Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ... and zen there were objects.
Message-ID: <1533.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 16 Aug 90 05:08:13 GMT
References: <11376@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 28

In <11376@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:

>     'traditional' language looks like. I would say the syntax with the
>     message at the end is really the most forth-like. The function usually
>     comes at the end in forth. The message is basically just an indirect
>     function call.

I must disagree here.  Your view is still the traditional NON OO view
of functions with arguments.  OO says just the opposite.  OO says that it
is the object which is interesting/important.  The message is a thing which
is passed to the object and which the object examines and does with as it
sees fit.  The message is just another parameter of sorts.  Your style
re-asserts the functional style in which the object is a parameter to the
function.  Not a common view of OO systems as I understand them.

There is one other point you made which I think is independant of the
"inside-outness" issue.    Constant message names versus "anonymous"
message names.  That is, message names known at compile time versus
message names found on the stack at run time.  That strikes me as a
purely efficiency consideration.  I don't yet think I know if it is
possible to encompass both with one simple and powerful purely postfix
(my defitition of postfix) syntax.

-Doug

---
Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us  OR  ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp )
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp  [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]