Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.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: Object-oriented Forth
Message-ID: <1683.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 7 Sep 90 01:23:55 GMT
References: <29113@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 35

In <29113@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, carroll@udel.edu (Mark Carroll <MC>) writes:

First, I want to say that I agree whole heartedly with what you say.
That doesn't mean that I think all OOFs to date have been written by
dolts, idiots or stupid people.

> But I also lean away from that (object-name-active OOFs). I agree with
> the arguments of Doug Philips (?) in favor of an explicit send:
> 	arg1 arg2 message object SEND
> 
> The explicit send does still make it obvious that the object is the
> active entity in the computation; it also makes it obvious that a
> message pass is happening, it makes the expression easier to scan, and
> it makes a cascade more intuitive.

And it makes anonymous objects possible.  The ubiquitous List of graphical
objects used in most introductory texts/articles is the best example.

> Now, the important question is what kind of syntax to use for actual
> object creation. This, I'm very uncertain of. I would like to see what
> some other folks think about an appropritae syntax before I make any
> decision of what I like best.

I take it by your rejection of the SmallTalk model you are against having
classes be objects?  (which necessitates meta-classes.  See the SmallTalk
books for how they handled that).  I'm not sure what Self is.  Where can
I find out more about it?

-Doug

-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]