A History of Object-

Oriented Programming
Languages and their
Impact on Program
Design and Software
Development
 Page 1

A program is simply a sequence of commands instructing a

computer what to do. The degrees of freedom available in devising this
list, make programs potentially the most complex and intricate entities
ever envisioned by humans. For this reason, it is imperative that they are
subdivided, otherwise they would soon become unmanageable and
incomprehensible. It is essentially the different ways in which this can be
accomplished which has engendered the development of programming
design methods and subsequently languages which facilitate their
implementation.
Early languages could be categorised as procedural and applicative.
The former predominantly embody a series of instructions to assign
values to variables, while the latter resemble mathematical function
definitions and ideally have no statements, only expressions without side
effects (Parker 1988). During the 1960s, a new discipline, object-
orientation emerged. Although the first language of this type originated
towards the end of the 1960s, it is only in the last decade that its
employment has become widespread because of the benefits it confers
over existing methods. As the requirement for systems becomes ever
more prodigious and elaborate, it is perceived as a means by which greater
reliability and easier maintenance can be achieved.
In order to understand the advantages stipulated by the inventors of
object-oriented languages, it is important to appreciate the conceptual
distinctions between these and traditional imperative programming
languages. In the latter, a software schema may be data or process driven,
with functions and variables attributed different levels of importance.
Rather than considering procedures and data as being separate, object-
orientation unifies them into an ensemble called an object. An object’s
state is a function of its data or instance variables, which can only be
accessed by sending a message asking the object, an operation which
entails calling its functions known as methods or member functions
(Lafore 1991). This occasions the notion of an object possessing
behaviour, with messages sent to it causing a modification of that
behaviour. The enclosure and protection of data is called encapsulation
and results in the state of an object being hidden from procedures external
to it. The importance of this in planning a program cannot be
underestimated. It encourages a delegation of behaviour to objects, whilst
hindering the cross-coupling of the internals of an object with other areas
of the system (Computer Applied Technology 1993). This should
diminish the probability of a rogue program being capable of altering data,
since it should be concealed from all but the pertaining object.
Additionally, when modelling a real world item, it is more natural to

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 2

imagine it in terms of an object than a function, which assists the design

process.
In essence, object-orientation is a form of organisation and can be
performed to some degree with any programming language. However, in
order to exploit the full potential of this methodology, several languages
have been conceived specifically for this purpose.
The first of these was Simula. Although it never became widely
used, it was the archetype of the concepts of object-oriented
programming and has been highly influential on its successors. Its
designers were Ole-Johan Dahl and Kristen Nygaard, who worked at the
Norwegian Computing Centre in Oslo. What they had originally envisaged
in 1962 was a simple simulation procedure package along with a pre-
processor for ALGOL 60, the foremost programming language in Europe
at that time. Their endeavours culminated in a prototype Simula I compiler
running on a UNIVAC 1107 mainframe in 1964. To create an all-purpose,
standalone language, the designers wanted to generalise and consolidate
the concepts they had formulated and when Tony Hoare imparted his idea
of a record class construct in ALGOL bulletin no. 21, 1965, they realised
they needed some kind of object with record class properties. When
prefixing was introduced in 1966, they had what they were after: an object
consisting of a prefix layer and a main layer, the former containing
references to its predecessor and successor and the latter
accommodating its attributes. Combined with the exploration of string
handling and input/output for the language by Bjoern Myhrhaug and the
concept of classes, Simula 67, later renamed Simula was born. Work
began on the production of compilers for an assortment of mainframes,
including IBM, UNIVAC, CDC and DEC machines (Holmevik 1995).
Nygaard’s language development did not cease, his efforts being
devoted to the systems description language Delta completed in 1975 and
to the refinement of the related notions of classes, records, types and
procedures into a higher-level abstraction mechanism, the pattern,
incorporated in the language, Beta (Knudsen 1997).
One of the languages that embraced the concepts of class and
message of Simula, was Smalltalk. A project commenced at Xerox PARC
in the early 70s with the aim of creating the quintessential dynamic object-
oriented language. This is one which allows new classes, objects and
behaviour to be appended on the fly by representing the class hierarchy,
objects and methods of a program as meta-data at run-time. Early versions
appeared biannually between 1972 and 1978, but unfortunately, the
language was not standardised hence there are a number of commercial
dialects in existence today (Latta 1995). This is not a problem with Eiffel

