Re: Parsing timestamps?

On 20/06/2025 6:45 pm, minforth wrote:

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.

 
But yes, it does matter! Because Forth is compact and can can run
on devices with limited resources. With Forth I can do realtime math
on the device without huge libraries, such as LAPACK.

If that were true and no viable alternatives existed, Forth would have
an entire market to itself recognized by industry.  I'm not sure any
language could lay claim to have an exclusive market.  Presumably to
do the things you say, you wrote your own libraries?  There must exist
equally competent programmers in C - also deemed a low level language.
Forth has had its share of failures.  Which makes me believe it's more
about the team one can put together and choices made.