Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!clarkson!news From: anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,,,) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: (Various Symantec Policies) Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!! Message-ID: <1990Nov7.023144.20286@news.clarkson.edu> Date: 7 Nov 90 02:31:44 GMT Sender: news@news.clarkson.edu Distribution: usa Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY Lines: 185 Nntp-Posting-Host: clutx.clarkson.edu From article <4607@husc6.harvard.edu>, by siegel@endor.uucp (Rich Siegel): > In article <1990Nov5.191813.20961@news.clarkson.edu> anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jason W. Anthony,,,) writes: >>From article <1990Nov5.083738.17066@midway.uchicago.edu>, by sado@quads.uchicago.edu (robert anthony sadowski): >>> In article <1990Nov5.064724.16646@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes: >> >>>>Secondly, the statement that "NeXT doesn't make it easy for you to develop >>>>for that platform" seems incredibly uninformed. The NeXT is the easiest >>>>and most powerful development platform around, period. > > Taking this particular statement out of context tends to lose the > original meaning somewhat. The quality of the development tools > notwithstanding, the Next environment *forces* the programmer to use > Objective-C to write GUI programs; there is no C++, Object Pascal, C, > or Pascal. It's not a particularly wise move to impose the designer's > choice of language on the developer. NeXT does not *force* you to use any particular language. C++ is indeed part of the version 2.0 bundled release, and there are compilers for the following languages: FORTRAN 77 (with OOP), COBOL-85, Lisp (with OOP), Modula 2, and Pascal. If you want to use any language other than C, Objective-C, or C++, you must of course buy the compiler. But you have to buy the compiler on the Mac for *any* language. I know that at least LiSP will allow you to use the Interface Builder and other included tools, as do most of these other compilers I suspect. I think NeXT had to pick one language to work off of. You can't include free compilers for every language. And C has been the language of the 80's, while it looks like C++ will be the language of the 90's. C is definitely prevalant in the UNIX world. So it looks like a good choice to me. Apple has chosen it for System 7.0, haven't they? But the freedom to choose is there! > Also, in the first Next machine, > the only medium of distribution for software were the removable optical > disks. Because a floptical costs about $50 per unit, it's impractical > for software houses to distribute their programs on them, given that > most consumer software these days costs in the below $300 range. It's > much cheaper to deliver software on floppies. > Right. And all new NeXT machines have floppy drives. This argument is no longer relevant. >>I have no first-hand expereince here, but I do know NeXT offers a Registered >>Developer's Program, which means you can get training from NeXT, 30% >>discounts on NeXT computers, "co-marketing opportunities", technical >>support via e-mail, etc. Besides, one of the reasons Apple has so >>much support is that it is tedious to program the Mac. If I had to choose >>between support and ease of programming, well, that's an easy choice! > > Apple offers similar benefits to Partners and Associates. I disagree > with your comment about programming the Mac being 'tedious', but it's > purely a matter of opinion. > True. I guess there has been enough arguing about that! :-) (The reason I said NeXT offered a registered devloper's program was because someone else implied the developer support for NeXT wasn't as much as Apple's.) >>Of course, by this logic, Symmantic would be more concerned with the PC >>market than the Mac market. There are (sadly, IMHO) a lot more PC's than >>Mac's out there. I think it is fair to say Symantec does more in the Mac >>market than the PC. > > Your data are inaccurate. Symantec makes the following (best selling > and/or award winning) products for DOS machines: Q&A, Q&A Write, Timeline, > SQZ, Budget Express, and the Norton Utilities. > OK, so let's call it a tie. (Noroton Utilities wasn't exactly *made* by Symantec.) That original point, however, was that by the original poster's logic, companies wouldn't be interested in a small market like the Mac's when there was a huge one like the PC's. Obviously Symantec is very interested in the Mac market. >>>>Take words >>>>from Symantec and Microsoft (makers of OS/2, a competitor of NeXTStep) >>>>with a large grain of salt. These companies see NeXT as a threat. > > The wording of your statement here is ambiguous, and leaves the > misleading impression