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 3

which was produced with similar aims by Bertrand Meyer in 1985 to

increase productivity and software quality (Arnaud 1998).
Object-orientation could only take off if programmers could be
weaned on to it by evolving a new language from an existing one, so that
old source code would not have to be rewritten and so the new techniques
could be progressively mastered. Arguably the most successful of these is
C++. C had been invented by Dennis Ritchie of Bell Laboratories in 1972
and it had become the prevalent language of its time partly due to its
translation into efficient machine code, its portability and versatility, but
principally because it underpins the UNIX operating system. C++, which
was credited to Bjarne Stroustrup of AT&T Bell Laboratories Computing
Science Research Centre in 1983, has few incompatibilities with C,
permitting gradual familiarisation with the procedural improvements and
features to support data abstraction and the object model (Holmes 1992).
It was not the only undertaking to extend C, another example being
Objective-C by Brad Cox in 1984, but it has become far more popular
amongst programmers (Schoenmakers 1998). To retain compatibility with
C, there are compromises which make it a retrograde step from Smalltalk.
For example, by implementing static object-orientation, any change in a
class necessitates total recompilation and its lack of garbage collection can
generate severe memory management problems.
Other languages have been expanded to encompass object-
orientation. Microsoft have made their own version of BASIC called
Visual BASIC and Borland, with their successful Turbo Pascal
environment have been expeditious in introducing the methodology to their
product and have also released their own visual tool, Delphi (Kinnersley
1998, Andersson 1997). While these languages tie programmers to one
operating system, others have been standardised to institute greater cross-
platform availability. As successors to Modula 2, in the late 80s, DEC and
Olivetti designed Modula 3 and Wirth and Gutknecht, Oberon, now
renamed Component Pascal (Harbison 1992, Oberon Microsystems
1997). Meanwhile, a recommendation for an object-oriented version of
Ada, eventually to be Ada 95, was composed by the Ada Board, a
Federal advisory committee to the Ada Joint Project Office set up by the
US Department of Defence (Guerby 1996). The architects of Smalltalk
strived to overcome its shortcomings and their research centred on
supplementing Lisp with the Common Lisp Object System, through
Flavors (Franz Incorporated 1998). Not even the venerable COBOL is
being ignored. Commercial object-oriented variants already exist, such as
Micro Focus Object COBOL, although standardisation efforts by ANSI
(J4) and ISO (WG4) groups have not yet finished (Klein 1998).

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 4

The revolution in methodology has not been avoided by the

scripting languages 1, with Perl and REXX being upgraded, the latter
undergoing a name change to Object REXX (Christiansen 1996,
Cowlishaw 1997). Python is an example of a new scripting language, the
origin of its syntax and semantics being Modula 3 (Rossum 1998).
A list of object-oriented languages in existence or under
development is given in Appendix A, but this examination of their history
would not be complete without reference to Java. Delivered by Sun
Microsystems in 1995, its original objective was to let devices, peripherals
and appliances possess a common programming interface. However, the
tremendous upsurge in browsing the Internet enabled its machine
independence to be utilised in facilitating far more functionality to be
offered by web sites through Java applets. A Java compiler outputs a
pseudo-code which must be executed on any computer having an
appropriate interpreter known as a Java virtual machine. With a similar
syntax and many improvements to C++, like garbage collection, its
deployment has been extremely rapid (Harold 1998). A recent survey
reveals that over 40% of US businesses asked are already using it and
over 30% intend to soon (Andrews 1998).
All these languages possess certain distinguishing characteristics:
classes, inheritance, polymorphism and ease of modification.
A class is a definition of the type of an object. In procedural
languages, the type may be an elementary data type, such as an integer or
a collection of basic types within some sort of record or structure, for
example a ‘struct’ in C. The fundamental difference between these and
classes are that the latter define functions as well as data types. This has
the advantage that the behaviour is not hardwired and classes can be
developed as abstractions from particular problems, allowing expression
of not just the data to be manipulated, but the methods that will operate on
that data.
Enlarging the concept of class is inheritance. When declaring a new
class, it can be derived from one or more base or parent classes. When
an object of the child class is instantiated, its behaviour depends upon the
members and instance variables of the child and parent classes. It can
respond in the same way to the same stimuli as objects of the parent class
and regulating its behaviour involves altering only the base class
(Computer Applied Technology 1993). By inheriting the capabilities of the
parent class, functions can be reused and the connection between
elements of an object-oriented program is made manifest.

1
Scripting language: interpreted high-level language generally used for system administration and text manipulation
tasks within operating systems. A DOS batch file is an example of a script.
A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their
Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 5

