Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: minforth <minforth@gmx.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Parsing timestamps?
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 07:34:16 +0200
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <mcjumpFca1rU1@mid.individual.net>
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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net NbpXd6HIvFtZQ+V0jyl2owt8eg8TH8fOU0W8bTIe4ELtpKhyi0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HAh2jP8Jw7TKS+KmuHUi2l8tzdQ= sha256:wdQWh9ZsfZV9IxueXZGhrbaHXETzqiejX8c95tbsOwo=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <mcjlm5FaoveU1@mid.individual.net>

Am 02.07.2025 um 05:00 schrieb minforth:
> 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
> 

P.S. I forgot to mention that this is not true for MCUs and embedded 
systems.

I have the utmost respect for Matthias Koch's Mecrisp Stellaris.