Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17721

Re: functional programming haskell lisp claim to beat object programming, what does forth have?

Show all headers | View raw

On 29.11.2012 22:12, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> I am not joking.
>
> I am unix admin and don't understand this stuff but have read smalltalk is the only proper oo language and its message oriented not object.
>
> I noticed a object system in gforth.
>
> What will forth do if functional is better?
>
> All I really get from my unix is that it is important to use all cpus on a box and to keep everything in main memory for speed and possibly log updates to the in memory data to disk, which can be fast, and this is called prevayler.org style which makes SQL databases not really needed in all but very large apps.
>
> How does forth compete with haskell lisp and even smalltalk?
> Do they have advantages that forth can't overcome?
> or does forh not needs oo or function ro message paradigms?
>
Dear Mr. Gavino Himself
Forget all of the above.

The ultimate Language is ERLANG. Its a message passing functional 
language, ideal for massively parellell systems.

For managing your IT systems, use blueprints from pathway systems.
A truly elegant system. Then you will never ever need to script your 
unix again. Just point and click.

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

Thread

functional programming haskell lisp claim to beat object programming, what does forth have? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 12:12 -0800
  Re: functional programming haskell lisp claim to beat object programming, what does forth have? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@invalid.com> - 2012-11-29 22:45 +0200

csiph-web