Stemming from inheritance is polymorphism. Several functions can

be declared with the same name, but they must have some other
identifying trait. This could be the function type or the number of or data
types of input parameters. This requires dynamic binding, in which the
correct method to execute must be determined at run-time. Operators like
‘+’ and ‘=’ may also be polymorphic, in which case they are said to be
overloaded, but this is contingent upon the language (Lafore, 1991). The
member functions of a base class may be overridden in a derived class,
by duplicating the parent’s declaration in the child. Thus, objects of the
two classes may both react to the same messages, but can do so in
distinct manners.
One of the goals of object-oriented languages is flexible programs.
A minor shift in requirement of a program should not demand an entire
rewrite and if other programs share any of its features, adaptation of the
relevant sections could save time and money. The data dependencies
inherent in procedural programs present a formidable obstacle to this goal,
but one which has been largely surmounted by the localisation of change
made possible by encapsulation, provided discipline is imposed on the
design of classes. Future software production can be expedited by the
construction of libraries of classes, the division of programs into objects
making this task relatively straightforward.
The development of languages has not abated and there are those
who are working on progressing beyond object-orientation. Research
teams are investigating blending object-oriented and functional concepts to
create new programming languages. Another idea, as illustrated by the
language Beta, is to abstract further to a basic construct from which
classes, types, procedures and records are composed (Knudsen 1997).
A new object model under research at the University of Twente in
the Netherlands is the composition filters object model which amongst
other benefits, enables dynamic inheritance and delegation, reflection on
the interaction between, and the abstraction of communications among
objects (Koopmans 1996).
It is to be hoped that these advancements will complement the
improvements in development, maintenance and reusability of software
inaugurated by object-orientation and the languages which conform to the
objectives of this methodology.

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 6

Appendix A

List of some of the Object-Oriented Programming

Languages in Existence Today

1. A# 22. C*
2. ABCL 23. C++
3. Abel 24. C+@
4. Actor 25. Cantor
5. Acttalk 26. Cecil
6. Ada 27. CESP
7. ADES 28. CHARM++
8. ADVSYS 29. CIEL
9. Agora 30. Classic-Ada
10. Alcool-90 31. Click-n
11. ALLOY 32. CLIPS
12. ALTRAN 33. CLIX
13. AppleScript 34. Clu
14. ASDL 35. Cluster-86
15. A’UM 36. Common Lisp
Object System
16. BeBOP (CLOS)
17. Beta 37. CommonLoops
18. BLAZE 2 38. Common Objects
19. Blue 39. Concurrent
20. Bob Aggregates (CA)

21. BOPL 40. Concurrent

Smalltalk
A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their
Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 7

41. ConstraintLisp 66. G

42. cooC 67. GEL
43. COOL 68. HERAKLIT
44. CSSA 69. HOOK
45. Denali 70. Hybrid
46. DinnerBell 71. IDOL
47. DOWL 72. InnovAda
48. DRAGOON 73. ISLisp
49. DROOL 74. Jade
50. Dylan 75. Java
51. Echidna 76. Kaleidoscope
52. Eden 77. Kevo
53. Eiffel 78. LAMINA
54. Ellie 79. Late-bound
Encapsulated
55. ELLIS Name Spaces
56. ELSIE (LENS)

57. Emerald 80. LAURE

58. EMPL 81. Leda

59. ETHER 82. LIFE

60. EXTRA 83. LITHE

61. FLEX 84. LOGLAN

62. FMPL 85. LOOKS

63. FOOP 86. LOOPN

64. Formes 87. LOOPS

65. Fresco 88. Lore

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 8

89. LUKKO 112. Object Pascal

90. MACE 113. Object REXX
91. MCS 114. ObjectTCL
92. MELD 115. ObjVlisp
93. MeldC 116. Oblique
94. Mentat 117. Oblog
95. MEROON 118. Omega
96. Mode 119. Ondine
97. MODSIM II 120. Ontic
98. Modula-3 121. Orca
99. MooZ 122. Orient84/K
100. Neon 123. OSCAR
101. Newton 124. O'small
102. Oaklisp 125. Oz
103. Oberon-2 126. Parasol
104. Objective-C 127. Parlog++
105. Object-CHILL 128. Pascal Plus
106. Object Lisp 129. PECOS
107. ObjectLOGO 130. PHOCUS
108. Object Oberon 131. Pict
109. Object-Oriented 132. Polka
COBOL
133. POLYGOTH
110. Object-Oriented
Fortran 134. POOL2

111. Object-Oriented 135. POP++

Turing 136. PopTalk

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 9

137. Probe 162. Tuple Space

Smalltalk
138. Prolog++
163. Turbo Pascal V.6
139. PROOF/L
164. UC++
140. Python
165. United Functions
141. Real-Time Mentat and Objects (UFO)
142. ROME 166. USSA
143. Rossette 167. VDM++
144. RTC++ 168. Venari
145. Sather 169. XDL
146. SCOOP 170. XLISP
147. SCOOPS 171. XScheme
148. ScriptX 172. yacc
149. SDL-92 173. Z++
150. Self
151. Sina
152. Siri
153. SmallWorld
154. SNOOPS
155. Solve
156. Spool
157. TAO
158. TELOS
159. Theta
160. Traits
161. Trellis

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 10

References

Andersson, M. (1997, May 28) Delphi Frequently Asked Questions.

