Re: Algorithm design: computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!)

From	"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Algorithm design: computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!)
Date	2013-04-08 23:51 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<kk0332$fc4$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<b70a9248-3dd3-4f6a-ac04-52300b7a7ac0@googlegroups.com> <920a596a-9d56-43cc-ac6d-6f1758058710@googlegroups.com> <98eb98de-b24c-47bd-9480-37f6bde941d8@googlegroups.com> <kjn8dn$bl6$1@dont-email.me> <p6udnXMLoZ8mwcLMnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@supernews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message
news:p6udnXMLoZ8mwcLMnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@supernews.com...

> The instruction set of the RTX had numerous instructions
> that were lower level than Forth primitives, because they
> could be easily reused. In other words, the "primitives"
> themselves were factored.
>

Even though it's only for a temporary code transformation, I've
done much the same thing.  However, when I previously mentioned
that I had implemented many low-level Forth words in Forth, I
seemed to to get a very negative response here.  Unbelievably at
the time, that was with the stated context of it being a
*temporary* code transformation!  Of course, I don't currently see
anyone here criticizing the RTX for doing the same thing long
before me...

After I did this, I found one advantage.  For the longest time in
my Forth, I had no ability to ' (tick) "primitives".  Implementing
"primitives" in terms of lower level words allowed me to ' (tick)
them, until I finally fixed the issue.


Rod Pemberton

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

Thread

Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 15:27 -0400
  Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) AKE <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2013-04-05 15:02 -0700
    Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-04-08 23:52 -0400
  Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-04-05 13:22 -1000
    Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-04-06 12:34 -1000
      Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) AKE <assadebrahim2000@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 02:39 -0700
        Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-04-07 09:11 -1000
        Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-04-08 23:48 -0400
    Re: Algorithm design:  computational cost of ordinary stack operations (dup, rot, over, swap, etc.) vs. cost of fetch (@) and store (!) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-04-08 23:51 -0400

csiph-web