Re: Images and libraries

Bruce McFarling wrote:

-snip-

> So for me, OOF would probably be the most natural step up if anything
> more than Mini-OOF is needed,

-snip-

> Does it have this problem with savesystem? Obviously working
> effectively with savesystem is im****tant for my context.

I just now tried doing a "savesytem" (snapshot in Carbon MacForth 
parlance) with OOF.  Unfortunately I then had the same problems as with 
Objects.fs.  What I don't know, either for OOF or Objects.fs, is the 
degree of difficulty in modifying the code to allot rather than allocate 
the required memory.  Or perhaps (hopefully) it would not be difficult 
to write out to a file the memory state and read it back in 
automatically upon a restart.  Bernd could best answer those questions 
for OOF.

I like what I see in OOF in terms of syntax and readability.  It uses 
the more readable, to me, convention of placing the names of new 
definitions at the *beginning* of the definition instead of at the end 
(cl***** and methods).  OOF does not require the redundant declarations 
of, for example, 'method' when it seems obvious that the code is a 
method.  Same for 'overrides' when it is obvious that the method is 
overriding.  OOF also looks to be a fairly complete implementation with 
sup****t for arrays.  In these respects OOF looks to be similar to the 
SWOOP and Neon-like models.  But these are just first impressions 
because I haven't finished looking at everything I plan to.

-Doug