RE: objects and forth

	Hi list,

I've read several times that the CREATE ... DOES> structure is a primitiv=
e form of objet. It seems to me that it is more likely a closure, and the=
 theory says that closures may be used to model objets. I would be curiou=
s to know if some Forth object system have done it this way.

I believe that OO can be an excessive constrain and bulk. Some people hav=
e stated that OO is a good design model, but a bad implementation model (=
it has been stated also about the OSI networking layers). It seems to me =
that it complicates things sometimes. For instance, if you look at the Ob=
server pattern you notice that the interface-making device is inheretence=
; one has to create mutiple classes to achieve this pattern: two interfac=
e classes, and two implementation classes. Using closures, the interface =
device is only one function prototype.

Since it has no CREATE DOES>, how does one does closures with CF?