Re: Parsing timestamps?

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 6:29:35 +0000, dxf wrote:

On 20/06/2025 3:36 pm, minforth wrote:

Counter-example: a good number of my apps involve structs, arrays
and signal vectors in heap memory. Stack juggling? Absolutely not.
The code would be unreadable and a nightmare to debug.
>
Factoring in smaller code portions is often impossible because
you can't always distribute data, that inherently belongs together,
over separate words.
>
Then why factor, when with using named parameters = locals, the
code is already short, readable, maintainable, and bug-free.
>
Ask yourself why the Forth Scientific Library makes heavy use of
locals.
>
Of course things look different with simpler applications.

>
What you're saying is at the level you program, it hardly matters
whether it's Forth or something else.  It's true I have little to
no reason to use floating-point.  I did wonder why Julian Noble
persisted with Forth.

No, I did not say that. What I've found is that when a subject is
really interesting to you (in my case SPICE), it pays off to restart
from scratch in Forth (and with a Forth mind-set).
It is not feasible (and useful) to do that with everything, but it
does give the type of very hard-to-believe results that are reported
for Charles Moore. Using floating-point has nothing to do with it.
-marcel