Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: minforth Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: multitasking vs multiple interpreters Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 13:55:12 +0200 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <871pq0uppw.fsf@nightsong.com> <2025Jul29.094901@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <107d890$2nleq$1@dont-email.me> <2025Aug11.194958@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net aIDGPcUujbSCjiAGiC/QHQWfeT6r7WhyTjHj8Rm5qr11gYdYWQ Cancel-Lock: sha1:ei0rSl1V9xhkZ1ojdwLT1FyhKmg= sha256:wIBv1WrjdGbWXqebLS1fHeY13iva7JrpP2XxnGCXd9k= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:134122 Le 12.08.2025 à 13:14 albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl écrit: > I don't think it makes sense to talk about COT in general, because > the most important use case has disappeared, and there are no > canonical examples any more. Because it makes no sense to put the cart before the horse and ask: what does Forth need? MT and RT requirements are primarily determined by the hardware and the response time requirements. Just as an example: for a time-slicing system with fixed cycles in a PLC, the software requirements are different than for a desktop Forth running on Linux. Standardization makes little sense here. And there are also hybrids: interrupts for Task0 (scheduler) that controls cooperative subtasks 1..N, but can also interrupt them preemptively eg. on detected cycle overload.