From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 30-06-2025 22:43, Paul Rubin wrote:   
   > dxf  writes:   
   >>> The stack ops THEMSELVES may be, in a way, "canonical" — but not   
   >>> solving "each and every" programming task using them   
   >>> "no-matter-what", IMHO.   
   >>   
   >> But such would indicate a deficiency in Forth.  Do C programmers reach a   
   >> point at which they can't go forward?   
   >   
   > Assembly language programmers reach a point where they run out of   
   > machine registers and have to do clumsy things to swap stuff between   
   > registers and memory.  C compilers automate that process.  Every C   
   > compiler with register allocation has to deal with register spilling.   
   > The programmer doesn't have to deal with it, but it's similar clumsy   
   > assembly code coming out of the compiler.   
   >   
   > In Forth without using locals, "register allocation" (deciding what is   
   > in each stack slot) is manual and there are fewer "registers" to begin   
   > with (basically TOS, NOS, TOR, and the 3rd stack element that you can   
   > reach with ROT).  Modern CPUs by comparison generally have 16 or more   
   > addressible registers.  The PDP-11 and 8086 had 8 registers and   
   > programmers found that to be painful.   
      
   Another great argument to leave Forth and embrace C! Why painfully   
   create kludge to cram into a language that was clearly not created for   
   that when you have a language available that was actually DESIGNED with   
   those requirements in mind?!   
      
   Is this something that is trendy in Cosmopolitan or something? Whatever!   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)