Thanks for the info. After asking you the question I stayed up and looked for any roadblocks in the Camel Forth compiler code and I got it up to
18 lines per second.
(EDIT: This was loading my tools file which has more empty lines. I tried again this morning with my Assembler which is 252 lines in total and much denser text and I only got 12 lines per second.)
Added a video of the test process In the CAMEL99 thread:
I removed a repeated call to a memory copy routine and put it inline in the parsing routine. Makes the kernel a bit bigger, but I had room.
So old fashioned Forth is still pretty good in the compiling department. But yes it is much slower waiting for my floppy drives to move their heads around the tracks than Classic99. However when you consider that it compiles directly to memory, with no Assembly phase it makes for a pretty productive environment on the old TI-99.
The negative is that it is not generating native code like your compiler. (unless you load the Forth Assembler and write assembly language)
I know the guy who runs MPE Forth in the U.K. On modern systems, they claim their native code compiler can generate about 500KB of binary code per second, limited only by the disk drive speed! Things have certainly changed in 40 years.
Edited by TheBF, Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:23 AM.