Sujet : Re: Parsing timestamps?
De : dxforth (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dxf)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 11. Jun 2025, 02:49:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <f2b7c22add43eb1ad9dd82049ca7efd2c5f54760@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/06/2025 3:34 am, LIT wrote:
...
Fourth, if the definition is extremely time-critical, those
tricky stack manipulators, (e.g., ROT ROT) can really eat up
clock cycles. Direct access to variables is faster."
Pushing variables on the stack, executing them, along with their
associated @ and ! eats clock cycles. This is certainly the case
in the systems you use.
Yes, Brodie warns us next "but careful with variables' use
too" - and I still think my use of variables in two examples
I recently pasted wasn't "legit" in any way. It was just
applying the tips you see above.
When is it "legit" to give up? I've written routines I believed
needed VARIABLEs. But after a 'cooling off' period, I can look
at the problem again afresh and find I can do better. Folks will
say in the real world one couldn't afford this. That's true and
likely why I'm a hobbyist and not a professional programmer.
OTOH it's pretty rare that I write routines with variables in them
to begin with.