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: esp8266 eForth and it's development software
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 01:36:47 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <87zih0cbf4.fsf@nightsong.com>
References: <o97do7$ru1$1@dont-email.me> <o9fu9c$4c4$1@dont-email.me> <878toke53e.fsf@nightsong.com> <o9g696$ne9$1@dont-email.me> <874lz8e1ls.fsf@nightsong.com> <o9gc5e$4e1$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bfe79aad8260a200788ae8f872ad9256"; logging-data="31399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HLxwU1VXxxmbl3eEd6EJw"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s2qtA4V4y/LQNuE9Mbyjo4A5lWs= sha1:vrU84PkBonBye2vE6sun+Y4VjRk=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:55424

Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
> Nothing specific at the moment but efficient doesn't hurt

Fair enough, but it would be interesting to compare against micropython
or Duktape (micro javascript) or Lua (NodeMCU) or other HLL's that have
gotten popular on the 8266.  Forth was traditionally implemented as ITC
with some code words at the bottom, so it took maybe a 10x speed hit
compared to assembler, making it far superior to alternatives like
BASIC.  Do you think what you're using now is worse than a traditional
ITC?

In short I wouldn't worry about the interpreter speed until you hit a
problem where it's a practical obstacle.

Also aren't there lots of small portable Forth-in-C implementations like
pForth?  Or the 8266 might even be able to run Gforth-embedded.  The
ESP32 is even more likely to be able to.