All,
I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. Seriously: what is gained here
that can't be accomplished with either a) copy and paste (my
favourite) or b) object duplication (my next favourite)?
I have programmed in virtually every language extant (and many no
longer), including most machine languages, assemblers, and their ugly
``high-level'' equivalents (e.g., C, C++), flipping (real) switches
in octal on the face of the ``computer'' to initialise the ``boot-
loader'' so that the machine could get started. I do not need, want,
or care about OO-dot.syntax shite except that it is a terribly ugly,
long-winded, opaque way of doing the obvious. Transcript is easy for
*everyone*, beginner or expert; that is its 5th GL glory.
We *could* require programming RR in pdp-8l assembler (which, no
doubt, would thrill most of the old pdp-8l assembler programmers--of
which I am one), but what of it? Who would think that was an
advance? How about DEC-Basic (also on pdp-8l computers)? HP rpl
code (I have hundreds of HP-21C programs that would benefit)? How
about APL? I loved that language (even though it required a strange
type-ball on the IBM selectrics we used as terminals to the
university mainframe)! Forth? Really, TILs (threaded interpretative
languages), like forth, have long been known to be the fastest, most
concise languages of all time---often beating optimised compiled
languages (like C, which is well known to be slower than languages
such as Pascal). Fortran? Wait, I really liked fortran... Apple
floating-point Basic? Yeah (especially if the ROM code were
included; I have all those old Apple ][ programs and subroutines just
waiting...)! 6502 assembler? Yes! I was a wizard at that shite
(using multiple entries into the same code to do different things to
save a single byte of code--those were the days!).
Bottom line? Tried them all (conducted research, published, even
published code in most). I like/love transcript (aka metatalk,
hypertalk). I get more done in minutes than I ever did in hours with
these other languages/systems. Which is why I use RR/MC. The rest
can just f-f-f-f-f-ade away...
On 26-Feb-06, at 9:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do
an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser. The trick to
creating a child object is to assign attributes of the parent
object to a child object. What is needed during the birthing
process is an allocation of memory to store the newly incarnated
child and to act on it independently while effecting the parent
that can also have global changing effects if desired.
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>
-Dr. John R. Vokey
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
