Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rod Pemberton Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Stack Sizes Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:15:42 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 23 Message-ID: <20161004161542.7506380b@_> References: <480aaff9-bb16-43df-bbe7-5b32f6e39f3f@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:51616 On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 15:53:19 -0400 Walter Banks wrote: > On 2016-10-04 2:44 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > After you have gotten a toe-hold on the market, you most likely will > > redesign your board to use a less-expensive chip --- when you do > > this, you will likely rewrite in assembly language because a lot of > > those small chips (the PIC18, 80c320, etc.) don't really support > > high-level languages very well. > > I doubt very much that you can implement any application in asm for > any compiler we have written that I cannot code the same application > in the high level language in equal or smaller code and timing. > Not to start a flame war, but this is not a conclusion that assembly and Forth programmers generally accept. They are generally of the belief that they can outdo any compiler. They don't grasp how powerful the optimization is on modern C compilers. Rod Pemberton