<http://www.sbrain.syh.fi/delphi/delphi_faq_1.html>
Andrews, D. (1998, March) “Survey Reveals Java Adoption Plans.” Byte
Magazine. 23(3). pp.26,30.
Arnaud, F. (1998, March 12) Eiffel Frequently Asked Questions.
<http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/usenet-by-
hierarchy/comp/lang/eiffel/comp.lang.eiffel_Frequently_Asked_Questions
_(FAQ)>
Austern, M. What is Java? (1997, November 19)
<http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern/java.html>
Christiansen, T. (1996) What is Perl5?
<http://language.perl.com/info/perl5-brief.html>
Computer Applied Technology (1993) What is object-oriented design?
Computer Applied Technology CBT.
Cowlishaw, M. (1997, July 30) Where do we stand today?
<http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/orexx/section2.htm>
Davis, R. (1997, June 20) The Object-Oriented Page.
<http://www.well.com/user/ritchie/ritchie.html>
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (1997) Computer Science: Programming
Languages. Britannica CD. Version 97.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (1997) Computers: Programming
Languages. Britannica CD. Version 97.
Franz Incorporated. (1998, March 4) Enabling Applications that Adapt
to Changing Needs. <http://www.franz.com/tech/wp.html>
Guerby, L. (1996, July 16) Evolution of Ada95.
<http://www.adahome.com/LRM/9X/Rationale/rat95html/rat95-p1-1.html>
Harbison, S.P. (1992) Modula-3. Prentice Hall.

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 11

Harold, E.R. (1998, March) Java Frequently Asked Questions.

<http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/usenet-by-
hierarchy/comp/lang/java/programmer/comp.lang.java_FAQ 28>
Hathaway, R.J. (1998, February 3) Object-Orientation FAQ.
<http://www.cyberdyne-object-sys.com/oofaq2/>
Holmes, B.J. (1992) Convert to C and C++. DP Publications.
Holmevik, J.R. (1995, February 23) History of Simula.
<http://www.cs.chalmers.se/ComputingScience/Education/Courses/z3sim/
SIMULA-HISTORY.txt>
Interactive Software Engineering Inc. (1998) About Eiffel.
<http://www.eiffel.com/doc/eiffel.html>
Kempe, Magnus (1997, February 5) ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
<http://www.adahome.com/FAQ/comp-lang-ada.html#title>
Kinnersley, B. (1998, April 11) Language List.
<http://cuiwww.unige.ch/cgi-bin/langlist?object-orient>
Klein, W.M. (1998, April 10) COBOL Frequently Asked Questions.
<http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/usenet-by-
hierarchy/comp/lang/cobol/COBOL_FAQ>
Knudsen, J. L. (1997, December 8) Beta Frequently Asked Questions.
<http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/usenet-by-
group/comp.lang.beta/FAQ:_BETA_Programming_Language_(version_1.
11_-_08_Dec_97)>
Koopmans, P. S. (1996, July 17) The Composition Filters Object Model.
<http://www.trese.cs.utwente.nl/sina/cfom/index.html>
Lafore, Robert (1991) Object-oriented programming in C++. Waite
Group Press.
Latta, C. (1995, August 28) Smalltalk Frequently Asked Questions.
<http://xcf.berkeley.edu/pub/misc/smalltalk/FAQ/index.html>
Lutz, M.(1996) Programming Python. O'Reilly & Associates.
Meyer, B.(1992) Eiffel: The Language. Prentice Hall.
Nierstrasz, O. (1998, February 3) Object-Oriented Information Sources.
<http://www.iam.unibe.ch/cgi-bin/ooinfo?language>
A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their
Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99
 Page 12

Oberon Microsystems (1997, July 17) A Brief History of Pascal.

<http://www.oberon.ch/docu/history.html>
Parker, S.P. (1988) Computer Science Source Book. McGraw Hill.
Rossum, G. (1998, April 10) The Whole Python FAQ.
<http://grail.cnri.reston.va.us/cgi-bin/faqw.py?req=all>
Schneider, M (1998, April 5) Object-Oriented Languages: Overview.
<http://www.parallax.co.uk/cetus/top_languages.html>
Schoenmakers, P.J. (1998, March 18) Objective-C Frequently Asked
Questions. <http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/usenet-by-
hierarchy/comp/lang/objective-c/comp.lang.objective-
c_FAQ,_part_1_3:_Answers>
Sutherland, J. (1995, May) “C++, OO Cobol, and Smalltalk: Good,
Better, Best.” Object Magazine. 5(2). pp.32-35.
Topper, A. (1994, February) “Object-Oriented COBOL Standard.”
Object Magazine. 3(6). pp.39-41.

A History of Object-Oriented Programming Languages and their

Impact on Program Design and Software Development
10/12/99