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

>
> After a decade of arguing with Chuck about this I concluded a decade
> ago that he had been right in the first place. It was more productive
> to write the optimized code in the first place because the best
> optimizing compilers could not achieve even a 1 to 1 let alone a
> 10 to 1 compared to that.
>

Your point of view is a bit unclear to me, so let me ask again a
question this topic.
You say that we don't need "big" optimizers if we don't plan to write
bad code in the first place.
However until recently (well, more or less), Chuck did use in his
previous Forth systems. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in CF remains at
least tail call elimination. I know it is actually needed for CF to
work, but that's also an optimisation. I'm not sure, but I also
remember of an optimization of Pentium code when adding a literal.

Where do you draw the line between a good optimization and a wrong
one?

 Amicalement,
  Astrobe