Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Stoked Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:41:08 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:42934 On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:18:07 -0400, Chris Curl wrote: > It is not very fast though ... > > : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; > > 10000000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations > As you noted, that's 100M. I get 7 seconds for my interpreted Forth for 100M. That uses C's ctime() which reports with only one second of accuracy. It's a mix of C and Forth. It's mostly Forth now with just the primitives in C. It's an actual ITC Forth in C, not usual C style switch() based Forth. There is no optimization of any kind, except maybe the way some words were coded. It's run on 32-bit MS-DOS with only one core of a dual core 3.2Ghz AMD Phenom II X2 555. I haven't tested my Forth on 64-bit Linux yet. From past tests, I'm sure that at least one of the three Forth I have installed for Windows 98/SE is much faster on loops. I have gForth-ITC, bigForth, and Win32Forth. IIRC, Win32Forth is the one which is hyper-fast on loops, but is up to 50% slower on other Forth code. IIRC, gForth-ITC is about twice as slow as mine, in general. Rod Pemberton -- When El Chapo is the most beloved man in Mexico and Trump is the most hated, it shows that Mexico is truly fouled up.