From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" Date: 2007-11-12T09:33:27+09:00 Subject: Re: method names in 1.9 Rick DeNatale wrote: >> 1. Isn't there a continuum between the two "extremes"? [snip] > There are some non-uniformly object-oriented languages which add > mystical viewpoint objects to a non-object-oriented language. The > best know of these is probably Objective-C. Another was ClassC which > I designed back in 1982 or so, and never got outside of IBM. Brad Cox > and I were both inspired by the special issue of Byte magazine which > introduced Smalltalk to the world to add Smalltalk like objects to , > as a "poor mans" Smalltalk. Ah, yes, the Byte magazine special language issues. I think I still have the one for Forth, and quite a few other Forth publications from the same time. Considering that the dominant personal computer at the time was an 8-bit processor with a 16-bit address, I wonder how anything *except* Forth ever ran. ;) > As I said, Ruby is mystical. Ralph Johnson who has thought more about > objects in Erlang than I have says that Erlang is mystical. Well, I went and read the blog post and he actually had three views, the third view being represented by Erlang. In fact, the whole post was mostly about Erlang. :) Yes, he ended up putting Erlang in the mystical camp. > I'm not familiar with standard object-oriented extensions to scheme or forth. Forth has a couple -- Dick Pountain's "Object Oriented Forth" and "SWOOP" are two of them. Scheme has at least one, from the people at Inria, which is documented in "Lisp In Small Pieces." I would claim that Forth is the ultimate "software engineering" language as a whole, regardless of how one defines "objects". >> 3. If either extreme is (or can be made) Turing-complete, why do nearly >> all languages include concepts catering to both? > > They don't (see the above). > > Plus paraphrasing Matz in his keynote last weekend at RubyConf last > weekend, "Turing complete, Schmuring complete." Perhaps if I said "Church complete" he would be happier?