Re: Third draft of Structures

Ian Osgood wrote:
> I'd like to add a data point to this discussion. BigForth was recently
> added to the computer language shootout, and gforth is faster than
> bigForth on only one test, where the only significant difference is the
> implementation of structures (used to define a node in the tree).

Nah, the difference that costs bigFORTH's performance is the
implementation
of allocate. I'll probably rewrite allocate in the next revision of
bigFORTH to use the fast fixed-size object allocater for small regions,
and
the slow, memory-saving allocater for larger objects. If bigFORTH had
Gforth's structure package, it would perform no better or worse than it
does now.

> Here 
> are links to the comparision:
> 
>
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4sandbox/benchmark.php?test=binarytrees
>
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4sandbox/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=bigforth&lang2=gforth
> 
> I think structures would be a great addition to the standard. It would
> help interoperability with foreign libraries and APIs.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/