That computer wasn’t super-fast—what, with its 40-megabyte hard drive and one megabyte of RAM—and, as a result, it really benefited from the lightweight, object-oriented approach of GeoWorks.
…am I the only one that made a double-take at this? I don't associate OOP with being lightweight. It's either oxymoronic or irrelevant.
Object-oriented in those days referred also to other things than programmming. How do you cut-and-paste? You select, then cut. You work with the selection as an object, that you can cut, delete, make bold, move. This is "obvious" today, but actually not. Some programs then worked such as you execute the command ("cut"), then enter select mode, and confirm to cut. Kind of like vi.
Another example:Drag a file to trashcan was object oriented.
Comments
…am I the only one that made a double-take at this? I don't associate OOP with being lightweight. It's either oxymoronic or irrelevant.
Much of the OS was written in an object-oriented assembly language!
This is also what doomed GeoWorks; much of OS was written so low-level is was impossible to port PC/GEOS from 8086 to newer processors.
Object-oriented in those days referred also to other things than programmming. How do you cut-and-paste? You select, then cut. You work with the selection as an object, that you can cut, delete, make bold, move. This is "obvious" today, but actually not. Some programs then worked such as you execute the command ("cut"), then enter select mode, and confirm to cut. Kind of like vi.
Another example:Drag a file to trashcan was object oriented.
I think that flavor of OO was more about encapsulation, orthogonality, and modularity before OO meant the things that it means today.