Re: Parsing timestamps?

On 11/06/2025 7:04 pm, LIT wrote:

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.

 
TO ME it doesn't make a problem how YOU create
your code, if it suits you better in any way.
I just explained why MY code looks differently:
because I reckon the merits listed by Brodie,
and longer time ago 'switched' from long strings
of that DUPs, ROTs and SWAPs to something
I perceive as a cleaner and more comprehensible
solution - also not being "maintenance nightmare"
if I later decide to change anything.
>
It's the others - or maybe single "other" - who
decided: "I'll show you how to write 'canonical
Forth', look how the masters do this and learn".
Obviously Brodie's "tips", applied in "real life",
must be irritating for some "real programmers", or
something.

I don't accept good coding has 'long strings of DUPs, ROTs and SWAPs'.
If it did Moore would likely suggest one hasn't optimized one's stack
- which is accusation he levels at locals users.  Brodie also appears
to rank locals last:

 Tip

 Simplify code by using the stack. But don’t stack too deeply within
 any single definition. Redesign, or, as a last resort, use a named
 variable.