Re: Why is GForth-ITC fast?

On May 3, 2:46 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

<SNIP>

> It may be frowned upon, but adapting lina to new versions of
> OS's is probably less effort than gforth keeping up with new
> version of gcc.

In truth, even for a noob like me, it so far has been quite easy to
****t lina to OS X.

This is a reflection of the original source, which although sparsely
commented I've found quite easy to read, in general.

More comments in the forth source would be good though, as an
afterthought, Albert if it's convenient while you are patching the
source for version 5.

Much of the slowness has been unavoidable real life commitments, and
just trying to find the docs/info and understanding what's actually
going on (being new to nix - which is actually one reason why I'm
doing this at all as well).

Small is beautiful and given major kernel changes are not particularly
frequent, I can't really see why this approach is very very bad - it
just means rooting around for the changes if stuff breaks.

Naughty perhaps. But looking at how well linux generally appears to be
do***ented with good backwards compatibility, this appears to be less
of an issue with linux.

Gotta start working out the SAVE-SYSTEM now. But for ultimate
compatibility after that's done I will probably do one with a static
link to the c-lib for OSX. I'm not sure I like the idea of a dynamic
link, but I'll look at this too (namely because I don't know how to do
one).


> Groetjes Albert.

Robert Spykerman