1. 5
  1.  

  2. 2

    I forgot how strongly he attributed NextStep’s productivity to being “Object Oriented.”

    I wonder what he understood the term to mean. It was probably quite a bit different than what I mean if I use the term.

    1. 5

      Something a bit more like what people more usually call components these days, more than object oriented languages. It’s all about packaging collections of behaviour behind reusable modular abstractions. He’s right, about a lot of it, although the vocabulary is dated, and we have coalesced more of it into and around the idea of APIs

      Remember the NeXT idea of OOP is dynamic, late bound, loose types and message passing, with Smalltalk as the primary influence, not objects in the mainstream as eventually happened in the more static bound sense of Java or C++.

      Some of what they were shooting for was objects as closed components that could be distributed and sold like pieces of a construction kit and you’d be able to quickly assemble desktop apps by dragging them together in a visual editor and just serialising that out to dump a working application image. (Which is kind of how NeXT Interface Builder worked)

      Squint and you can see it in today’s apps that tie together APIs from disparate service providers, and we don’t really talk about this in the vocabulary of objects so much any more, but the early roots of SOA do have a lot of it present in CORBA, XML RPC, SOAP etc. And there is that ‘O’ in JSON still ;-)

      1. 3

        I believe I remember the term “software ICs” being used back then.