Path: ...!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: Stack vs stackless operation
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:44:17 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <925ae8e5dcef84bf1f465b367a6016e2@www.novabbs.com>
References: <591e7bf58ebb1f90bd34fba20c730b83@www.novabbs.com> <nnd$4b1a3a2b$567365a0@dd51d36a80043436>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1728872"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="ovTHZ/VLht/KDF1nKqB7PmGhjiyfUdv/DKd8kGKFjRY";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$Q2ublZujFbIHoaTqjrws8.Qv/q8PqjJHoN9uhDUkN3qS.tfurNa1K
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 8e58c9b6d1da98b6162b84d03d2307a6516add15
Bytes: 2008
Lines: 25

> I have done some work on optimisation on ciforth.
> This work has stalled, but the infamous byte prime benchmark,
> was in the ballpark of swiftforth and mpeforth.
> (Disingenuous, because this was the example I used.)
> See https://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/forthlecture5.html
> This is about folding, a generalisation of constant folding.
> This requires that you know the properties of the Forth Words,
> i.e. that you can execute + at compile time, if the inputs
> are constant.
> [..]
> Then I got stalled. I introduced complicated rules [..]

This is more sophisticated way.

My proposal is rather humble: a modest completion
of Forth programming paradigm, from "every data goes
through the stack" to "any data can go through the
stack, still it's not strictly mandatory in every
single case".

Now I'm pondering about DO..LOOP construct; actually
probably it doesn't necessarily need to rely on return
stack. I wonder how much "lightweight" can loop become
by rewriting it using OOS words.

--