Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!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: <1758.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 19 Sep 90 02:36:35 GMT
References: <11656@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 25

In <11656@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:
> In article <1680.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) writes:

>    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!

Yow!  My intention was never to be as rigourous as that.  Mitch Bradley's
analogy of "buy" versus "build" and my reply to that sums up my intention.

>    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.

That is a curious thing to say.  Everything I've read about Forth says just
the opposite.  Learning Forth involves seeing and doing programming a
different way.  There are those who say (essentially) that Forth's power
derives from its syntax.  Its syntax forces you to program differently.
The result is that you are supposed to think differently about programming
because of that.  Do you agree or disagree?

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us    Daily:  {uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp