Bruce McFarling wrote:
> But from what I dimly recall, from the stance of an outside observer
> since before OO programming took the microcomputer file by storm, the
> original object programming patterns were not distilled from
> experience in working with OO languages. The original object
> programming patterns were distilled from experience in working with
> problems that fit object oriented programming so much better than
> structural procedural programming that people were programming in an
> object oriented style in structural procedural languages.
The roots of object orientation were found in simulation applications.
Later, when the Smalltalk people aggressively took the OO paradigm that
it started to get associated with GUIs since an obvious and
distingui****ng feature of Smalltalk was it's GUI. But aside from a few
primitives, Smalltalk was itself entire composed out of objects-- the
compiler, the various tools, the development environment. So although
GUIs were a focus, when the entire system is composed from objects, it
says that it's good for more than GUIs.
|
