🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <438@apple.UUCP> lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) writes:
>
>To be concrete, suppose the message is Draw.  Then you do need to know that
>the object you send a message to can understand Draw, but you do not need
>to know if it is going to draw a circle, rectangle, line, etc.
>
>So your program has to be correct in so far as it never confuses graphical
>objects with numbers, for example.  But other than that, it does not have to
>keep track of the specific kind of each graphical object.  The runtime
>system does that for you.
>
>>Also, I have repeatedly heard the claim that dynamically bound languages are
>>"just as fast" as static languages.  OK, make me a believer.  Who says so? 
>
>Consider implementing a graphics editor in C or Pascal.  (I will take
>Pascal, because I am more familiar with it.)  


The above excerpt illustrates a situation which really bothers me
about OOPS. I truly believe that there are benefits to software
engineering using Object Oriented programming, but I find that
out in the world of OOPS users "object oriented" and "graphical"
are almost synonyms.

This was obvious to me at the September OOPSLA conference where
there were many papers that dealt as much with graphics as with
OOPS and even more papers in which the only examples used were
graphical in nature.

The applications that I have in mind have very little to do with
graphics because they must run on ordinary non-graphic terminals.
Will OOPS buy me anything?

Is there anyone out there writing REAL applications using an O-O
programming language and NO GRAPHICS?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Vanek                       phone (416) 475-0525
Geac Computers International
350 Steelcase Rd. West
Markham Ontario L3R 1B3
Canada

UUCP ... {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid} !utzoo!yetti!geac!len