From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 19/09/2024 6:10 am, Paul Rubin wrote:   
   > 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's the evidence?  My observation is compilers do not generate native   
   code independently of the language.  Parameter passing strategies differ   
   between C and Forth and this necessarily affects the code compilers lay   
   down.   
      
   > ...   
   >> 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.   
      
   For me it comes down why have I chosen to use Forth.  The philosophy of   
   it appeals to me in a way other languages don't.  There's the question   
   which forth - because forth has essentially split down two paths with   
   rather incompatible motivations.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)