Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jpd00964
From: jpd00964@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Help choosing OO C
Message-ID: <132000002@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 12 Oct 89 19:39:00 GMT
References: <20717@gryphon.COM>
Lines: 27
Nf-ID: #R:gryphon.COM:20717:uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:132000002:000:1190
Nf-From: uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jpd00964    Oct 12 14:39:00 1989


[choices b/w OO C on the NeXT]
[Obj C being unusable in an actual application]
[much much deleted and condensed]

As a maker of an Application on the NeXT in Obj C, I can tell you some of the
benefits and desadvantages of using Obj C.

1>  benefit-The NeXTStep routines are extremely easy to access from Obj C
2>  benefit-Prototyping can be done in roughly 1/3 the time using Obj C.
	Knowing Obj C fairly well, and having used c++, I still say that
	Obj C is more powerful and versital than c++.  Another note talks
	about the problems of trying to implement a sender.
3>  disadvantages- the code is large and slow.  However, with some optimization
	and cheating (direct binding, posting events instead of messages, etc)
	you can overcome these bottlenecks.

I strongly recommend you use the lingo that NeXT supports.  You can always
go back and recode your routines in strict assembly that need the speed.  Or,
you can write the majority of it in Obj c, then go back and recode your objects
that are slowest in C++.  Best of both worlds.  

I will not preach, but warn, without an implementation of sender, c++ will be
a pain in the *** to use for your interface.

Michael Rutman
Softmed