Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Objective-C review
Message-ID: <1990Jul5.140840.26283@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 5 Jul 90 14:08:40 GMT
References: <5281@stpstn.UUCP> <5286@stpstn.UUCP> <3814@kim>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 32

In article <3814@kim> kim@spock (Kim Letkeman) writes:
>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 think this glosses over some very significant differences in
language design goals and ambient culture/environment which affect
the feasibility, utility, and practicality of such libraries.

>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.

Indeed, one of the great dangers of standardization is the tendency
to gravitate toward the "lowest common denominator" (what the
laziest vendor is willing to implement, what the most primitive
development environment can support, what the most obsolete
hardware can run, what the most stubborn programmer is willing to
use, what the dustiest decks are compatible with, etc.).  The other
extreme, of course, is to agree to a standard that has not been
shown to be feasible, useful, and practical.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.