In article <6997b9e1$1@news.ausics.net>, dxf   wrote:   
   >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.   
   >   
      
   All tools running on windows/linux are fast,   
   The metacompilers do not run on the sbc and take at most seconds.   
      
   Especially assemblers, building ciforth is in the milliseconds.   
   (What they say in a blink of an eye).   
      
   ~/PROJECT/ciforths/ciforth: time fasm ci86.lina64.fas -m256000   
   flat assembler  version 1.70.02  (256000 kilobytes memory)   
   2 passes, 56376 bytes.   
      
   real    0m0.030s   
   user    0m0.014s   
   sys     0m0.012s   
      
   fasm eliminates a separate link step, that make no sense anyway   
   for assemblers.   
   --   
   The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.   
   The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy   
   over 80 years, like Western Europe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)