Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shakti!shri
From: shri@ncst.ernet.in (H.Shrikumar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Metacompiling and C Forth 83
Summary: Apples and oranges ... ? clarification requested.
Message-ID: <1195@shakti.ncst.ernet.in>
Date: 18 Dec 90 10:35:39 GMT
References: <9012121624.AA00871@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: shri@ncst.ernet.in (H.Shrikumar )
Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA
Lines: 35

In article <9012121624.AA00871@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
   wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes:

>> How slow would [C Forth 83] be, compared to a FORTH compiler written
>> for any particular processor?
>

>On SPARC, C Forth 83 runs about 50% slower than my direct-threaded
>native SPARC Forth (i.e. the time ratio is 3:2), using the Sun optimizing
...and ...
>On 68010, the time ratio is about 2:1, comparing the same things as for

  I understand the configurations are in each case ...

  C-coded FORTH *over* a UNIX or similar OS  *over* raw hardware.
  versus
  native direct-threaded FORTH *over* raw hardware.

 The System overheads, even if you are the only job, will matter for
small sized fast benchmarks.

  Mitch, could you clarify please ?

>For the purpose that was being discussed (metacompiling eForth), I doubt
>that speed differences of this order of magnitude matter very much.

True enough.
Also, this small loss of speed is the price you pay for writing over
a multi-user system which some one could use to say login and work
while you are doing something else in FORTH. Thats the idea behind
C-coded FORTHs running on UNIXes.

>Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM

-- shrikumar ( shri@ncst.in )