On 10/1/22 11:28 pm, René Jansen wrote:
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.
I've already said enough in this thread. CREXX looks interesting and
fun. I'm happy to contribute.
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 <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 10.01.2022 um 15:34 schrieb David Crayford <[email protected]>:
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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with
the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
