Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rod Pemberton Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: High level language for writing Forth Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:52:54 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 30 Message-ID: <20170422225254.46d11f01@_> References: <87efwneria.fsf@nightsong.com> <8760hzelwb.fsf@nightsong.com> <9a6d01ae-10a1-4f66-9326-696adfb029b8@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ZTD62cW/Uw8bymX5ok+0NA.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-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:57878 On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:53:31 -0700 (PDT) hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > Also, a Forth VM written in any high-level language is going to be > significantly slower than generating machine-code with an STC Forth Just how did you manage to come to that conclusion? > --- so the difference between C and Go in speed doesn't matter --- so > long as you don't think that Perl (John Passaniti) or Python (Juergen > Pintaske) is a good language to write a Forth VM in, you should get > reasonable speed. I'm surprised you didn't directly mention me here, "or C (Rod Pemberton)". I'm not sure whether to thank you or not. > C has a lot of problems of its own --- Anton Ertl complains about > this continually --- I wouldn't use C. That's still not sufficient cause someone to not use C. C and Forth are the most ubiquitous languages (i.e., widely available). So, you need to use one of them for portability. Otherwise, you're stuck with porting the assembly to each and every new platform. Rod Pemberton -- All it takes for humanity to conquer the world's toughest problems is to hope, to believe, to share, and to do, in cooperation.