Re: - about OOF

I hope the completion of the design will not eliminate FORTH Inc's willingness to
compromise in an effort to get a Industry standard.

If you are under pressure to complete the project perhaps there should be some
effort to get interested parties together, it would be a pity if there is only a
small window of opportunity and we less it pass.

talk_at_forth.com wrote:

> Original sender: Elizabeth D Rather <erather_at_forth.com>
> At 02:20 PM 1/11/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >Original sender: Charles Esson <charlese_at_cvs.com.au>
> >
> >If we can get agreement I am hoping we can get some implementations and the
> >ANSI TC will take an interest. I agree with you it is a an important issue and
> >the sooner it can be resolved the better.
> >
> >It is my view that none of the current models that will come through
> >unscathed. It is a pity because I use objects, but if any of us take the view
> >that the model we use should be the model adopted, then nothing will ever
> >happen.
> >
> >Andrew used: "method object" , it was agreed at FORML ( and Andrew was there)
> >that "object method" was the better way to go.
> >
> >Anton uses fixed binding, I believe in fixed binding, but I think the
> >consensus will be for dynamic binding.
> >
> >>From memory Andrew listed six items that need to be resolved before package
> >design can be started. We dealt with two.
> >
> >But it was my feeling that the greatest desire was for a consensus to be
> >reached so this area so we could move forward.
>
> FYI we are working on an object model for SwiftForth, which we hope will be
> ready for beta review soon. It uses a syntax based on the OBJECT METHOD
> order. This work is based on Wil Baden's Forml 1998 presentation on SOOP.

I will get it out an look at it. I didn't take a lot of interest as I have no
intention of rewriting unless the industry adopts some sort of standard.

>
> It will also support dynamic binding, at least for data. We are hoping to
> address most, if not all, of the outstanding issues.

The big issue is to get all to agree on a general direction, I don't think any
person or isolated group can do that on there own. If FORTH Inc come out with an
object model it is just another to add to the already wide range on offer. Just
another voice to add to the political pressure that have prevented standardization.

Regards

Charles Esson

>
>
> We will keep you posted.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ===============================================
> Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
> FORTH Inc. +1 310-372-8493
> 111 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Fax: +1 310-318-7130
> Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
> http://www.forth.com
>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ===============================================
>
>

.
Received on Wed Jan 13 1999 - 11:47:01 PST