Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox
From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Objective-C review
Message-ID: <5337@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jul 90 20:42:17 GMT
References: <1638@dinl.mmc.UUCP> <1690@kunivv1.sci.kun.nl> <5239@stpstn.UUCP> <55443@microsoft.UUCP> <5281@stpstn.UUCP> <5286@stpstn.UUCP> <3814@kim> <1278@media01.UUCP>
Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Organization: Stepstone
Lines: 44

In article <1278@media01.UUCP> pkr@media01.UUCP (Peter Kriens) writes:
:In article about a review of Objective-C I read the following 
:statement:
:
:I absolutely do not agree that a "standard" class library 
:for C++ would allow the ideal IC/board level approach.

Wonderfully said! But I would like to steer this conversation away
from a confrontational approach between the two philosophies that
tend to polarize such debates, and point out that mature domains
seldom indulge in panacea A versus panacea B debates.

The whole point of my gate/block level integration (C++) versus 
chip-level integration (Objective-C) versus card-level integration 
(Fabrik, Metaphor, LabView) terminology was to emphasize that *all*
of them have a role to play for different constituencies of any
robust software components marketplace. 

Just try to imagine where the hardware industry would be today if
they'd "standardized" on silicon fabrication technologies for *all*
levels of their marketplace, without ever deploying chip and card
level technologies.

:I am a strong believer in the IC idea. Not that I believe that the
:complexity of a hardware even comes close to software. The
:number of dimensions in hardware is much smaller. In hardware you repeat
:the same building blocks to build a bigger system. In software every
:component is unique. But by encapsulation and using a generic software
:interface I have seen that it is possible to build systems faster. And
:I think that languages like Smalltalk, Objective C and CO2 are
:much more productive in this area then C++.

But I absolutely do not agree that software's complexity has to be 
greater than that of hardware. Admittedly, it certainly is today,
but isn't that precisely because we still invent and implement 
everything from first principles, rather than by relying on and
supporting a marketplace in interchangeable software components.

Just imagine how complex hardware engineering would be if each 
designer mined raw silicon and proceeded from there.
-- 

Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875
The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482