peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/12/85)
> 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?
rodb@tektronix.UUCP (Rod Belshee ) (10/17/85)
> > 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