Xref: utzoo comp.object:1532 comp.lang.c++:8741
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
From: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Choice of language for manufacturing Applications
Message-ID: <37938@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 2 Aug 90 18:38:28 GMT
References: <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Lines: 69

In article <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, lozinski@argon.uucp (Chris
Lozinski) writes:
|> [ check out his article, I'm not going to quote it all here ]

Chris, it may indeed be true that Objective-C is the best language
for your problem.  I'm puzzled by a lot of your assertions though.
For example:

|>     C++ is the computer scientists language where the focus is on 
|> technical aspects of the language. 

I don't see how Objective-C is any less a "computer scientist's language".

!> Objective-C is the
|> businessman's language, where the emphasis is on organizing large
|> groups of people into cooperating communities assembling components
|> into final applications.

Both languages have this goal.  I can't say who does the better job.

  Technically this is caused by the default
|> structures of the objective-C language where the target class of a
|> message does not need to be known at compile time.  In contrast the
|> default in C++ is that the target class does need to be known at
|> compile time.

To override this default, you simply specify one additional word in
one place -- you insert the keyword "virtual" at the base of your
class hierarchy.  Voila -- the target class does not need to be known
at compile time.

|>    Stepstone is tightly focussed on creating tools for software
|> developers.  AT&T by contrast is not in the market of selling
|> software tools, and therefore cannot be expected to react as
|> quickly to market requirements.  

C++ has an official standards body now, which is independent of AT&T.
The users of the language will make sure it meets their requirements.
Similarly, as Objective-C increases in popularity, Stepstone will lose
control of their language as well.  I don't see how your speculations
on the competence of the two companies matter, except to the extent
that Objective-C users are currently more dependent on StepStone than
C++ users are on AT&T (this will change in the future).

|> 1)    The key feature that distinguishes Objective-C from C++ is
|> the maintenance of symbol tables.  Here I must agree with jsweet of
|> Nasa.  Objective-C allows the user to issue the following command
|> 
|>       [anObject perform: "aMessage"];
|>       or alternatively
|> 
|>        aSelector = convertToSelector("aMessage");
|>        [nObject perform aSelector];

This is a big advantage for Objective-C in some applications.  Still,
similar capabilities can be provided in a C++ program; I've done it,
in a digital signal processing simulation environment.  It would have
been nice if I could have just used the built-in facilities of the
language, but then my digital signal processing would run substantially
slower because I'd get this symbol table overhead even when I don't
want it.  It's a tradeoff; for particular problems in business as
well as science, different languages may have an advantage.

I'll accept your judgment that Objective-C works better for you in
your particular application.  But all "business applications"?
I doubt it.
--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck