Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!dinl!noren From: noren@dinl.uucp (Charles Noren) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: OO Development Environments Keywords: C++, Objective C Message-ID: <1719@dinl.mmc.UUCP> Date: 29 Aug 90 16:07:02 GMT References: <1990Aug23.151011.12954@chinet.chi.il.us> <4998@pegasus.ATT.COM> <1716@dinl.mmc.UUCP> <181@srchtec.UUCP> Reply-To: noren@dinl.UUCP (Charles Noren) Organization: Martin Marietta I&CS, Denver CO. Lines: 125 In article <181@srchtec.UUCP> johnb@srchtec.UUCP (John Baldwin) writes: >In article <1716@dinl.mmc.UUCP> noren@dinl.UUCP (Charles Noren) writes: I wrote: 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. John Baldwin wrote (trying to piece togther my confusing style): 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? Objective-C is supported by only one vendor, Stepstone. Sometimes this can be a hinderance in trying to purchase Objective-C in a corporate environment that is concerned about sole-source products and what happens if that company goes out of business. However, if you are not careful with C++ development, you could but subject to sole-source risks also, particularly if you are locked into a particular vendor's class library. For instance, we are using the C++ compiler from Object Design, Inc (ODI) which is tailored for Object Design's OODBMS called ObjectStore. The C++ compiler is a modification of AT&T's c-front, which, among other things, can accept parameterized types. This is the first C++ compiler to have parameterized types. The trade-rags indicate that AT&T will use ODI's implementation of parameterized types, but I put this information in the rumor category. ODI has a class library, which makes use of parameterized types. The class library is nice for general C++ work, but exremely useful for using the ObjectStore database. We are using the ODI class libraries because of its general utility and its power to use the database. So, we are locked into ODI's class library, which is locked in currently to ODI's C++ compiler. Currently, ODI's compiler and database only run on Sun 3's and Sun 4's. ODI is working to release their products on other machines, and announcements should be forth coming soon. But ODI is a new company (as with many other OO companies) -- and the products are *beta* products. We are running all sorts of risks, but we're doing a research project (I must say, however, that ODI seems to be getting lots of orders for a product that is well done). Objective-C is not limited to MS-DOS (which, is not its primary target environment). Objective-C can run on the following machines: 1. Apollo Domain 2. HP9000/300/HP-UX 3. PC/AT with MS-DOS (but not with windows and graphics libraries) 4. PS/2 OS/2 (but not with windows and graphics libraries) 5. IBM PC/RT with AIX 6. Sun 3, Sun 4, Sun 386i 7. VAX with ULTRIX and VAX with VMS. 8. NeXT 9. ...and I've just heard of a new port to the IBM RISC machine (R6000?). Then I also wrote in the previous article: 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++ ...and John Baldwin wrote: 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. The evidence is mixed. While my heart is with Objective-C, I will do the pragmatic thing (such as choosing C++ because I feel that Object Design's ObjectStore OODBMS is a good fit for our application). My point is that today, C++ and its development environments have rough edges. We've brought over several C++ public domain class libraries and have spent weeks getting them to work. One class library (InterViews) will not compile with our C++ compiler due to a bug in the compiler (which will be fixed with a new compiler release due any day). Objective-C, on the other hand, was a snap to load on our machine (a Sun 3). The Objective-C class libraries were loaded and tested in 30-minutes. Stepstone has done their homework. In time, the C++ environment will tame down also. Certainly C++ has major advantages of multi-vendor and public-domain activity and the rough edges will be smoothed out (but Stepstone is not standing still either). I must say, these are fun times and working in any OO language is better than going back to the dark ages :-) :-). Contacts for products mentioned: Object Design (makers of ObjectStore OODBMS) Object Design, Inc. One New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 (617) 270-9797 Los Angeles regional office: (213) 412-8411 StepStone (makers of Objective-C) The Stepstone Corporation 75 Glen Road Sandy Hook, CT 06842 (203) 426-1875 (the contacts are included because I often get e-mail asking how companies can be contacted the I mention.) -- Chuck Noren NET: dinl!noren@ncar.ucar.edu US-MAIL: Martin Marietta I&CS, MS XL8058, P.O. Box 1260, Denver, CO 80201-1260 Phone: (303) 971-7930