To Rev or not to Rev

[MisterX]

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: use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com 
> [mailto:use-revolution-bounces at lists.runrev.com] 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:
> 
> > On 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 machine 
> code for  
> > the 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 return 
> addresses  
> > are 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 at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>