Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-26 Thread Michel Pelletier
> As a first step, I'm going to move to inlining > all words (both > built-in and user defined). Doing this (and > adding push/pop macros) > will bring our code bases a lot closer. Once > this is done I'll make > another release and we can compare code again. Cool, since the real meat of it is th

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-26 Thread Matt Diephouse
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:07:11 -0500 (CDT), Michel Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I propose you and I work together to make a > totally Forth-language agnostic Forth > micro-kernel. This kernel can be very > minimalistic, a stacik, a machine state hash, > and definitions for the words "code"

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-19 Thread Darryl
michel wrote: Whether or not an old definition is retained if a word is redefined is a different question, in the case of Parakeet, it will increment by two because all high level words are looked up by name at run-time via indirect threading. This is an incorrect __Forth__ behaviour. gForth's is

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-19 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Michel Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Python interpreter could use this method too > to really spank CPython, which has implicit > stack traffic that cannot be easily optimized > out. That's not need. The translater can easily create register code, even from Python bytecode, which is s

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-18 Thread Matt Diephouse
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:31:05 -0500 (CDT), Michel Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The second PIR sequence is longer. It will take > > IMCC more time to > > compile that than the first example. As the > > words become less trivial, > > this will become more true. > > But one can't weigh the

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-18 Thread Michel Pelletier
> This still doesn't seem right. The compilation > from Forth to PIR only > happens once, yes. But each time the defined > word is used, the PIR > code, which is injected, must be compiled to > bytecode. RIght. > The second PIR sequence is longer. It will take > IMCC more time to > compile that t

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-18 Thread Matt Diephouse
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:17:59 -0500 (CDT), Michel Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, note that the code I mentioned (the > speration of core from core words) is not > checked in right now, but the version in CVS > does do NCG. Noted. > Using the direct threading model, this does 2000 > g

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-18 Thread Michel Pelletier
>> I propose you and I work together to make a >> totally Forth-language agnostic Forth >> micro-kernel. This kernel can be very >> minimalistic, a stacik, a machine state hash, >> and definitions for the words "code", "next", >> "word", and "'" (tick) all having standard >> Forth >> behavior, a

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-18 Thread Matt Diephouse
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:07:11 -0500 (CDT), Michel Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is my first chance to take a look at it but > I'm sorry I've nto been able to run it because > I'm on a different machine. I did look at the > code though. Thanks for the feedback. I don't have time to re

Re: Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-17 Thread Michel Pelletier
> Parrot Forth > > Released: 14 October 2004 > Version: 0.1 > Download: > http://matt.diephouse.com/software/parrot-forth-0.1.tar.gz > > This is the initial release of my > re-implementation of Parrot Forth in > PIR. Code reviews are both welcome and

Parrot Forth 0.1

2004-10-14 Thread Matt Diephouse
Parrot Forth Released: 14 October 2004 Version: 0.1 Download: http://matt.diephouse.com/software/parrot-forth-0.1.tar.gz This is the initial release of my re-implementation of Parrot Forth in PIR. Code reviews are both welcome and appreciated (PIR is kind of new, so I may not be