Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!sbcs!bnlux0!drs
From: drs@bnlux0.bnl.gov (David R. Stampf)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: ThinkSpeed C++--------
Message-ID: <1478@bnlux0.bnl.gov>
Date: 13 Sep 89 14:28:01 GMT
References: <336@castle.ed.ac.uk> <13519@well.UUCP> <6494@columbia.edu>
Reply-To: drs@bnlux0.UUCP (David R. Stampf)
Organization: Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, N.Y.
Lines: 45

In article <6494@columbia.edu> kearns@cs.columbia.edu writes:
>I am very disappointed with Lightspeed's Pseudo object oriented 
>extensions.  I have used C++ heavily; it is a great language which
>is certainly going to be the next standard.  LSC 4.0 is an 
>unfortunate detour along the way.  
>
>An indepth discussion pointing out the failings of LSC's object system
>would require much space and effort. Suffice to say that it is a kludge
>compared to the elegance and thought put into C++. ...

	This is a copout. There are features of both languages which the
other could benefit from. Besides, the smalltalk/Eiffel/Object C camps
would probably like to differ with you.

I actually find the LSC approach to be a) simpler b) cleaner and c) more 
intuitive than many things in C++, which make it accessible to a much 
larger class of programmers. I would hope that LSC would produce a PC 
version next.

I have seen virtually *no* transfer of programs between the non-mac and 
the mac world, so a "detour" is not such a problem.  The mac is a detour 
in the inevitable march of mediocre computers. 

>
>Note that Lightspeed's set of predefined classes may be nicely designed
>(I have not studied them closely).  However, they would certainly be
>better in C++.  
>

They are nicely designed, and the purpose of a well design collection of
classes is that the implementation is unimportant.  I don't understand
why having them written in C++ is of any value whatsoever.

>The bottom line is:  no serious developer should write code that uses the
>new Think C 4.0 object oriented extensions.  The resulting code will not
>be portable across platforms, and the code will probably be rewritten for
>C++ someday anyway.  

	Get real.  The LSC extensions are a powerful tool for using the
mac.  Since mac code is inherently non-portable anyway, I don't see that
it matters.

>-steve

	< dave