Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Parsing timestamps?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 02:02:10 +1000
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7082b191235cd619f7952949806188614509dd18@i2pn2.org>
References: <1f433fabcb4d053d16cbc098dedc6c370608ac01@i2pn2.org>
 <7e21117d37c506cccd8e79323c416fd1@www.novabbs.com>
 <1021bsd$31o0d$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5802b3faad00b9a4397e1e445561681d0cd6ce5@i2pn2.org>
 <6ced001912d95b520dad9d25a6014342@www.novabbs.com>
 <60ca19340523b1ddfa4a2cbf1ac0995cb185cdcb@i2pn2.org>
 <nnd$16a55d5e$0e5ab22d@1d9c51e25014f149>
 <bdc732e87e38233e9e23f254b2326cf2@www.novabbs.com>
 <nnd$1a4144e5$43cad09f@b57c0b5013a1f2ab>
 <6ea4ccd1cb6ae8c828144444fe51fea9@www.novabbs.com>
 <70a3014f99baf5e43b32e1320d7b8cd482be04c1@i2pn2.org>
 <bfc6dc31af5bcbe4b4b0a2ccba8167e3@www.novabbs.com>
 <a8647abe1ce54c9c55c558f571761214a7c9d0f0@i2pn2.org>
 <61ff078b04e03c7b65b6dff98f58b80b@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 16:02:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1449423"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="XPw7UV90Iy7EOhY4YuUXhpdoEf5Vz7K+BsxA/Cx8bVc";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <61ff078b04e03c7b65b6dff98f58b80b@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-GB

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.