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: Choice of language for manufacturing Applications
Message-ID: <5446@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 8 Aug 90 20:59:02 GMT
References: <26686@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <37938@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <5427@stpstn.UUCP> <1990Aug7.143106.27683@cs.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Organization: Stepstone
Lines: 26

In article <1990Aug7.143106.27683@cs.columbia.edu> kearns@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) writes:
>Brad Cox, paraphrased:
>>  "dont worry so much about the language... environment is even more
>>   important"
>
>In that case, why doesn't Stepstone produce software ICs for both
>Objective C and C++?
>
Why not indeed? For that matter, why not for Pascal, and Ada, and Cobol too?

In the preface to my book, I described exactly that as the ideal of which
Objective-C was only the initial instantiation.

I also went into considerable detail as to the nature of the binding
mechanisms that would make this possible, and how these mechanisms can
be added to nearly any language, Cobol being the most difficult and C or C++
the least.

So why not indeed? Only non-technical issues, like market size and the
likelihood of the target market to embrace reusable components once produced.


-- 

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