I find that a very interesting question - I think there is no real reason, and that is one of the things CREXX is trying to prove. For the other things, other mailing lists. But we have to remember that ooRexx is doing a lot of work like keeping activation records and doing garbage collection, which used to be essential but we decided are not really a priority now due to large addressing spaces (would take a century and a non-existing machine to page everything in though) and we know a lot more about optimization (inlining, avoiding pipeline stalls, keeping routines in cache) that are only valid for modern ISA implementations.
It turned out that you need to profile the heck out of everything before you commit it. We could not do that for ooRexx yet - that is a manpower issue (man includes man and women (I wish) here). I do wish that all the knowledge on this list could be transformed into one or two people more to work on things - it is clearly not IBM or companies that bought pieces of its history that we can count on here. Best regards, René. > On 10 Jan 2022, at 11:15, Rony <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> wrote: > >> >> Am 10.01.2022 um 15:34 schrieb David Crayford <dcrayf...@gmail.com>: >> >> On 10/1/22 10:10 pm, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >>>> On 10/1/22 8:34 pm, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >>>>>> On 09.01.2022 16:29, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>>>>>>> Well all of your languages miss the support for the message paradigm. >>>>>>> What do you mean by "the message paradigm"? How does it differ from >>>>>>> sending method invocation >>>>>>> and response messages to objects? >>>>>> The message paradigm as set forth by Smalltalk explicitly defines a >>>>>> class for messages, allows for >>>>>> intercepting messages, rerouting messages at the will of the programmer >>>>>> and much more, as messages >>>>>> themselves become objects that the programmer can interact with, if >>>>>> needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> ooRexx implements the message paradigm in full, something that is easily >>>>>> overlooked as usually it is >>>>>> not necessary to be aware of it. >>>> If it's not necessary then why did you make such a big deal about it? >>> Well if you have really read the entire post you should know. Without >>> implementing the message >>> paradigm things become clumsy and some important features, if you need >>> them, are simply not available. >>> >>> >> I'm still completely baffled by the why not implementing the "message >> paradigm" is clumsy. Returning "self" from a method makes sense to me. What >> if I'm creating a class which supports method chaining >> but some methods return values other than self. Nothing you are saying makes >> sense to me. It's dogma. > > No, there is no dogma here, just a description that a mechanism is available > in ooRexx by default that needs explicit programming in other languages which > wish to be as fluent as ooRexx! ;) > > Just try it out. Many times new concepts that look alien at first or even > unnecessary become more understandable by experimenting itj. Given your > background I am sure that you would grasp these concepts quite quickly. J > > —-rony > > Rony G. Flatscher (mobil/e) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu <mailto:lists...@listserv.ua.edu> with > the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
