Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!caip!segall
From: segall@caip.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Is Object-Oriented Programming more than graphics?
Message-ID: <4067@caip.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9-Feb-87 13:47:43 EST
Article-I.D.: caip.4067
Posted: Mon Feb  9 13:47:43 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Feb-87 05:27:01 EST
References: <364@oracle.tc.fluke.COM> <438@apple.UUCP> <519@geac.UUCP>
Distribution: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 33

len@geac.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) writes:

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


Of course. I am. I don't know why _all_ the examples you saw were
graphics problems, but I suspect I know why most of them were: 

1) Graphics problems are very nice to implement with an o-o system,
for the reasons posted;

2) It's one heck of a lot easier (and more interesting, to the casual
observer) to explain and understand things when you use pictures. The
arcane details of the internals of someone's application are not quite
as valuable teaching tools as visual examples.

My application doesn't use graphics (yet). I'm developing an
object-oriented system to optimize certain computationally-intensive
problems for solution on parallel computers. Smalltalk lends itself
beautifully to development of this system, for all the usual reasons
relating to programming environment, but there is a more important
reason: The approach I'm taking to this problem is inherently
object-oriented. To program this system without an o-o system would be
a nightmare, and I don't think I would do it. I would either have to
develop a system that doesn't really have the full flexibility I think
is required, or I'd have to implement my own o-o system, which would
be an unnecessary distraction and a waste of time.

Ed Segall

segall@caip.rutgers.edu
{pyramid, seismo, ut-sally}!topaz!caip!segall