Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!astroatc!vidiot!ftms!lalonde
From: lalonde@ftms.UUCP (John LaLonde)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: OOL Comparison (was Re: What is Objective C?)
Keywords: C++, Objective C
Message-ID: <6@ftms.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 90 14:10:05 GMT
References: <3864@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <4998@pegasus.ATT.COM> <11233@alice.UUCP> <56975@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: lalonde@ftms.UUCP (John LaLonde)
Organization: Extrel FTMS, Madison, WI
Lines: 29

In article <56975@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
>One way to try to put comparisons of OOPLs into perspective is to try
>to measure how much interest there is in each language.  I've been tracking
>such interest by noting how many references to the various languages
>appears each month in the Computer Library database.  The database is ...
>
>C++		2044
>Smalltalk	 869
>Objective-C	 228
>Eiffel		  48

This "comparison" of interest in OOLs can be misleading. Are you implying
that this type of perspective indicates something more than interest? My
objection is to the implication that level of interest indicates worthiness
(i.e. since more people are interested in it then it must be better). Since you
are a major advocate for C++ (based on the number of articles posted) perhaps
there is more to your comment than just numbers. 

I believe that C++ is a better C. Given the huge interest in standard C the
number posted for C++ is believeable. My point is that there are other factors
contributing to these numbers some of which have nothing to do with OOLs. I hope
that "level of interest" is not used to determine that C++ is a "better" OOL 
than Eiffel, Objective-C or Smalltalk.

-- 
harvard\           att\
  ucbvax!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!ftms!root
rutgers/        decvax/
INTERNET: spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!nicmad!ftms!root