From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 29/09/2024 6:49 am, Paul Rubin wrote:   
   > dxf  writes:   
   >>> That 30% difference was because VFX doesn't attempt to optimize locals.   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > 1) comparisons between VFX and other compilers like iForth, 2) the   
   > observation that there is any difference at all between the generated   
   > code for the two versions of EMITS under VFX.   
   >   
   > This isn't a question of C vs Forth.   
      
   Perhaps I misunderstood.  So we agree Forth locals are unlikely to ever   
   match C locals for performance?   
      
   > It's two equivalent pieces of   
   > Forth code being compiled by the same optimizing Forth compiler, one   
   > version resulting in worse code instead of identical code.   
      
   I don't know whether it's possible to make forth code using locals as   
   efficient as forth code using stack operations.  What I do question is   
   the necessity for it and the wisdom of it.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I gather that one path is industrial users who want there to be a   
   > standard with well-supported commercial implementations, and who want to   
   > run development projects with large teams of programmers (the Saudi   
   > airport being the classic example).   
      
   According to Elizabeth polyFORTH was used for that project.  When c.l.f.   
   was aflame with 200x standards discussions, I recall asking how it was   
   no commercial programmers seemed to be participating.  She replied words   
   to the effect they were busy programming.  Certainly Forth Inc's early   
   successes didn't rely on the existence of a standard.   
      
   > I guess the other path is something like solo practitioners who don't   
   > really care about standardization, perhaps because they just want the   
   > most direct way to an end result.  Philosophical appeal is another such   
   > motivation.  That's fine too, but partly a matter of personal taste.   
      
   FWIW here's Jeff Fox' take on the topic:   
      
   https://www.ultratechnology.com/antiansi.htm   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)