Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated?

From	"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Does ?DO force DO to become bloated?
Date	2012-04-05 09:33 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<jlk705$26f$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <3bf86935-a9f5-4ae2-a9c6-f1d7136d969b@k4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <jlehp2$smu$1@speranza.aioe.org> <55udnad-9MI23ubSnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews.com> <jlh412$frs$1@speranza.aioe.org> <LI6dnfCxLNT4FeHSnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message
news:LI6dnfCxLNT4FeHSnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On 4/3/12 11:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

> > 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?
>

Once the counts are corrected, the results should still be the same.

There are actually 3 in mine: 1 in ?DO for IF and 2 for an ELSE and
UNTIL in LOOP and +LOOP.  The UNTIL in LOOP or +LOOP matches
a BEGIN in ?DO for the loop body.  The IF is for the conditional in ?DO.
The ELSE is required for stack cleanup.  Your IF-THEN in LOOP and
+LOOP adds one more branch for each.

> 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.

Ok.

> > I'm sure you have your own list of Forth problem areas.
>
> 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.
>

Is definition size the only issue with Forth in your opinion?


Rod Pemberton

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