Re: Parsing timestamps?

On 20/06/2025 6:46 pm, LIT wrote:

The claim made 40 years ago was: "Forth's heavy use of the stack for
parameter passing [...] it is easy for the beginner to run away with
the idea that the stack operators should be employed at every
opportunity."  The suggestion being there's so much traffic one must
use stack juggling to solve it.

 
How many years ago it was made — it doesn't that matter.
Pythagorean theorem was made over 2500 years ago, and
AFAIK it's still actual.

I expect 40 years to show the worthiness of a claim.

That's the fear and bogeyman that's regularly trotted out about Forth.
But is it true?  None of the colon definitions the authors provide in
their book would indicate it.  Each used 0, 1, 2 and occasionally 3
parameters.  Any variables they employed were sparse and global in
nature.
>
How about more comprehensive applications?

 
Then just compare the two examples from "my"
thread "May the numbers speak". Is really the
solution that uses strings of "r> drop nip s>d"
etc. more clear and comprehensible? Oh, really?

I previously compared yours, with and without variables.  I found a few
comments added as much readability as variables, but cheaper and faster.

It's what we were talking about - not about
"one of yours that had 154 colon definitions".

You brought to my and c.l.f's attention an assertion made in a book about
Forth.  It's not everyday one sees a book promoting a language and at the
same time question its capability.