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 16:18 +0300
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<kn5agd$ft7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<b4066bda-e458-4763-bbd7-446f9f61377f@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <kn4dhp$bs6$1@dont-email.me> <120804f6-02cc-4adc-93b1-05613c88b6a7@en2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/17/2013 03:40 PM, Alex McDonald wrote:

> I am only at the thought experiment stage. I'm interested in how far
> you might get without destroying the Forthiness of the resulting
> language.

Depends of course on what you mean by 'Forthiness'.  As long as the 
usual stuff, e.g.

    1 2 + .

does what one would expect, I'm not sure how un-Forthly the internal 
mechanisms would make things appear.

In my case, I will be hooking my "8th" into a webkit browser as a 
cross-platform UI, in lieu of (and in addition to) JavaScript.  It's 
important for the kinds of apps I want to write that a user be unable to 
crash the system using the Forth interpreter.  So for example, I will 
bounds-check the stack.  Is that un-Forthly?  Well, it's un-fast-Forthly 
anyway.

But for example, I will make "." print whatever object is on the top of 
the stack.  So

    "hi there" .

will print the string "hi there".  You'll have guessed I want to handle 
string parsing a bit differently than standard Forths as well ... 
actually, I was going to do that in Reva as well at some point but 
didn't get around to it.

I think that choosing words carefully will make the learning curve for 
new users much less steep, but the price is even less conformance with 
other Forths.  Well, that's not a huge price to pay in my book.

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