Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!stiatl!srchtec!johnb
From: johnb@srchtec.UUCP (John Baldwin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: OO Development Environments
Keywords: C++, Objective C
Message-ID: <181@srchtec.UUCP>
Date: 28 Aug 90 20:56:40 GMT
References: <1990Aug23.151011.12954@chinet.chi.il.us> <4998@pegasus.ATT.COM> <1716@dinl.mmc.UUCP>
Organization: search technology, inc.
Lines: 35

In article <1716@dinl.mmc.UUCP> noren@dinl.UUCP (Charles Noren) writes:
>
>Both Objective-C and C++ have class libraries, however, only Objective-C
>has "standard" class libraries available from the vendor (Stepstone) --
>as pointed out in the posting.  The difference is significant.
>.... 
>Use a vendor class library and
>you are tied to that vendor and to only the machines that the vendor
>supports, which for most (if not all) vendors, is a very few machines.

Huh?  Isn't this a contradiction?  It seems like you've shot your own horse,
here.  What machines are supported by Stepstone, besides MS-DOS PC's?
Has anyone encountered any other vendors of Objective-C besides Stepstone?

>
>One possible solution is public domain C++ class libraries.
> ....
>There are a variety of third-party vendors that sell C++ class
>libraries.  See the monthly products posting in comp.lang.c++

This is not to start up the new O/O language Jihad, but it just seemed like
the evidence presented in the referred posting had the opposite effect from
that intended: C++ looks like it has both PD and multivendor/multiplatform
support.  Objective-C doesn't look like it has either of the above.

Is this the case?  Please bear in mind [as I step into the flame-retardant
suit :-)] that I'm not firmly in any given O/O language camp.  To rephrase,
these are real, not rhetorical, questions.

Thanks.
-- 
John T. Baldwin                      |  johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu
Search Technology, Inc.              | 
                                     | "... I had an infinite loop,
My opinions; not my employers'.      |  but it was only for a little while..."