Hi Enoch, > Can somebody give me good reasons why we should not convert > words/*.asm implementations (as much as possible) from VM assembly > to AVR assembly.
I should do so, perhaps ;) > > For example: A well chosen one, indeed. > There are two good reasons to prefer the AVR implementation: > > 1. Speed (10x faster?) Speed is always an argument. Size too. And maintainability. And the indisputable fact that forth makes more fun than assembler. > 2. Ease of debugging through the Studio. I used the AVR Studio years ago when I started with the inner core of amforth. Since it worked (around version 0.1) I never used it again. > Comments? [flames :-)] You example patch is welcome, it is indeed an improvement in both size and speed. Thanks for it; the current code is an artefact from the times I thought an 3 byte cell size is worth doing. In general I'd like to see as much as possible code written in forth. Most of the "VM" code solves the chicken-and-egg problem, I should remove what's not needed for that purpose and put it into the lib/ directory tree. But I already hear the screams, that this stripped system will be too difficult to use. I found it interesting that quite a lot of forth code examples need less space than the respective assembly code. Trivialities excluded. Matthias ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services 3. A single system of record for all IT processes http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ Amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
