Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Tektronix Network News Daemon (B 2.10.2 based); site tektronix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!rodb
From: rodb@tektronix.UUCP (Rod Belshee )
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro.atari,net.micro.mac,net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: DRI agrees to change GEM ; why??
Message-ID: <5829@tektronix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 12:23:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: tektroni.5829
Posted: Thu Oct 17 12:23:11 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 07:11:57 EDT
References: <3208@nsc.UUCP> <1196@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <3226@nsc.UUCP> <299@ccivax.UUCP> <290@graffiti.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:5648 net.micro.atari:1415 net.micro.mac:3022 net.micro.amiga:424

> > 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.
> 

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** (WHY??)


I would question anyone who would call the Mac Object Oriented in it's 
standard configuration.   I would pay money to see anyone who can dynamically
link conpiled functionality into their programing environment on the Apple
Mac in this configuration.  You can purchase a Small-Talk subset for the 
mac (could this be your angle?).  


		Signed Questionable??



Curt Jutzi
tektronix!gpp1!golem!jutz