On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 08:54:21PM +0000, Ethan Gardener wrote: > I was responding to Anton Ertl's comment, "Assembly language is not a > particularly nice way of writing Forth > code, though (and most of a Forth system is written in Forth);" particularly > with a view to what proportion of Jonesforth is assembly language.
What I mean is stuff like (from <https://github.com/nornagon/jonesforth/blob/master/jonesforth.S>): defword ":",1,,COLON .int WORD // Get the name of the new word .int CREATE // CREATE the dictionary entry / header .int LIT, DOCOL, COMMA // Append DOCOL (the codeword). .int LATEST, FETCH, HIDDEN // Make the word hidden (see below for definition). .int RBRAC // Go into compile mode. .int EXIT // Return from the function. In Forth you would write this as : : WORD CREATE docol , latest @ hidden ] ; > > >I imagine JonesForth's double-indirect threading would be good for 8-bit > > >systems. > > > > Did he ever get his terminology straight? That was always my main beef > > with JonesForth: he didn't understand what direct/indirect threading > > actually referred to. He codes NEXT as follows: lodsl jmp *(%eax) That's indirect-threaded code. The comments talk about direct-threaded and indirect-threaded code. This may be a little confusing, but Kogge takes a similar approach in "An architectural trail to threaded-code systems"; and I followed him on this trail on <https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/threaded-code.html>. - anton
