Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:2083 comp.lang.c++:8506 comp.lang.eiffel:1009
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!wissk
From: wissk (Peter Wisskirchen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: OOP and graphics
Message-ID: <3127@gmdzi.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jul 90 11:34:52 GMT
References: <1990Jul17.180931.16042@forwiss.uni-passau.de>
Sender: news@gmdzi.UUCP
Organization: GMD
Lines: 23

In article <1990Jul17.180931.16042@forwiss.uni-passau.de> 
knight@unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de (Alan Knight) writes:

> 
>   It seems to be pretty much a common assumption that object-oriented
> programming works well with graphics, and that it is a lot easier to
> do graphics, particularly with a windowing environment, using OOP.  On
> the other hand, I havent really found a good reference where somebody
> actually looked at the relative difficulty.  Does anybody know of such
> a reference?

In my book "Object-Oriented Graphics--From GKS and PHIGS to OO-Systems"
(Springer Verlag, 1990, to appear in August 1990, ISBN 0-387-52859-8)
I compared especially PHIGS with an OO alternative, showing the practical
advantages which can be achieved with an OO approach.
Besides inheritance, the oo naming concept and the way how 
graphics primitives can be edited are quite useful. In addition my 
(Smalltalk-80) examples tend to the conclusion that a prototype-delegation 
model is better suited to the needs of
interactive graphics than class-inheritance.
I'am interested in discussing this (delegation or inheritance for 
interactive graphics?)
Peter W.