that Symantec and Microsoft are co-developers of > OS/2. They are not. > > Either way, it is highly illogical for a pure software house to > perceive a new hardware vendor as a threat. If anything, it's an > opportunity to diversify the company's product line and strengthen > the company's financial position and improve future growth. However, > most software companies don't have the financial resources to commit > to developing for a relatively new, not-very-well-established hardware > platform, and most software companies don't have the ability to recover > their development costs in the event that this new hardware platform > should fail. (Note that my statement here in no way reflects Symantec's > position on the subject - it's just a statement of the realities.) > This is very true (you would know better than I, obviously). But the loss of market share will also cause loss of $$ if the new machine does take off, and the given company didn't commit funds. They might loose a niche they had on another platform. I think Lotus, WordPerfect, Ashton-Tate, Software Ventures (MicroPhone II) and Insignia Solutions (SoftPC) are good examples of companies who feel the NeXT market has enough potential to take the risk. So I think it should be made clear that *all* developers aren't going to autmatically wait for the machine to take off before making a commitment, as I think you imply. >>> I'll take words from Symantec, the leading developer of utilities for the >>> Mac and if not the leader, number #2 in development environments, and >>> Microsoft, the unquestionable landslide leader in the most used business >>> apps (word p/spreadsheets) over that of Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WP, three >>> industry giants who have done absolutely dismal ports of their PC apps to >>> a graphical environment. It goes both ways. You attack the leaders by >>> virtue of their position. > >>Hmmm.... isn't Symantec the company who refuses to make a C++ compiler >>because C++ is "stupid"? > > Like the man said: "You attack the leaders by virtue of their > position." > Well, yeah, kind of... the reason I said this was because I think Symanetc may loose the "leader" status if they don't come up with a C++ compiler before someone else. It's an excellent opportunity for a compiler maker to sneak in. Considering Symanetc has the advantage of being able to modify an existing C compiler (one that is accepted as being quite good/excellent) to make a C++ one kind of surpises me. I throw this out as maybe an indication of Symantec stagnation, which leads back to the point of Symantec saying they're not interested in the NeXT platform. I'm sorry if my sentence sounded like an attack... it was not meant as one. Re-reading it now, I suppose I should have worded it more "friendly". I have used both Think Pascal and Think C and they are quite excellent. Symantec does a fine job. > Symantec has never made any statement on their intent to produce > (or not to produce) a C++ compiler. To attribute any such position to > Symantec is wrong, plain and simple. > >>I heard this from someone on the net who talked >>to someone at Symantec (Rich?), so maybe it's not true, but why is Symantec > > I suggest to you that position statements based on secondhand hearsay > are shaky at best. > I whole-heartadly apologize for this statement. The only reason I even considered it as true was that there seemed no other explanation for why Symantec hadn't "gone" C++ (see above). It is indeed hearsay, and I should have not included it. I am sorry. What is Symantec's position on a C++ compiler, by the way? >>so far behind the ba ll here? Apple has said straight-out that C++ is the >>language of Mac's future. MPW C++ has been around for a while. Is >>Symantec not "keeping up with times"? > > If indeed Apple did say that, then I suggest to you that they are > in grave danger of making the same mistake that Next made in limiting their > developers to a single language for development. > NeXT is not limiting people to a single devlopment language (see way above). But their choice for now is C++ as the major contender, which Apple has said. Didn't (aren't?) they re-write(ing) the Finder in C++, as well as System 7.0? > R. > Rich Siegel Software Engineer Symantec Languages Group > Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel > > If you have telekinetic powers, raise my hand. Is it raising? :-) __________________________________________________________________ Jason W. Anthony anthonjw@clutx.clarkson.edu //// /| Computer Engineering / / | Clarkson University, Potsdam N.Y. / / /--| ____________________________________________________ ///. / |. What's next? The NeXT generation... What's NeXT? The next generation...