Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #53210
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad |
| Date | 2016-12-09 11:03 +1100 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <o2csc8$966$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <4ca00d44-3973-4ddc-8572-6616882b0252@googlegroups.com> <412f1cc4-221e-4e6e-ad69-c615f8b84073@googlegroups.com> |
Mark Wills wrote: > On Wednesday, 7 December 2016 11:23:21 UTC, Julian Fondren wrote: > > Youtube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM > > > > Probably not that interesting for us, but I did note that the feature > > he wants at the end, which he doesn't think any existing language has, > > is actually what quotations are. Non-Hugh quotations: he explicitly > > doesn't want any of the outer function's environment to seep through > > into the inner function, except by argument passing. > > > > > > -- Julian > > > he explicitly > > doesn't want any of the outer function's environment to seep through > > into the inner function, except by argument passing. > > We had them in the 70s. They were called SUBROUTINES > > :-) Technically a "subroutine" is a reusable quantity. To be able to be called by *any* function, explicit argument passing is necessary. The idea behind quotations is that being 'local', you can dispense with some of the requirements of subroutines. If your parent has locals and your 'subroutine' is local, it stands to reason you should *not* have to go to the trouble and expense of explicitly passing arguments between them via the stack. There seems to be this notion quotations are just nameless subroutines. They don't have the capabilities of subroutines and never will.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 03:23 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 09:06 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-09 11:03 +1100
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-09 00:17 +0000
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 10:14 +1100
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 19:54 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-12-10 06:44 +0000
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 00:37 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 06:39 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-10 03:38 -0600
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-12-11 08:57 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-11 10:19 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-11 13:25 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-11 17:39 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-12-11 17:49 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-11 20:31 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-12-12 07:01 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-11 21:50 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 06:20 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-07 09:26 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-07 11:44 -0600
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-12-08 09:58 +0000
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-12-21 21:18 +0000
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad gavinschuette@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 23:00 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 09:41 -0800
Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad gavinschuette@gmail.com - 2016-12-21 23:00 -0800
csiph-web