Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: OO Development Environments Keywords: C++, Objective C Message-ID: <26DC7CC4.266D@tct.uucp> Date: 30 Aug 90 02:41:08 GMT References: <1716@dinl.mmc.UUCP> <181@srchtec.UUCP> <1719@dinl.mmc.UUCP> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 31 [ Does this discussion still belong in comp.lang.c++? ] According to noren@dinl.UUCP (Charles Noren): >Objective-C is supported by only one vendor, Stepstone. [...] >However, if you are not careful with C++ development, you could >be 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. ODI's compiler is NOT, repeat, NOT a C++ compiler. It does not compile the C++ language. Rather, it compiles a proprietary superset of C++. ODI's library is written in that superset of C++. Using ODI as an example of a C++ vendor is incorrect at best. Stick to vanilla C++ and you'll go far. Make extensions and you're on your own. These laws always apply to all languages, and therefore cannot be used to argue the relative merit of any language. >My point is that today, C++ and its development environments have >rough edges. A pronouncement such as this one must be made relative to a specific C++ product, or it is meaningless. Objective-C has a simple state, since it is available from only one vendor. Such is not the case with C++. It is mainly for this reason that I have promoted C++ for company use instead of Objective-C. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT ,