On Mar 28, 5:10 pm, John Passaniti <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
There's nothing in there that conflicts with my recollection of GUI as
the main driver of OOP into the mainstream ... I don't recall the fact
that a slow memory hog of a system could be composed entirely of
objects as impressing people as much as the drive to turn out software
that acted like a collection of virtual machines, point and click.
That was the 'wow' factor.
|
