Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object

From	Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object
Date	2013-05-17 08:04 +0300
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<kn4dhp$bs6$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<b4066bda-e458-4763-bbd7-446f9f61377f@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/16/2013 11:37 PM, Alex McDonald wrote:

> A sizable chunk of the resulting language is very Forth-like.
> Thoughts?
>

Yes: that is the direction I'm going with my next-generation Reva 
(called "sheminit", or "8th").

It makes sense to me to "do the right thing" where possible, e.g "+" 
should concatenate strings if the objects on the stack are strings, and 
do addition if they are numbers.  It becomes a bit less clear what to do 
if the objects are mixed, and that is where excellent documentation (and 
example code) will be most useful.

I'm also eliminating the distinction between normal integers, doubles 
and floating point.  One set of words for them all, and the 'number' 
object will use the most precise but smallest representation it can. 
The progression (for integer numbers) would be "32bit" -> "64bit" -> 
"128bit" -> "bigint".  So while the math would get slower, one wouldn't 
have to be concerned with overflow and such things.  If, for example, 
attempting to calculate the US debt...

I'm not certain what representation to use for "real" numbers.  Since I 
expect to run on Intel and ARM as well (my target platforms are 
Windows/Mac/Linux and Android/iOS, at first) and perhaps other, unknown 
CPUs, I don't know if using the IEEE fp formats is supported across the 
board, though it probably doesn't make a difference except when 
transferring data from one to another (and that would potentially affect 
integer data as well, so ...)

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-05-16 13:37 -0700
  Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-05-17 00:09 +0200
    Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-05-16 18:31 -0700
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-05-17 05:38 -0700
    Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-05-17 05:39 -0700
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-05-19 00:09 +0200
        Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Ian Osgood <iano@quirkster.com> - 2013-05-25 11:36 -0700
          Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-05-25 13:10 -0700
  Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2013-05-17 08:04 +0300
    Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-05-16 22:19 -0700
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2013-05-17 08:26 +0300
        Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-05-16 22:43 -0700
          Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2013-05-17 09:25 +0300
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-17 00:26 -0700
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-05-17 13:25 +0000
        Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-05-19 00:34 +0200
          Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2013-05-18 15:55 -0700
            Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-05-19 01:27 +0200
            Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-05-19 01:35 +0200
    Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-17 00:29 -0700
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-05-18 19:38 -0700
    Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-05-17 05:40 -0700
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2013-05-17 16:18 +0300
    Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-05-17 12:50 +0000
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-05-17 06:09 -0700
      Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2013-05-17 16:25 +0300
  Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object alberto@hal-pc.org (Alberto) - 2013-05-17 14:35 +0000
  Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Steve <nospam275@gmail.com> - 2013-05-19 05:48 -0700
  Re: Another OOP thread; everything on the stack is an object Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2013-05-25 19:56 -0700

csiph-web