Xref: utzoo comp.lang.smalltalk:2084 comp.lang.c++:8508 comp.lang.eiffel:1010 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!unido!fauern!forwiss.uni-passau.de!unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de!knight From: knight@unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de (Alan Knight) Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel Subject: Re: OOP and graphics Message-ID: <1990Jul18.141005.21348@forwiss.uni-passau.de> Date: 18 Jul 90 14:10:05 GMT References: <1990Jul17.180931.16042@forwiss.uni-passau.de> <3127@gmdzi.UUCP> Sender: usenet@forwiss.uni-passau.de (USENET News System) Organization: University of Passau, W-Germany Lines: 29 In article <3127@gmdzi.UUCP> wissk (Peter Wisskirchen) writes: >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 > >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. This is quite interesting. We have been doing work with a system for computational geometry, which has a lot of similarities to graphics. What is it that makes you believe that a prototype/delegation approach is more suitable? We havent really looked at the possibility of using such a model, but it might be helpful in overcoming some of our problems. Alan Knight knight@unipas.fmi.uni-passau.de (until July 25th) after that use Alan_Knight@carleton.ca