Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!purdue!bouma
From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ... and zen there were objects.
Message-ID: <11656@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 11 Sep 90 18:29:54 GMT
References: <11485@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1680.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 64

In article <1680.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) writes:
>
>	' SomeWord Map-Over List-Specifier SEND
>
>where:	 SomeWord is a word which pushes a message (arguments first, then
>	     message "key".
>	 Map-Over is the message which takes one argument, an
>	     execution-token.  Map-Over asks a list object to iterate over
>	     its list and for each object, in turn:
>		     first execute Map-Over's argument which is supposed to
>			 cause a message and its arguments to be put onto the
>			 stack.
>		     push the object under consideration on the stack.
>		     execute SEND.
>	List-Specifier is arbitrary Forth code that leaves a list object
>	    on the top of the stack.


   This is the same example given before!

   It is a SINGLE example, and it requires only a SINGLE swap (each iteration)
   to make it work with the message at the end. If you consider that a big
   deal, fine, then you have shown one instance where message at the end is
   not as nice as object at the end. Again (dejavu) I do not, and I do not
   see how anyone who uses forth could make such a big deal out of a single
   swap!

   Now, suppose I did consider that swap to be intollerable. It is still only
   one example, and does not prove that there is anything fundamentally wrong
   the message at the end syntax!

> bouma writes:
>>      our current discussion? I thought we had dealt with this issue 5 or 6
>>      messages ago. You mistakenly think I have changed my position.
>
>You changed your style in your last set of examples.  At first you had
>active message names, but your latest round of examples showed quoted
>message names without the quoting mechanism.  Perhaps that was an
>unintentional change in style.

   I am getting tired of repeating myself. I have NOT changed anything!
   The quoting mechanism is ' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can I emphasize
   this anymore? Messages are forth words! EXECUTE == SEND !!!! It is 
   annoying me that you cannot see this. Please take a few minutes and
   think about it. Haven't you ever used EXECUTE?
 
>It has become abundantly clear that I am unable to get through to you.

   You haven't made a case. Thus far you have simply made an opinion.
   An opinion proves nothing. From the start you have been stating that
   there is something wrong with a OO forth having the message at the end.
   If you want me to agree with you on this, you will need to show me. I
   do not have to accept this just because you say so!

>There is no arbiter for the definition of OOP.  I hold that OOP, to be
>meaningful, involves a shift in the way one looks at programming.  It is
>not "merely" indirect function calling.  I cannot prove that any more than

   And I hold that the syntax of something and the way one thinks about it
   are separate things. I have no problem thinking of the object doing the
   work (ie. your OOP model) even with the message at the end. Since that is
   the simplest way to implement it in forth, do it that way.
-- 
Bill <bouma@cs.purdue.edu>      Just ask the Axis   He knows everything