Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Parsing timestamps?
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:59:30 +1000
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4013a3168ad8e5270489c50bbdc2d3be3cc6e720@i2pn2.org>
References: <1f433fabcb4d053d16cbc098dedc6c370608ac01@i2pn2.org>
 <4a4c38c99d22d97314ed5750af38430d@www.novabbs.com>
 <765bd244e1368b5691f18c748102470e8de1a30d@i2pn2.org>
 <nnd$0deda869$2559e613@c251414cde7edbe7> <103ilab$225q0$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <cda70ea80eb98069a3060f95503d0853@www.novabbs.com>
 <2025Jun29.171314@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <96f3b6d94af924cf1468a2cced37966d@www.novabbs.com>
 <d5ff6c298dff84dabc278ac1a28087d55126645e@i2pn2.org>
 <0cd5e9d5959101c1efa68a2d6d630e23@www.novabbs.com>
 <069f09501a3c6fcade18fdf83925d835514b42cc@i2pn2.org>
 <44b5f13fd49d8ddbd572ae583379d124@www.novabbs.com>
 <21113c70c36a86f0fd4c74c8d11d0947528ba70f@i2pn2.org>
 <20baae7dd561db60967a5937d2b59d9a@www.novabbs.com>
 <0db20ddf954106bbca40d9e83630033f108b9a8e@i2pn2.org>
 <87bjq5yn8i.fsf@nightsong.com> <nnd$6da712e9$10ba1712@89d620b4a5dddb34>
 <8734bfzrdl.fsf@nightsong.com>
 <6dcd99ffba129d06b1f736994363eb87@www.novabbs.com>
 <87y0t7y9bh.fsf@nightsong.com> <mcjlm5FaoveU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 05:59:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2986550"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="XPw7UV90Iy7EOhY4YuUXhpdoEf5Vz7K+BsxA/Cx8bVc";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <mcjlm5FaoveU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

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.