Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox
From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: What is Objective C?
Message-ID: <5535@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 5 Sep 90 23:01:39 GMT
References: <3864@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <2700002@hpspkla.spk.hp.com> <5524@stpstn.UUCP> <1990Sep4.034131.532@cbnewsl.att.com>
Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Organization: Stepstone
Lines: 47

This is to correct a misunderstanding that I've heard many times in the 
past and that was recently repeated on the net. I first heard of it when
the author posted the following mail to me:

} In article <deleted> I write:
} > eiffel.uucp and stpstn.uucp are the Usenet systems of two companies
} > which (currently) provide the sole implementations of their
} > founders' respective object-oriented programming languages and/or
} > environments.
} 
} Dr. Cox, when I said this, I assumed that Stepstone code is behind the
} NeXT and IBM implementations of Objective-C on those platforms, just as
} AT&T code is behind (for example) the Glockenspiel and Comeau MS-DOS
} implementations of C++.  I understand that these other implementations
} provide additional added value, better technical support, and all that.
} But if my assumption is correct, I stand by my statement.
} 
} If NeXT or IBM have independently developed products from scratch for
} Objective-C, as (for example) Borland and Zortech have for C++ under
} MS-DOS, I'll be happy to apologize publicly.  (You have my explicit
} permission to quote from this letter for that purpose.)

I'd not read the news article when I responded by mail as follows:

} I don't recall the context of your posting, so it could hardly have
} been so dire that an 'apology' is necessary.
} 
} But for your information, NeXT does distribute their own implementation of
} Objective-C. They started NeXT with ours, but eventually hired one of its
} developers to build an 'independent' implementation. When IBM purchased
} rights to NeXTStep for the RS/6000, they chose Stepstone's implementation,
} because of its wider availability on non-NeXT platforms, presumably among
} other things that you'd have to ask IBM about.
} 
} There have been at least two other competing implementations,
} both derived more or less directly from the language as described
} in my book. One company folded so that its founder could go back to school
} for a graduate degree. The other language was dropped when its vendor 
} decided that it made more business sense for them to adopt Stepstone's
} implementation and focus their resources on building libraries.
} 
I'd have preferred that such issues be raised in a tone of
voice such that questions of 'apology' never arise.
-- 

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