efficient by any
> non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
> and the user of some other Forth system if free
> to modify the code on his own.

Actually, your view is quite non-standard. I don't know
any Forth users that complain that their system is
inefficient, even if it is token-threaded Fig-Forth on
a ZX80 with cassette-tape. (But then I also do not know
many (>3) Forth users that demand compatibility.)

When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
remember being mighty impressed by that.
However, after some spying around in the sources for
a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
forest for the trees.

My current opinion is that these authors are/were
neither interested in efficiency nor in compatibility.

-marcel

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

Thread

docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-16 14:19 +0200
  Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-16 16:18 +0000
    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2025-06-16 16:59 +0000
      Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-16 19:27 +0200
        Re: docker, what could be the advantage? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-06-16 17:40 +0000
          Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-18 19:55 +0200
        Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-16 18:00 +0000
          Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-16 20:48 +0000
            Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-18 17:00 +0000
              Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-18 19:28 +0000
                Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-18 21:04 +0000
                Re: docker, what could be the advantage? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-19 12:41 +1000
              Re: docker, what could be the advantage? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-19 12:36 +1000
                Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-19 07:19 +0000
                Re: docker, what could be the advantage? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-20 02:02 +1000
  Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-18 13:25 +0200
  Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-20 10:46 +0000
    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2025-06-20 12:05 +0000
    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-20 14:45 +0200
      Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-20 13:09 +0000
        Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-20 20:53 +0200
          Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-20 19:21 +0000

csiph-web