David Douthitt wrote:
How about Common LISP (with CLOS) and FORTH for two? FORTH isn't OOP,
but at least one author described how an OOP FORTH could be done (Dick
Pountain). FORTH doesn't save "images" as much as they utilize the
source code model: start up with the core, and load extensions from
source. Other than that, the model is the same.
Well, as you say, Forth isn't object-based and the common communication
mechanism is source code, so I don't see a lot of similarity with
Smalltalk images. It's certainly true that it's common for developers to
save the state of their dictionaries (ie, compiled code) as a
convenience, but that's about it.
This "image-based" idea is what makes FORTHers - or LISPers - or
Smalltalkers roll their eyes and sigh heavily (figuratively
speaking!!) when someone says: "Yes, but how do I save JUST MY PROGRAM
into an executable?"
In my experience, most Forth systems have some set of words like TURNKEY
that create a "sealed" application where the user isn't presented with
the normal Forth "environment" (ie, the interpreter prompt), and for at
least the last decade I think they've offered optimizations that strip
unused words from the dictionary for application deployment. I think for
the equivalent functionality you'd be looking at something like Dolphin
Smalltalk rather than Squeak -- but perhaps someone here will point out
the Squeakish way of creating "standalone" (in appearance, at least)
applications.
Forth, Lisp, and Smalltalk are all intensely interactive languages and
all seem designed in a way to make it easy to "open the hood" and see
how the innards are working. I can't speak to CLOS, but in my limited
experience Smalltalk was unique for its time in presenting the developer
with browsers and making their use such an important part of normal
development. I don't think there's anything similar in Forth.
Tyler
_______________________________________________
Beginners mailing list
Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
