Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter
From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why??
Message-ID: <290@graffiti.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 09:59:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: graffiti.290
Posted: Sat Oct 12 09:59:54 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 06:41:11 EDT
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> <299@ccivax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 16
Xref: linus net.micro.pc:5333 net.micro.atari:1305 net.micro.mac:2937 net.micro.amiga:4252

> I find it rather hard to believe that Apple would really have a case against
> DRI.  Anyone who has worked with "Object Oriented" systems like the Mac,
> and "Action Oriented" systems like the PC, Un*x, CP/M... knows how difficult
> it is to get "Dynamic Run-time Binding" from the "Action Oriented" systems.

Could you clarify this point? I was under the impression that the Mac operating
system was simply a standard CP/M like system with a BIOS/BDOS (whatever they
call the DOS), a CCP (the finder), and a TPA. The way Switcher works (almost
exactly like DoubleDos on the IBM) makes this painfully obvious. I was also
under the impression that an Object Oriented system would be capable of many
things the Mac isn't able to do, such as allowing an arbitrary number of
co-resident programs ala SmallTalk, which would of course make Switcher rather
redundant. Are you implying that the Mac is an Object Oriented system of the
SmallTalk genre, as well as having a SmallTalk-like user interface?

Also, what is an "Action Oriented" system in this context?