2 ms·
Can you give some insight on how the J1 fits in all this? The presentation explaining what drove its invention suggests it actually was faster than the register
by vanderZwan 3y ago
Can you give some insight on how the J1 fits in all this? The presentation explaining what drove its invention suggests it actually was faster than the register-based alternative, although I'm sure that is also partially because it only focused on the instructions needed for its task.
[0] https://excamera.com/sphinx/article-j1a-swapforth.html https://excamera.com/sphinx/article-j1a-swapforth.html
[1] http://www.forth.org/svfig/kk/11-2010-Bowman.pdf http://www.forth.org/svfig/kk/11-2010-Bowman.pdf
- boesboes 3y agoFrom how I understand the presentation, they ran into trouble because of code size. Basically stack code is much denser because you don't need arguments for registers and, given the 16kbytes -> 6 kbytes is more than just half from going 32->16bit, appearantly a bit more efficient for implementing their program too I guess. The size was a concern because of the limited size (16kbyes) of bram modules on an fpga. I can't say why it performs so much better though, maybe just because it's simpler & 16 bit so it's smaller and can be clocked faster on the fpga? That is just a guess though. I'm not sure if it is fair to compare the J1 to the BOOM, the latter does a lot more I'd think. That being said, it shows that for such use cases a stack machine can be better suited and much less complex to design, maintain and work with.