Xavier,
It's true, you can implement object-oriented concepts in Transcript, but that doesn't make it an object-oriented language.
You can write OO code in C - just implement C++ first and go from there, but that doesn't make C an OO environment.
The argument that you can get many of the benefits (and take some of the same tactics) in Rev as with true OO environments has merit, IMO, but saying that Revolution is OO is just taking liberty with the definition of Object-Oriented. Sure if you reinterpret the term based on what you think it should mean, you end up in one place- but if you associate "OO" with it's strict definition you're up a creek.
- Brian
Im sick of this non-sense - no offense to you Mickey...
Object oriented "technology" is just any way to refer semantically via a
programming language to operate on "generic" objects or objects derived from
those.
RR doesn't have a memory model but it's possible to create it with easy commands.
And I'll quote Grady Booch "it is therefore the task of the developer to
distribute such behaviors so that they may be combined in interesting ways,
giving rise to the 'self-maintaining fire' that is the mark of a profound oo
architecture." Pg 167 The Best of Booch (Sigs Reference Library - Cambridge
Univ. Press)
Patterns, templates, polymorph*, abstraction, classes and all the rest are
just a matter of imagination or interpretation. If the "engine" doesn't
support the abstraction, you write it. If they dont support polimorph*, you
branch it. ez!
In Forth, it's like in C, you add a layer ++. Java, and others have it...
RunRev - doesn't have the abstraction? They do, but they is literally no
array handling to speak of compared to other mainstream languages. It's nice
to keep things easy but it makes the use and adaptability very weak IMOHO.
Sorry, it's reality...
In forth or c you could develop libraries to handle arrays with little performance hits. In RunRev, it's another story...
With one exception... If a background behavior group is considered a class,
and a card in this group is an object then you jump one step ahead of any
other environment.
So... That's the TAOO object model base for data storage. It also works in
SQL or any other classic memory storage (arrays, folder/files, FMP layouts,
etc...)
My 2 TAOOcentric cents...
Critiques are welcome naturally!
Cheers Xav http://monsieurx.com/taoo
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Canyon Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 16:44 To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: To Rev or not to Rev
On May 2, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Dennis Brown wrote:
code forOn May 2, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
I'm not sure how to catalog Forth, but it's not OO (inherently -- there are OO implementations). It's procedural, certainly, but the inherent stack gives it a definite functional feel.
Forth is not really a high level language any more than assembler is. It is an alternative machine language based on a double stack architecture. There have been hardware implementations of Forth as the native machine instruction set. When emulated, the "Code" just consists of a list of addresses to the actual machineaddressesthe native functions, or addresses of "higher level" defined function (uses a flag bit to tell which). This makes it execute much faster than "byte code". You can implement a higher level language within the syntax of Forth because of its extensible nature. "Words" are defined from other words in an interpretive environment. Because of the double stack architecture, data arguments are passed and returned on one stack and returnare in the other stack. It makes a very efficient and powerful architecture for developing real time machine controllers with a tiny amount of memory. You are free to define "words" that implement an OO environment if you choose. You could even create Rev using this as the lower level "P code", or an operating system for that matter.
I understand how Forth works. I'm just not sure how I would categorize it. On further reflection, I would say that Forth is functional in about the same way that Revolution is Object-Oriented. In other words, loosely. ;-)
I disagree that Forth is no more high-level than assembler is. The built-in extensibility of Forth syntax makes it much more than just a convenient way of handling machine language.
gc _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
