Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!johnson
From: johnson@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: software ICs (was Re: C++ vs Object
Message-ID: <80500019@uiucdcsp>
Date: Mon, 26-Oct-87 18:59:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsp.80500019
Posted: Mon Oct 26 18:59:00 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Oct-87 21:28:08 EST
References: <3179@ames.arpa>
Lines: 13
Nf-ID: #R:ames.arpa:3179:uiucdcsp:80500019:000:707
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu!johnson    Oct 26 17:59:00 1987


Saying that class libraries are like subroutine libraries is a gross
misstatement.  O-o programming provides the benefits of code skeletons,
reuseable abstract designs, and families of compatible components.
It is possible to simulate all these things in conventional languages,
of course, but nobody does.  That is what makes o-o programming unique.

Smalltalk programmers can be very productive when they are working in
an area for which there is a lot of prebuilt classes, such as in
user interfaces.  When they have to stop to invent new abstract classes
there productivity goes down to the level of other languages.  It is
the library of well-designed abstractions that is important, not the
language.