Xref: utzoo comp.object:1547 comp.lang.c++:8820 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Choice of language for manufacturing Applications Message-ID: <5427@stpstn.UUCP> Date: 4 Aug 90 01:40:05 GMT References: <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <37938@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Organization: Stepstone Lines: 63 In article <37938@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, lozinski@argon.uucp (Chris >|> 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". Although I appreciate the attempt on both sides to clarify this cloudy issue, I cringe whenever Objective-C and C++ are compared as *languages*. My reason for building Objective-C was actually quite the opposite, in that I've always viewed the Objective-C front end as more philosophically aligned with yacc and lex (C attachments, rather than something that competes directly with C). Objective-C, the language, is the tiniest component of the much larger enterprise that has always been my main objective (if you doubt this, reread my book)...the Objective-C System-building Environment...a collection of ready-to-use commercially supported components (Software-ICs)_ and support tools such as browsers. Concentrating on the miniscule language component of the OC environment is like concentrating on the language component of Smalltalk...it misses the real significance of the two; as environments, not languages. >!> 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. I suggest a different and possibly less pegorative slant on this issue, which is presented in my IEEE (Nov 1990) and Byte (Oct 1990) papers. Fabrik and Metaphor are *card* level OO technologies, Objective-C (and Smalltalk) are *chip* level OO technologies, and Ada and C++ are gate/block level OO technologies. Each of these operate at different levels, and therefore draw different congingencies in the same way that some people can barely plug cards into their Macs without getting electrocuted, whereas others have the skills and interests to work with chips to build cards, and even fewer to build chips from gates/blocks. >|> 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). Although I don't quibble with your analysis, I quail everytime I hear that the software community has revved up another language standardization hoo ha. We have *got* to be the only group in the universe that standardizes our *processes* (languages, methodologies) but never gets around to standardizing the *products* of those processes (Stacks, Queues, etc). Its as if the hardware community standardized their wave solder machines expecting to avoid the need for standard bus structures. -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482