Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth Implementations advantages and disadvantages.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 11:36:20 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <87fufqp2or.fsf@nightsong.com>
References: <oga0m5$56d$1@dont-email.me> <X-idnVs5bsfNhrTEnZ2dnUU7-c2dnZ2d@supernews.com> <ogc2a1$uv7$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0bdb8645443525c7ece6b2e35708a86c"; logging-data="13979"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TaeEYnv+XjPSGV//Ji6Jj"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3+AMhkRJB8hgts45pKIbXPvwUgE= sha1:F7iqSeUHZ/8Yt8dFbOzNC6CCUmI=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:59939

Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
> A token Forth would be very small since most Forth words would take
> one byte. Keep the number of words down to the necessities will help
> keep it small.

But then you need the VM that can understand what to do about the byte
codes, and there's its overhead, etc.