1. Re: euForth
Peter Lawrence wrote:
> Applying the adage "make it work first, make it
> efficient second", I think we can agree that the
> "portable" (i.e. implementable) first step is no
> way to leave a production system, for the very
> reasons you describe.
There's a slogan I live by.
> But on the other hand if you just happen to have
> a highly tuned, platform specific, commercial Forth
> you can use as a back end - you might even end up
> with a performance gain on a bespoke Euphoria
> implementation done in the usual way.
To beat a dead horse - not if your data structures are disk-based. A FORTH
port of Euphoria could be pretty cool, but I doubt that it's going to beat
Euphoria at speed tests. For one thing, Euphoria is (apparently) not based
on a stack machine, and doesn't have the overhead of threading. On these two
points alone, it's got less overhead than FORTH on every call.
-- David Cuny
