Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!spock!kim
From: kim@spock (Kim Letkeman)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Objective-C review
Message-ID: <3814@kim>
Date: 3 Jul 90 15:20:36 GMT
References: <1638@dinl.mmc.UUCP> <1690@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> <5239@stpstn.UUCP> <55443@microsoft.UUCP> <5281@stpstn.UUCP> <5286@stpstn.UUCP>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
Lines: 45
In-reply-to: cox@stpstn.UUCP's message of 28 Jun 90 15:54:01 GMT

In article <5286@stpstn.UUCP>, cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes:
| 
| Better standard *processes* will never eliminate the software
| crisis. But standard *products* might.  This is precisely the
| difference between Objective-C and C++. Objective-C is a name for an
| environment of standard products, called Software ICs. C++ is the
| name for yet another of a long line of standard *processes*, which
| will have the same impact on the software crisis as its
| predecessors; which is none at all.

I was with you right until this last paragraph. If I understand your
paradigm shift correctly, you are asking software people to look at
the forest rather than concentrating on the trees. Consider larger
blocks of functionality (e.g. Objective C with its software IC's)
rather than a low level tool to build software (e.g. a C++ compiler.)

I agree that if everyone accepted Objective C and Stepstone's class
libraries as the standard for reusable software then great strides
toward alleviating the software crisis would be made. The combination
of OOP's reusable paradigm coupled with a standard set of classes that
*everyone* used would be unbeatable.

But in reality, the same effect would be gained if *any* OOP language
and library of classes were chosen as standard (assuming the language
supports OOP to a high degree.) This is where I differ with your
(implied) criticism of C++. C++ will be (is?) just as good when a
fully featured, high quality and highly integrated set of library
classes become available and widely used. 

I do agree with the essence of your posting however. I hope that the
paradigm shift does happen as it is probably our best hope to
eventually see eye to eye in the software world.

I think the biggest problem with software (reusable or otherwise) is
that it is wetware. It exists in infinite variation in our minds. No
one likes to be constrained to a single solution to a problem, and
very few people see things in the same way.  I hope we can find a way
to get more acceptance of the common denominator, but we have to get
people to remove the thought of "lowest common denominator" from their
minds first.

Kim

-- 
Kim Letkeman    mitel!spock!kim@uunet.uu.net