Re: questions (about x21)

["Don Golding" <angelus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "erikc" <firewevr@insync.net>
To: <:misc@pisa.rockefeller.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: questions (about x21)


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Golding <angelus@ix.netcom.com>
> To: misc@pisa.rockefeller.edu <misc@pisa.rockefeller.edu>; Jeff Fox
> <fox@UltraTechnology.com>
> Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 16:28
> Subject: Re: questions (about x21)
>
>
> >I agree wholheartedly that 18 stack levels are more than sufficient for
> good
> >Forth programming.  I have been programming in Forth for over 10 years
and
> I
> >never have used more than four Items on the stack.  98% of the time there
> >are no more than three Items with one or two more typical for most
> >applications.  Keeping stack operations to a minimum is the best way to
use
> >Forth.  If you have three or more items on the stack you need to factor
the
> >definition more.  Anyone who thinks they need alot of stack space needs
to
> >read "Thinking Forth" again...
> >
> >Don Golding
>
>
> I presume you are talking about the data/parameter stack.  My question
would
> be how large to make the return stack.  It seems to me that since Forth
> words get nested pretty deep, you would want a sizable return stack, maybe
> even bigger than the data stack.
>
> I'm a newbie to Forth, so no flames please.
>
> erikc
> firewevr@insync.net
>
>