Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: docker, what could be the advantage?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:36:56 +1000
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <41803740602c3587b02f5e8b6ba7b90d279e431d@i2pn2.org>
References: <nnd$183177d6$36b3681c@f0aabdece3e0eb21>
 <226b70d0a669bf19685be279cfe18835@www.novabbs.com>
 <5752fed4af5334e8399df6dc61006e1f@www.novabbs.com>
 <nnd$02513b3c$7f342c1a@629a96533c7c2e9d>
 <74ab0e538cdd302b99c407778d1408d8@www.novabbs.com>
 <606665525b3af3bc371b126b42b8149a@www.novabbs.com>
 <a62335ceeae01e6bd187ca3701c7589a@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:37:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1101864"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="XPw7UV90Iy7EOhY4YuUXhpdoEf5Vz7K+BsxA/Cx8bVc";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <a62335ceeae01e6bd187ca3701c7589a@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 19/06/2025 3:00 am, mhx wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:48:37 +0000, LIT wrote:
> 
>> I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
>> rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
>> of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
>> If the code can be made more efficient by any
>> non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
>> and the user of some other Forth system if free
>> to modify the code on his own.
> 
> Actually, your view is quite non-standard. I don't know
> any Forth users that complain that their system is
> inefficient, even if it is token-threaded Fig-Forth on
> a ZX80 with cassette-tape. (But then I also do not know
> many (>3) Forth users that demand compatibility.)
> 
> When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
> many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
> the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
> remember being mighty impressed by that.
> However, after some spying around in the sources for
> a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
> forest for the trees.
> 
> My current opinion is that these authors are/were
> neither interested in efficiency nor in compatibility.

Even today one sees not an insignificant amount of 'micro-benchmarking'.
So I'd say that's still with us.  In my case (then and now) value for
money was the criteria i.e. minimizing memory spent while respecting
primitives need to be fast.  I've never regretted my choice of DTC for
a 16-bit forth.  So it was with some surprise to discover you considered
my choice of timestamp parser 'a joke'.  I was left to wonder by what
criteria.