From: no.email@nospam.invalid   
      
   dxf  writes:   
   > I think we're retreading old ground.  Orders of 30% reduction in code   
   > size were in respect of optimizing compilers (VFX).   
      
   That 30% difference was because VFX doesn't attempt to optimize locals.   
   If two pieces of code are obviously equivalent (the locals and no-locals   
   version of EMITS) then a fancier optimizing compiler is likely to   
   generate the same code for both.   
      
   What I was getting at though is that VFX even using locals will still   
   beat the pants off any interpreter, even without locals.  So if you have   
   interpreted Forth code using locals and want it to be faster, you get   
   far more gain compiling it with VFX than you would get by undoing the   
   locals.  If you're already using VFX then yes, you can squeeze out a bit   
   more performance by not using locals, but that just tells me that the   
   VFX optimizer is still a work in progress (which is fine).   
      
   > I can assure you I don't find using stack operators a burden.  Indeed   
   > I find them reassuring as it puts me in control.   
      
   It's hard for me to understand that.  If you're using VFX, the stack   
   operations are transformed by compiler gyrations to register ops so   
   SWAP, ROT, etc. generate no code at all, but this is completely out of   
   sight and you have no control over it.  Locals on the other hand (in an   
   interpreter) are equivalent to RPICK at specific offsets in obvious   
   ways, so there is no loss of control.  That also happens with locals in   
   VFX but it's only because VFX (for now) hasn't pursued optimizing them.   
      
   That example using FVALUE just seems to be a loss: the storage cells are   
   constantly tied up even when not active.  If that function can be used   
   in a multitasking environment, you might even need a separate copy for   
   each task.  Significant efficiency loss.   
      
   > Forth is a niche language.  If there's success to be had, it will be   
   > on its own merits and not ideas imported from other languages.   
      
   That seems to support looking at any particular feature on its merits.   
   Adding to that a dislike of standardization, it would seem to be up to   
   the programmer, with most choices being legitmate for any particular   
   programmer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)