Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!crdgw1!ge-dab!tarpit!bilver!wbeebe
From: wbeebe@bilver.UUCP (Bill Beebe)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Threaded interpretive languages and other such ilk
Message-ID: <881@bilver.UUCP>
Date: 6 Aug 90 03:05:12 GMT
References: <1990Jul12.012730.4248@Stardent.COM> <64044@sgi.sgi.com> <13392@cbmvax.commodore.com> <_YV4Y9A@ggpc2.ferranti.com> <784@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ> <VKX4UHA@xds13.ferranti.com> <13533@cbmvax.commodore.com> <HD+4P=2@ggpc2.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: wbeebe@bilver.UUCP (Bill Beebe)
Organization: W. J. Vermillion, Winter Park, FL
Lines: 12

In article <HD+4P=2@ggpc2.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>If you *really* want space efficiency the obvious thing to do is write in
>Forth, or some other threaded language. Writing in assembler to save memory
>is like writing in COBOL to improve readability. That way you retain quite
>a high level of portability, you can still implement the critical code in
>machine dependent fashion, and you save a *lot* more space than an assembly
>implementation.

To support assembler *and* Forthism, you could use the Harris chip (correct
me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's something like the RTX-2000). The Harris
chip, with it's instruction set Forth in hardware, would give you the best
of both worlds - of you're so inclined.