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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #53236

Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad

From "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: Object-Oriented Programming is Bad
Date 2016-12-10 10:14 +1100
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <o2fe03$2hi$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References <4ca00d44-3973-4ddc-8572-6616882b0252@googlegroups.com><412f1cc4-221e-4e6e-ad69-c615f8b84073@googlegroups.com><o2csc8$966$1@gioia.aioe.org> <o2ct3k$4ve$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Alex wrote:
> On 12/9/2016 00:03, HAA wrote:
> > ...
> > 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.
>
> Since a quotation has an existence outside of its parent, that's a bit
> of a strawman argument (if you'll excuse the pun). The execution time of
> a quotation is not necessarily inside the parent's "frame" of execution.

I'm suggesting (as have others) namelessness is not enough.  That if users of
locals must engage in the same lengthy methods of communication currently
required of them by subroutines, then quotations will be little more than eyecandy.

> > There seems to be this notion
> > quotations are just nameless subroutines.  They don't have the capabilities of
> > subroutines and never will.
>
> What capabilities does a subroutine have that quotations don't?

Subroutines make a program manageable by isolating functionality into discrete
re-usable objects.  Quotations tend toward the opposite.

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

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