On Mar 29, 3:17 pm, John Passaniti <put-my-first-name-
h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bruce McFarling wrote:
> > There's nothing in there that conflicts with my recollection of GUI as
> > the main driver of OOP into the mainstream ...
> Sure, and as "the mainstream" is a vague thing, this statement holds.
I recall when OOP was a research laboratory kind of thing. I recall a
decade later BYTE and Dr. Dobb's and the industry journals full of OOP
this and OOP that. Pinning down when it entered the mainstream is
always a fuzzy kind of thing, but clearly it entered the mainstream
sometime in the 1980's.
> 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.
>
> I'm not sure what "slow memory hog of a system" refers to. Smalltalk?
> If so, the early implementations of Smalltalk were focused not on speed,
> but on exploring the concept of what happens when you base a system
> entirely on objects. ...
> ... Modern implementations of Smalltalk and derived languages (such as
> Squeak) are now very fast, due in part to metacompilation techniques
that
> aren't very far from the Forth equivalents.
And it was the early Smalltalk that seemed to have the biggest impact
on the market ... that is, the example of the system at Xerox PARC
that had the biggest impact via the inspiration of the Apple Lisa and
Macintosh systems.
|
