From: minforth@gmx.net   
      
   Am 02.07.2025 um 05:00 schrieb minforth:   
   > Am 01.07.2025 um 21:56 schrieb Paul Rubin:   
   >> minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:   
   >>> Nobody seems to care about that time. Instead, the focus seems to be   
   >>> primarily on code runtime, even though the difference is only   
   >>> microseconds or less.   
   >>   
   >> I think in the Moore era, you got two speedups: 1) interpreted Forth was   
   >> 10x faster than its main competitor, interpreted BASIC; and 2) if your   
   >> Forth program was still too slow, you'd identify a few hot spots and   
   >> rewrite those in assembler.   
   >>   
   >> Today instead of BASIC we have Python, and interpreted Forth is still a   
   >> lot faster than Python.  That speed is sufficient for most things, like   
   >> it always was, but even more so on modern hardware.   
   >   
   > Today, you could go insane if you had to write assembler code   
   > with SSE1/2/3/4/AVX/AES etc. extended CPU commands (or take GPU   
   > programming...)   
   >   
   > Even chip manufacturers provide C libraries with built-ins and   
   > intrinsics to handle this complexity, and optimising C compilers   
   > for selecting the best operations.   
   >   
   > IMO assembler programming in Forth is mostly for retro enthusiasts   
   >   
      
   P.S. I forgot to mention that this is not true for MCUs and embedded   
   systems.   
      
   I have the utmost respect for Matthias Koch's Mecrisp Stellaris.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)