Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #43233 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-04 14:44 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-08 06:12 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
objects build up from other objects Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 14:44 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 09:17 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 10:07 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 18:34 +0100
Re: objects build up from other objects Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-06 00:09 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 21:47 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 09:37 +0100
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 04:52 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 12:36 +0100
Re: objects build up from other objects Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-06 12:13 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 15:32 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 13:15 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 15:19 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 22:10 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 07:50 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 13:46 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 14:46 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-06 00:20 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:39 +0200
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:33 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:31 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 18:48 +0100
Re: objects build up from other objects "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-06 08:15 -1000
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 13:44 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-06 11:10 -1000
Re: objects build up from other objects josv@planet.nl - 2015-11-06 15:19 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-06 14:54 -1000
Re: objects build up from other objects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-07 16:57 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 08:13 -1000
Re: objects build up from other objects Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 19:31 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 20:03 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects josv@planet.nl - 2015-11-07 01:43 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-11-07 15:03 +1100
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 20:42 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:12 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:01 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 08:22 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 06:37 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-08 15:01 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 07:27 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 08:20 -1000
Re: objects build up from other objects franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 23:44 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-08 21:58 -1000
Re: objects build up from other objects Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 01:57 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 12:46 +0200
Re: objects build up from other objects Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 03:04 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 23:14 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-11-09 12:15 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 12:25 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-11-10 10:48 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-10 04:31 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-10 18:06 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-11 00:49 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 01:13 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-11 01:52 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-11 15:54 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-12 11:01 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 11:07 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 15:55 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 00:50 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects - even Forth? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 18:21 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-09 12:16 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 07:38 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 04:15 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-09 15:29 +0000
Re: objects build up from other objects "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-09 09:09 -1000
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 22:41 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 19:14 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 19:39 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:04 -0500
Re: objects build up from other objects lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 09:20 -0800
Re: objects build up from other objects Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 06:12 -0500
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 06:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e420b197-71ce-4192-8f2c-cb5e90c844e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43233 |
I don't why there is this desire to try to make Forth like C++. I have been programming in C++ for 25 years now, and I get object oriented programming. But here's the thing: Forth is NOT C++, and that is not a bad thing. If I want object oriented, then I will use C++, or SmallTalk, or C#, or one of the many languages that have figured out OO. Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no stinking object orientation in Forth". I also get it that a huge strength of Forth is that it can be used to build one's own world, and that some people want to build such a world for themselves using Forth. That is great, and I and I will defend your right to use it for that if you so choose. Diversity is a good thing. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 18:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <563ce7aa$0$23770$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #43271 |
Chris Curl wrote: > Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't > need no stinking object orientation in Forth". My feelings exacly - but people were pushing for it in 4tH. So I took advice from the early days of C++ when it was just a.. preprocessor! So 4tH's FOOS is just a bunch of macros that turn this "magical" OO stuff into.. ordinary imperative code. Still, it does single inheritance, polymorphism, virtual methods, public and private stuff, reflection, static methods, constructors, the whole shebang. Everybody happy. I don't think you can replicate it in ANS-Forth, but that wasn't quite the requirement, was it? Hans Bezemer ---8<--- : sq dup * ; : hyp rot - sq rot rot - sq + isqrt ; : point struct 1+ field: x field: y end-struct ~~point ['] point (~~child!) >r : put >r r@ -> y ! r@ -> x ! r> drop ; : get >r r@ -> x @ r@ -> y @ r> drop ; r@ -> put r> drop ; : rectangle struct 1+ field: ulc field: lrc end-struct ~~rectangle ['] rectangle (~~child!) >r : diagonal >r r@ -> ulc @ -> get r@ -> lrc @ -> get hyp r> drop ; : rput >r r@ -> lrc ! r@ -> ulc ! r> drop ; : destroy >r r@ -> ulc @ free r@ -> lrc @ free or abort" Unable to free memory" r> drop ; r@ -> rput r> drop ; 20 20 ['] point ~~point (~~new) 50 50 ['] point ~~point (~~new) ~~rectangle array r latest rectangle r -> diagonal . cr 10 10 ['] point ~~point (~~new) 13 14 ['] point ~~point (~~new) ['] rectangle ~~rectangle (~~new) to hr hr -> diagonal . cr hr -> destroy hr free abort" Unable to free memory" r -> ulc @ -> x ? cr r -> ulc @ -> y ? cr r -> lrc @ -> x ? cr r -> lrc @ -> y ? cr ---8<---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 08:15 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <h8KdnVW4Fv6sc6HLnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #43271 |
On 11/6/15 4:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: > I don't why there is this desire to try to make Forth like C++. > I have been programming in C++ for 25 years now, and I get object > oriented programming. But here's the thing: Forth is NOT C++, > and that is not a bad thing. If I want object oriented, then I > will use C++, or SmallTalk, or C#, or one of the many languages > that have figured out OO. > > Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't > need no stinking object orientation in Forth". > > I also get it that a huge strength of Forth is that it can be > used to build one's own world, and that some people want to > build such a world for themselves using Forth. That is great, > and I and I will defend your right to use it for that if you > so choose. > > Diversity is a good thing. > > :) Some applications lend themselves to OO strategies and some don't. Chuck developed something that was, in effect, an OOP for image processing back in the 70's, called imageFORTH. In it, there were objects called "images" that had many properties (x,y dimensions, point size, windows, etc.) and methods you could apply to them. In the 80's FORTH, Inc. developed an industrial controls package that featured a variety of objects (conveyors, switches, lifts, gates, ...) each with its own properties and methods, as well as a "class-based database" system that was very powerful. SwiftFORTH uses its OOP system (SWOOP) for managing Windows features. The strategy works for any application that features a lot of widgets with similar features that need to be managed in an analogous fashion. What's inappropriate is assuming that all applications benefit from OOP, and forcing purely procedural programs into an OOP paradigm. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 13:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <563cf51d$0$298$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #43271 |
On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: > Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no > stinking object orientation in Forth". Other languages also support the following: - structured programming - if/then/else program control - loops - case statements - floating point - variables - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) - structures - a lot more Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at all in common with other languages now can we? -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 11:10 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <nOudnTWG16v_iqDLnZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #43275 |
On 11/6/15 8:44 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: > On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: > >> Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no >> stinking object orientation in Forth". > > Other languages also support the following: > > - structured programming > - if/then/else program control > - loops > - case statements > - floating point > - variables > - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) > - structures > - a lot more > > Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages > use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at > all in common with other languages now can we? Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently fashionable language has it. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | josv@planet.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 15:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <519a1690-5ea9-4663-8b97-61e378712d71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43277 |
Then: Who decides the limit for Forth in general? Jos On 6 november 2015 22:10:59 UTC+1 Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/6/15 8:44 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: > > On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: > > > >> Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no > >> stinking object orientation in Forth". > > > > Other languages also support the following: > > > > - structured programming > > - if/then/else program control > > - loops > > - case statements > > - floating point > > - variables > > - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) > > - structures > > - a lot more > > > > Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages > > use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at > > all in common with other languages now can we? > > Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever > facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't > feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently > fashionable language has it. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth > > -- > ================================================== > Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH > FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 > 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 > Los Angeles, CA 90045 > http://www.forth.com > > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time > applications since 1973." > ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 14:54 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <htmdnQ49EO9A1qDLnZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #43278 |
On 11/6/15 1:19 PM, josv@planet.nl wrote: > Then: Who decides the limit for Forth in general? > > Jos It should be a consensus, developed over time, between users who have needed certain facilities and implementers who have implemented them in response to demand. This is how most of the additions have developed. "Hey, everybody, I really needed this facility, so I developed it." "Ooh, that's cool, I think I'll try it." "Yes, that looked interesting, but I think [this] is a better way to do it." [etc. for a likely addition] "Hey, everybody, XXXtran has this cool feature, can Forth do that?" "Yes, here's a possible implementation, but what would you use it for?" "Well, it could replace yyy." "Yes, but yyy is smaller, faster, and clearer to me." "Oh." [etc. for a less-likely one.] When the Forth94 team started work, there was a well-established list of issues that most people in the Forth community felt they needed (the team actually did a broad-based study). These included freedom from restrictions on cell size and implementation technique, floating point, host OS files, local variables, and a few more. There was some pushback from small-system purists, which we addressed by making the "optional wordsets" and a clear way of finding what was available. Cheers, Elizabeth > On 6 november 2015 22:10:59 UTC+1 Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 11/6/15 8:44 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: >>> On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: >>> >>>> Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no >>>> stinking object orientation in Forth". >>> >>> Other languages also support the following: >>> >>> - structured programming >>> - if/then/else program control >>> - loops >>> - case statements >>> - floating point >>> - variables >>> - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) >>> - structures >>> - a lot more >>> >>> Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages >>> use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at >>> all in common with other languages now can we? >> >> Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever >> facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't >> feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently >> fashionable language has it. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth >> >> -- >> ================================================== >> Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH >> FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 >> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 >> Los Angeles, CA 90045 >> http://www.forth.com >> >> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time >> applications since 1973." >> ================================================== > -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 16:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <2015Nov7.175748@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #43280 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>There was some pushback
>from small-system purists, which we addressed by making the "optional
>wordsets" and a clear way of finding what was available.
A clear, but by specification unreliable way, and unfortunately, some
system implementors then chose to make use of that aspect of the
specification to make it also unreliable in practice (and not just on
the small systems).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 08:13 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <z7idnXwJNJnGoqPLnZ2dnUU7-RGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #43309 |
On 11/7/15 6:57 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> There was some pushback >>from small-system purists, which we addressed by making the "optional >> wordsets" and a clear way of finding what was available. > > A clear, but by specification unreliable way, and unfortunately, some > system implementors then chose to make use of that aspect of the > specification to make it also unreliable in practice (and not just on > the small systems). A standard cannot assume responsibility for "quality of implementation." Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 19:31 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <7a1bd792-cf4e-4bfd-b54c-5892cb6c2391@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43278 |
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 6:19:47 PM UTC-5, jo...@planet.nl wrote: > Then: Who decides the limit for Forth in general? > > Jos > > On 6 november 2015 22:10:59 UTC+1 Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > On 11/6/15 8:44 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: > > > On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: > > > > > >> Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no > > >> stinking object orientation in Forth". > > > > > > Other languages also support the following: > > > > > > - structured programming > > > - if/then/else program control > > > - loops > > > - case statements > > > - floating point > > > - variables > > > - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) > > > - structures > > > - a lot more > > > > > > Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages > > > use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at > > > all in common with other languages now can we? > > > > Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever > > facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't > > feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently > > fashionable language has it. > > > > Cheers, > > Elizabeth > > > > -- > > ================================================== > > Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH > > FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 > > 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 > > Los Angeles, CA 90045 > > http://www.forth.com > > > > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time > > applications since 1973." > > ================================================== Forth has doesn't really have any limits. Why do you think someone should impose limits on it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 20:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <3adc7fbf-9f91-4ee3-b386-c9e77ce19e23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43282 |
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:31:44 PM UTC-7, Chris Curl wrote: > On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 6:19:47 PM UTC-5, jo...@planet.nl wrote: > > Then: Who decides the limit for Forth in general? > > > > Jos > > > > On 6 november 2015 22:10:59 UTC+1 Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > > Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever > > > facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't > > > feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently > > > fashionable language has it. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Elizabeth > Forth has doesn't really have any limits. Why do you think > someone should impose limits on it? Elizabeth Rather wants to prevent such things as quotations primarily because she doesn't understand what they are --- this is the philosophy of the ignoramus, that everything they don't understand must be a meaningless fashion and everything worth knowing was already known 50 years ago. I don't think that this was Chris's point. She doesn't know what reentrancy is either, but that is hardly a "fashion;" it is one of the pillars of modern programming. This was actually known as far back as the 1960s, but it took awhile for everybody to grasp the concept. Elizabeth Rather says: "Truly, I don't see the point of all this paranoia about reentrancy, particularly in systems without a multitasker. VARIABLE was *designed* for things that would be used in multiple definitions. I remember the horror of (*gasp*) global variables back in the 1960's in Fortran. But, frankly, in 30+ years of programming in Forth I never found them a problem. I think this is all about mythical dragons." She was a dummkoph in the 1960s, and has continued to be a dummkoph in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and is now a dummkoph in the 2010s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | josv@planet.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 01:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <cdb7a5a3-98ee-4a98-8d6a-d94783c727e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43282 |
> Forth has doesn't really have any limits. Why do you think > someone should impose limits on it? I don't. Please implement any concept you like. It would be nice if they are portable, so I can F12 them and use the cool idea's within Win32Forth. Jos On 7 november 2015 04:31:44 UTC+1 Chris Curl wrote: > On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 6:19:47 PM UTC-5, jo...@planet.nl wrote: > > Then: Who decides the limit for Forth in general? > > > > Jos > > > > On 6 november 2015 22:10:59 UTC+1 Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > > On 11/6/15 8:44 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: > > > > On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: > > > > > > > >> Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no > > > >> stinking object orientation in Forth". > > > > > > > > Other languages also support the following: > > > > > > > > - structured programming > > > > - if/then/else program control > > > > - loops > > > > - case statements > > > > - floating point > > > > - variables > > > > - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) > > > > - structures > > > > - a lot more > > > > > > > > Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages > > > > use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at > > > > all in common with other languages now can we? > > > > > > Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever > > > facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't > > > feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently > > > fashionable language has it. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Elizabeth > > > > > > -- > > > ================================================== > > > Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH > > > FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 > > > 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 > > > Los Angeles, CA 90045 > > > http://www.forth.com > > > > > > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time > > > applications since 1973." > > > ================================================== > > Forth has doesn't really have any limits. Why do you think > someone should impose limits on it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 15:03 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <n1jt75$uc0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #43277 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/6/15 8:44 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: > > On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: > > > >> Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no > >> stinking object orientation in Forth". > > > > Other languages also support the following: > > > > - structured programming > > - if/then/else program control > > - loops > > - case statements > > - floating point > > - variables > > - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) > > - structures > > - a lot more > > > > Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages > > use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at > > all in common with other languages now can we? > > Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever > facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't > feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently > fashionable language has it. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth Forth has fashions. There was nothing pressing about locals that Forth-94 had to adopt it. Weaning users off fashion becomes impossible when your standard is telling them it's part of the language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 20:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <8ed21b92-6c29-45c4-a660-ca7cbd653535@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43284 |
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:03:53 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> > Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever
> > facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't
> > feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently
> > fashionable language has it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Elizabeth
>
> Forth has fashions. There was nothing pressing about locals that Forth-94
> had to adopt it. Weaning users off fashion becomes impossible when your
> standard is telling them it's part of the language.
Well, if you think that ANS-Forth shouldn't have had locals, you can be cheered to see that ANS-Forth completely screwed up LOCALS| by making the parameters backwards, and that prevented most ANS-Forth programmers from using locals for decades --- also, SwiftForth-v2 would crash every time that (LOCAL) was used, which also prevented a lot ANS-Forth programmers from using locals.
I myself never used locals in Forth prior to the time when I wrote { in the novice-package --- after that I used them in moderation --- I think that locals should only be used in moderation as we aren't trying to turn Forth into rpn-C, but OTOH I don't actively strive to prevent people from using locals the way that Elizabeth Rather did with her ANS-Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 10:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <563e14c9$0$298$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #43277 |
On 11/6/15 4:10 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/6/15 8:44 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: >> On 11/6/15 9:31 AM, Chris Curl wrote: >> >>> Forth has its own strengths. It is my opinion that "we don't need no >>> stinking object orientation in Forth". >> >> Other languages also support the following: >> >> - structured programming >> - if/then/else program control >> - loops >> - case statements >> - floating point >> - variables >> - local variables (Forth has 2 kinds of locals in the standard) >> - structures >> - a lot more >> >> Should we shun the above features in Forth just because "other languages >> use them"? After all, we can't have any part of Forth have anything at >> all in common with other languages now can we? > > Chris's point, which I agree with, is that Forth should have whatever > facilities prove useful in application programming, but we shouldn't > feel compelled to add a feature solely because another currently > fashionable language has it. You state the obvious and Chris Curl did not say that. The topic of the post was/is "It would be interesting to see how (doing x feature) works in other (extensions that might support x feature). Chris Curl responds by saying "we don't need that kind of extension at all". But gives no *reason* other than a form of feature x exists in C++. That is not a reason and it is off topic IMO. SwiftForth has long supported a form of the feature being discussed. Should that feature be removed from SF(rhetorical question)? -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 10:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <ccea6b72-27c6-4c8c-be52-f38e0c5fb72c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43300 |
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:12:11 AM UTC-5, Doug Hoffman wrote: > > You state the obvious and Chris Curl did not say that. > > The topic of the post was/is "It would be interesting to see how (doing > x feature) works in other (extensions that might support x feature). > > Chris Curl responds by saying "we don't need that kind of extension at > all". But gives no *reason* other than a form of feature x exists in > C++. That is not a reason and it is off topic IMO. SwiftForth has long > supported a form of the feature being discussed. Should that feature be > removed from SF(rhetorical question)? > > -Doug Being Chris Curl, I think I know what Chris Curl said. Yes, my specific words were "Forth doesn't need no stinking object orientation". I was extremely clear that that is my opinion. The point was that it seems like people are trying to make Forth look and feel like C++. I also said this, which you seem to have chosen to ignore: > I also get it that a huge strength of Forth is that it can be > used to build one's own world, and that some people want to > build such a world for themselves using Forth. That is great, > and I and I will defend your right to use it for that if you > so choose. I stand by my opinion. I do not see the point in trying to make Forth look and feel like C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 08:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <563f4c9b$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #43313 |
On 11/7/15 1:01 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > Being Chris Curl, I think I know what Chris Curl said. All one needs is a computer to know what Chris Curl said. > Yes, my > specific words were "Forth doesn't need no stinking object > orientation". > I also said this, which you seem to > have chosen to ignore: > >> I also get it that a huge strength of Forth is that it can be >> used to build one's own world, and that some people want to >> build such a world for themselves using Forth. That is great, >> and I and I will defend your right to use it for that if you >> so choose. Of course I saw that. But it makes no sense that you want it both ways. You first say "<foo> is a terrible idea". Then you say "but it's fine for those that want it". Make up your mind. You don't get it both ways. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 06:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <aba38ac6-4b30-44a8-a25a-b8bed6aa5084@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43360 |
On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 8:22:37 AM UTC-5, Doug Hoffman wrote: > > Of course I saw that. But it makes no sense that you want it both ways. > You first say "<foo> is a terrible idea". Then you say "but it's fine > for those that want it". Make up your mind. You don't get it both ways. > > -Doug Don't claim I said something I never said. Re-read my comments. You will see that I never said it was a bad idea. What I said was that I I don't understand why some people feel he need make it look and feel like C++. That was my point. Not even close to the same thing. The "we don't need no stinking ..." was a humorous reference to one of the most famous lines ever borrowed for comedy use in movies. If you didn't make that connection .. sorry. And saying that I don't understand why you are doing something, while also saying I will defend your right to do it is not a contradiction. I believe in liberty, and I will defend your liberty to do whatever you choose to do. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 15:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <op.x7sslfqpyfako5@localhost> |
| In reply to | #43313 |
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 13:01:15 -0500, Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> wrote: > Being Chris Curl, I think I know what Chris Curl said. Yes, my > specific words were "Forth doesn't need no stinking object > orientation". I agree, but generally I don't code Forth, except for my Forth interpreter project. I do know that without object oriented Forth words, like CREATE .. DOES> , that the low-level sub-structure of ITC Forth becomes much more like a structured programming language. So, if someone removes such functionality, they'll likely be changing the language coding style of high-level Forth by eliminating those object oriented features. Rod Pemberton -- When El Chapo is the most beloved man in Mexico and Trump is the most hated, it shows that Mexico is truly fouled up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 07:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: objects build up from other objects |
| Message-ID | <56409122$0$303$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #43383 |
On 11/8/15 3:01 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 13:01:15 -0500, Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Being Chris Curl, I think I know what Chris Curl said. Yes, my >> specific words were "Forth doesn't need no stinking object >> orientation". > > I agree, but generally I don't code Forth, except for my Forth > interpreter project. I do know that without object oriented > Forth words, like CREATE .. DOES> , that the low-level > sub-structure of ITC Forth becomes much more like a structured > programming language. So, if someone removes such functionality, > they'll likely be changing the language coding style of high-level > Forth by eliminating those object oriented features. Excellent point, Rod. Subtle and spot on. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web