Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: docker, what could be the =?UTF-8?B?YWR2YW50YWdlPw==?=
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:28:03 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <44492bf8dffc6b061ced17c4004768c2@www.novabbs.com>
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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1064257"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="ovTHZ/VLht/KDF1nKqB7PmGhjiyfUdv/DKd8kGKFjRY";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$KBSz0XuBo4A2i.L7MVI2xeP/4Sp7nab/kDk6OrHNLOpU.AHgC6CZi
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 8e58c9b6d1da98b6162b84d03d2307a6516add15

>> 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.)

Non-complaining (or no trace of such complaining)
isn't any rationale for assumption "everyone are
quite pleased with what they presently use (amd
how they use that)". Optimalization wouldn't had
any sense whatsoever if everyone were that pleased.

I'm recently since longer time tinkering with that
fig-Forth I already mentioned, I learned its
limits, I'm pretty aware it's not particularly fast
"per se" and I don't complain. :) Just from time
to time trying some less standard approach.

> 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.

Could you, please, give any example of such
article (if it's available on any WWW page)?

--