Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SCFVM.BITNET!ZMLEB
From: ZMLEB@SCFVM.BITNET (Lee Brotzman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: objective forth
Message-ID: <8908060021.AA03087@jade.berkeley.edu>
Date: 5 Aug 89 23:44:29 GMT
References: <dasys1!aj-mberg@NYU.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

>I don't understand how a weakly typed language like FORTH can be fit into the
>object-oriented mold. Nor am I sure why anyone would want to.

   Weak typing can be transformed into strong typing.  The inverse is not
possible (usually).  The question is whether strong or weak typing -- or
something in between -- is required and necessary.  The particular situation
overrides anything I can say in [network] isolation.

>Objects just present simething else to learn. FORTH already has most of the
>advantages of OOP if you make good use of VOCABULARYs.

   WRONG.  Forth has always had *some* of the advantages of OOP through the
use of CREATE DOES> (or <BUILDS DOES> ).  Vocabularies have always been
Forth's Achilles' heel, in my humble opinion.
   CREATE DOES> is the essence of OOP.  It defines a data structure (object)
and defines the primary operation on that data structure.  It allows
maximum freedom in data structure processing because it requires a mininum
of syntatic rules to access that data structure.

>                                        Micha Berger

-- Lee Brotzman (FIGI-L Moderator)
-- BITNET:   ZMLEB@SCFVM
-- Internet: zmleb@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov
-- The government and my company don't know what I'm saying.
-- Let's keep it that way.