Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!rca
From: rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: What we need to do REAL NeXT applications... (was: Re: NeXT/GNU license agreement w.r.t. Objective-C)
Message-ID: <60035@brunix.UUCP>
Date: 20 Dec 90 05:37:29 GMT
References: <1990Dec10.130953.12476@engage.enet.dec.com> <130131@gore.com> <59713@brunix.UUCP> <1480@autodesk.COM>
Sender: news@brunix.UUCP
Reply-To: rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Lines: 24

In article <1480@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes:
>Bill Parkhurst stated a few months back that there were legal reasons
>why they cannot do this.  My guess, judging from all of the StepStone
>O-C features that were deprecated from 0.8 onwards is that they
>started with StepStone runtime code and went on from there. Is
>StepStone going to give away their work? Of course not.
>Writing a runtime would be lots of fun though. I might need it myself
>for some other work. If that happens I'll probably end up doing it.

That would be great. However this does not yet solve the other few
problems: i.e. the availability of those basic classes that NeXT
provides. It is not that some people wouldn't want to buy them from
Stepstone, but that the ones from NeXT are different. Thus maybe we
would need two things: someone who writes a runtime system that
behaves according to NeXTs specs, and then the code for the basic
classes from NeXT (these should have the same implementation if e.g.
write and read to streams should be compatible).

Ronald

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man."   G.B. Shaw   |  rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet