Re: Parsing timestamps?

On 2/07/2025 1:00 pm, minforth wrote:

Am 01.07.2025 um 21:56 schrieb Paul Rubin:

minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:

Nobody seems to care about that time. Instead, the focus seems to be
primarily on code runtime, even though the difference is only
microseconds or less.

>
I think in the Moore era, you got two speedups: 1) interpreted Forth was
10x faster than its main competitor, interpreted BASIC; and 2) if your
Forth program was still too slow, you'd identify a few hot spots and
rewrite those in assembler.
>
Today instead of BASIC we have Python, and interpreted Forth is still a
lot faster than Python.  That speed is sufficient for most things, like
it always was, but even more so on modern hardware.

 
Today, you could go insane if you had to write assembler code
with SSE1/2/3/4/AVX/AES etc. extended CPU commands (or take GPU
programming...)
 
Even chip manufacturers provide C libraries with built-ins and
intrinsics to handle this complexity, and optimising C compilers
for selecting the best operations.
 
IMO assembler programming in Forth is mostly for retro enthusiasts

Yet Forth commercials continue to provide assemblers which they need
to generate their own systems and to provide x87 and SSE f/p.  One
of the most interesting things of Acorn BASIC was the built-in 6502
assembler.