(none) 
Author Message
 (none)

In recent communications we have seen people comparing Forth to C.  I have some
points to make:

1) Most (if not all) 'C' system run a grate deal slower than FORTH.  I believe
   Roy Goddard of MPE has coded an application in both Forth and MicroSoft C,
   apparently he had to re-write most of the library functions in Assembler
   before the C could get anywhere near the speed of the Forth.

2) Some processors (such as the 8051) have grate difficulties with any form
   of C system.  At least we can have a simple Forth compiler.

3) The C string words are (as you would say) Brain Damaged.  I do not
   use them, as they are SLOW, badly constructed, and not thought out.

   I have always written my of string handling code if I need it.  The only
   reason I can do this, is because of the definition of a string.  In
   designing the string functions for C, the committee made such compromises
   as to make the hole thing a joke.

   Can we have a set of words that are well though out, or better yet, simply
   none at all.  We can always come back an produce another Appendix to cover
   strings at a later date.

Let us stop this pathetic bickering and get down to some real work.  Otherwise
you may find a grate deal more people leaving !

Peter Knaggs
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+




!-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------!
! It is not enough to do the right thing; one must also do it the right way.  !
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+



Tue, 03 Aug 1993 00:46:02 GMT  
 (none)

Quote:
>Most (if not all) 'C' system run a grate [sic] deal slower than FORTH.

Bzzt.  Sorry, but thank you for playing.

Remember: A programmer inexperienced or talentless with Language X
will generate slow programs using Language X for all values of X.

Any Forth program can be recoded in C and it will run at equivalent,
if not greater, speed.  It may require more memory, however, and it
will certainly be more difficult to play around with.  But it will be
fast.

Quote:
>2) Some processors (such as the 8051) have grate [sic] difficulties with
>   any form of C system.

Granted; but that's what cross-compilation is for, after all.

Quote:
>3) The C string words are (as you would say) Brain Damaged.

Also granted.  I wrote my own and I feel much better now.
--

 "I want to mention that my opinions whether real or not are MY opinions."
             -- the inevitable William "Billy" Steinmetz


Wed, 04 Aug 1993 06:09:53 GMT  
 
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. None not None in Excel COM?

2. PythonCOM: com_error: (-2147418113, 'Catastrophic failure', None, None)

3. Proposal: min(None, x) and max(None, x) return x

4. Shouldn't __init__ return self instead of None? (Was: Re: [Tutor] Why error if method __init__ does not return none)

5. (none)

6. (none)

7. (none)

8. (none)

9. <none>

10. None (mail relay)

11. None

12. (none)

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software