From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 20/02/2026 12:38 am, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > ...   
   > Willem Ouwerkerk c.s. developed many Forths for small SBC (8051, etc.)   
   > This was done with a so called metacompiler. Once you get used to   
   > this tool, it is comparitively easy to port to new microprocessors.   
   > In this development path, the first thing you do is to write a   
   > Forth assembler for the new processor, then insert the uP-dependant   
   > stuff into the metacompiler tool.   
   > In this way the meta sources determine what is present, possibly   
   > a bit idiosyncratic.   
   >   
   > I consider my assembler sources more valuable than an open source   
   > metacompiler system, so I choose that route.   
      
   Not only was native assembler easier for me as I mentioned, it was   
   considerably faster.  Running the F83 metacompiler on a 4MHz Z80 was   
   painfully slow.  On top of this I'd have needed to modify it to do   
   dictionary segmenting - my prime motivation in creating a forth.   
   Even the ubiquitous M80 CP/M assembler proved too slow and I invested   
   in an SLR Systems assembler.  Given the number of compiles I did in   
   development it was easily the best money I ever spent on software.   
   Not that I wasn't forced to learn new stuff.  Macros, code segmentation,   
   etc gave me enough headaches.  Looking back it seems crazy.  No regrets   
   however as I began to realize this was more my niche than writing   
   applications.  That said, if one doesn't write apps there's no way to   
   evaluate the effectiveness of a given forth.  How many forths never got   
   past creation because the author's interest waned.  For these the list   
   of words in ANS etc suffices.  But the forth one uses is something else.   
   It's the difference between a living tree and what comprises trees.   
   Standards are an obsession with the latter and kind of misses the point.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)