Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!public!eeh
From: eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath  eeh@btr.com)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Objective C is a Kludge ( was Re: An Intuition.device? )
Message-ID: <385@public.BTR.COM>
Date: 12 Sep 90 20:00:10 GMT
References: <30021@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1032@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> <90255.124203UH2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA, Contact: cs@btr.com 415-966-1429
Lines: 36

In article <90255.124203UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes:
[ ... ]

>When you are finished, IB creates the Obj-C source code (an OO dialect of
>C--much more elegant than C++ but more differnet from regular C) that will
>generate the interface you just designed....

>Footnote.  While not as widely used as C++ or Smalltalk, Obj-C seems like
>a really good way to go, especially since it is sort of the core language of
>NeXT.  With some sort of interface layer between NeXTSTeP and Intuition,
>I can even imagine NeXT applications porting easily to Amiga 3000.

	Objective C is a hybrid of C and Smalltalk.  It has a full set of 
C for writing routines, and something akin to Smalltalk's message passing
system.  It uses a fully tagged system to send messages.  This is not a 
bad thing, it just requires a lot of writing and keeping track of tags.
All of the objects also located on the heap, leading to memory fragmentation.
Objective C does not have operator overloading (something I find indespensible
in C++) but also not a temendous flaw.  (* HERE COMES! *) However, Objective
C does not have constructors or destructors, and that makes it unacceptable
as a true OOPL.  Finally, Objective C only has dynamic typing (slow).

	For these reasons, especially execution speed (Amigas don't come
with standard 25MHz '030's) that I don't think Objective C is the ideal
language for the Amiga platform.  C++ has the advantage of static binding
and execution speed, while Smalltalk has the advantage of a single paradigm.
What we should be looking for is a language that combines the execution speed
of C++ with the structure of a pure OOPL like Smalltalk.

	Just my opinions.

=========================================================================
Eduardo Horvath				eeh@btr.com
					..!{decwrl,mips,fernwood}!btr!eeh
	"Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer
=========================================================================