Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!lins
From: lins@Apple.COM (Chuck Lins)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's?
Summary: Writing an OS is not a prime requirement for language suitability
Message-ID: <45571@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 90 17:06:51 GMT
References: <736@tetrauk.UUCP> <18261.27131385@qut.edu.au> <1990Oct11.004854.11732@cbnewsc.att.com>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 29

In article <1990Oct11.004854.11732@cbnewsc.att.com> lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka) writes:
>b) Languages that essentially preclude precise (i.e., not
>"conservative") garbage collection (Modula-3).
Ah, seems to preclude C++ too.

>
>Eiffel is an interesting alternative, but has yet to show sufficient
>maturity (e.g., multiple competitive implementations) and breadth of
>applicability (e.g., employment as the principal language of a
>competitive workstation operating system).  

Since when is the latter a requirement for determining the suitability of
a language for any particular fitness of purpose? There are numerous
application domains where language features necessary of writing an OS are
completely unnecessary.

>	Lawrence G. Mayka
>	AT&T Bell Laboratories
>	lgm@iexist.att.com
>


-- 
Chuck Lins               | "Is this the kind of work you'd like to do?"
Apple Computer, Inc.     | -- Front 242
20525 Mariani Avenue     | Internet:  lins@apple.com
Mail Stop 37-BD          | AppleLink: LINS@applelink.apple.com
Cupertino, CA 95014      | "Self-proclaimed Object Oberon Evangelist"
The intersection of Apple's ideas and my ideas yields the empty set.