Re: Linux in Forth?
- From: Albert van der Horst <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Jul 2005 02:49:11 GMT
In article <1122329554.459051.79210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brad Eckert <nospaambrad1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>There seems to be a common experience of application-wide Forth being
>half the size of application-wide C after compilation. My intent was to
>provide an explanation as to why this is. Not whether it's important or
>outweighs other considerations.
>
>The notion of "Don't Care" states comes from Chuck. Hardware
>descriptions, as seen by a synthesis tool, start out as logic maps and
>get reduced to the simplest hardware possible. If you can put "don't
>care" states in the logic map, the reduction may be carried further and
>the final hardware is smaller.
>
>If you draw an analogy between hardware and software optimization,
>these "don't care" states also reduce final code size. This is a
>plausible explanation of the 2:1 code size reduction. Forthers don't
>have a syntax cop telling them they can't do this or that. It's a very
>Bohemian language. Perhaps good Forth code naturally exploits "don't
>care" states without the programmer explicitly setting out to do so.
I'd guess the difference between careless and careful programs
is much more than a factor 2, and well worth it.
>
>--
>Brad
>
--
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux in Forth?
- From: Brad Eckert
- Re: Linux in Forth?
- References:
- Linux in Forth?
- From: bobjaffray@xxxxxxxx
- Re: Linux in Forth?
- From: Elizabeth D Rather
- Re: Linux in Forth?
- From: John Passaniti
- Re: Linux in Forth?
- From: Brad Eckert
- Linux in Forth?
- Prev by Date: Re: Local variables controversial?
- Next by Date: Re: Local variables controversial?
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux in Forth?
- Next by thread: Re: Linux in Forth?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|