Sujet : Re: Parsing timestamps?
De : dxforth (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dxf)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 26. Jun 2025, 05:48:11
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <cc98bb3dffab9c5b6232794b908f75be77bb05de@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 25/06/2025 3:38 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
Forth forces an average programmer to adopt a level of organisation
sooner than a locals- based language. I suspect forthers that promote
locals are well aware forth is readable and maintainable but are
pursuing personal agendas of style which requires implying the
opposite.
IDK, I've seen some unreadable Forth code that was written by experts.
Whether locals could have helped, I don't know.
Define 'unreadable'. In general I don't need to understand the nitty
gritty of a routine. But should I and no stack commentary exists, I've
no objections to creating it. It's par for the course in Forth. If it
bugged me I wouldn't be doing Forth.