\ ---[ FORTH Snippets ]----------------------------------------------
\
\ ______ _____ _______
\ /\ ___\ /\ __ \ /\ ___ \
\ \ \ \__/_ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ ___\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \__/_ \ \__/ \ \ \__\ \
\ \ \______\/\_____/\ \______\
\ \/______/\/____/ \/______/
\
\ EDO
\
\ Extended Data Objects
\ -------------------------------------------------------------------
\
\ Author:
\
\ G.T. Hawkins
\ I believe this may have been printed in FORTH Dimensions.
\ ...

---[ A quick query ]------------------------------------

Is there anything gained by using this and not moof.fs? Or this and not
the fsl-utils array words? Personally, I would prefer to see the use of
a library that is widely available in Standard Forth and has some
established user base

Bruce McFarling wrote:

Bruce -

I don't know - it could be an apples and oranges thing.

and I don't have an extensive knowledge of the programming modules
included with GForth at this time.

I've been concentrating on getting 32-bit graphics up and running on a
32-bit Forth, and beyond going thru every scrap of code in the GForth
release that I have to try to figure out how to access the video memory
- which I haven't been able to figure out - I haven't spent much time
with it.

---[ Minimalism and Benchmarking ]------

Why I raised Mini-OOF is that it is common and that it *is* far from
complete. I should hope that we will use systems that are incomplete
and extendible rather than aspiring to be complete while presenting
unforseen obstacles. In particular, moof.fs refrains from engaging in
any wordspace management, which naturally means that it is open to
wordspace management solutions as they evolve.

But mostly, since its a one-screener (see end of post), its a useful
minimalist basis of comparison for describing what a more extensive
system has to offer in addition. Even if the answer is, "this is why
moof does not offer enough capability for what I am doing", it provides
a concrete basis for comparison that is portable to a very large number
of systems.

---[ Detailed Description of Mini-OOF ]-----
---[Bernd Paysan 24sep1998 ]------
[http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/mini-oof.html A Screenful of Forth]

Bruce McFarling schrieb:

That is interesting. The moof at end of your post shows that the real
minimalist object oriented extension to FORTH needs exactly zero
screens of code to be incomplete and extendidble.

-Helmar

Bruce McFarling wrote:

Bruce -

You're not a nice man.

Bruce McFarling wrote:

I don't necessarily see that as always valid. There can be a dark side
to making things too incomplete or too extensible. Like most things in
life, "incomplete" and "extensible" isn't a binary thing. It's more a
matter of degree.

Being incomplete is of little value if you are experienced in the
problem domain and know you'll need some functionality that is missing.
And while being extensible is usually a very good thing, it can lead
to a Tower of Babel. If programmer X extends in one way and programmer
Y extends in another, programmer Z's attempts to integrate the two
efforts in a single program is likely to suffer. And that's especially
true in Forth, since different programmers with wildly different tastes
and styles can come up with completely arbitrary syntax and semantics.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:23:11 -0800, Tim Trussell wrote
(in article <1165260191.863300.91370@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>):

snip

Ouch! Quit it or I'm telling!

-- Charlie Springer

---[ Minimalist Benchmark ... An Addendum ]------
John Passaniti wrote:

There is no "only" between "will" and "use". And there are certainly
problem domains and situations where complete and, in the sense of the
above, completed tools are the order of the day. Therefore, I apologize
if my remark conveyed the impression of "will only use".

---[ The Real minimalist object oriented extension ]------

helmwo@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, I agree. If a one-screen object oriented extension is possible, it
serves to demonstrate that the "incomplete extendible object
orientation" is already there.

For social computing, it is useful to have a common vocabulary to
discuss those capabilities.
One that can be implemented as easily on a stock CP/M or C64 box as on
a current Windows, Mac or Linux box is also attractive.