Re: I found a FORTH stack optimzer, but could use a better version.

On Jan 6, 4:54=A0pm, foxchip <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> The biggest problem I see with this is that people look for examples
> of
> the most badly generated nonsense code and hold it up in public as
> examples of Forth that need optimization.

Oh, I think you're missing the point a little here. Optimization is
needed only for what you call "nonsense code". Most stack oriented
code is nonsense in terms of a register machine. So well, if you make
a processor that is stack oriented, you'll be able to write a perfect
Forth that does not need an optimizer. But even in this case: what's
about code inlining? That means to combine separately made definitions
that each for itself are optimal in terms of the things you can
express with Forth. But in this case the compiler could be faced with
the sequence "SWAP +". Iff for the target this makes no sense, then
the optimizer is useful.

-Helmar