wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (09/07/90)
> I implemented " to work interactively in a dedicated scratch buffer > of 1024 bytes ... I believe that LMI Forth does it this way too. This is a good scheme. The major opposition to this scheme, and indeed nearly all "transient" interpreted string schemes, came from a committee member who is heavily involved in multi-user databases. I mean hundreds of users on a system, not just a few. The interpreted string buffers would have to be a per-user resource, and that can add up to a lot of memory. Obviously, we can think of work arounds, but this person was extremely adamant and vocal, and his points were quite sound if you accept his constraints. I don't want to argue the point, as I personally like the many-string buffer approach, and use it. I just wanted to report on the opposing point of view. > >I proposed that the system guarantee that at least 2 string buffers > >of at least 80 characters each. > > too restrictive! I have found 2 strings to be adequate for 99+% of my applications, and I didn't think that any larger requirement had a change of passing. As it turns out, the 2x80 minimum requirement didn't even pass! Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (09/08/90)
In article <9009071315.AA02300@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes: > multi-user databases. I mean hundreds of users on a system, > not just a few. The interpreted string buffers would have to be a per-user > resource, and that can add up to a lot of memory. Would all these users have their own interactive Forth interpreter? If not, the point is moot. If so, I can't think but that they must have *tiny* heaps. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
wmb@mitch.Eng.Sun.COM (09/08/90)
> > multi-user databases. I mean hundreds of users on a system, > > > Would all these users have their own interactive Forth interpreter? If not, > > the point is moot. If so, I can't think but that they must have *tiny* > > heaps. The proponent (Greg Bailey) claims that they do each have a Forth interpreter. As I recall (could be wrong) they all share the same dictionary. Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM