wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (01/11/91)
> > In the C "wrapper" programs that I use for interfacing Forth to various > > operating systems, I avoid printf(), instead using puts(). If I need to > > display numbers, I write my own "puti()" routine. > > All this says is that efficiently coded ( sizewise ) "C" is nonstandard. > What good is a standard "C"? About as good as a standard FORTH! Huh? What is non-standard about puts()? What is non-standard about writing my own puti() routine? I use printf() a lot, and am happy to have it. Just because I have chosen not to use a particular standard library routine in a particular application context, that doesn't mean that the routine is bad or that standardization is bad. Probably 99% of all C programs use printf(), and every C programmer in the world knows how to use it. That is good. That is very good. Programmer productivity is much more important than 25K bytes in a lot of applications. 25K bytes costs $1.60 in a lot of machine environments. In other environments, 25K bytes may be the difference between success or failure. You get to choose. It's the same way with Forth extension wordsets; use them where it makes sense, roll-your-own if not. Mitch