Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c Subject: Re: How's Stepstone/Objective-C doing? Message-ID: <6775@stpstn.UUCP> Date: 13 Apr 91 15:23:38 GMT References: <1991Mar30.165230.11364@sugar.hackercorp.com> <6737@stpstn.UUCP> Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Organization: Stepstone Lines: 22 In article salc@alfred.shearson.com writes: > >Please explain why C++'s implementation of the object oriented paradigm cannot >be used to implement software ICs. Please explain why a library of C++ classes >(such as NIHCL or Interviews) is not useful in the same way that an >objective-c class library would be. This is discussed in far greater detail than I could ever do here in IEEE Software, Nov 1990, "Planning the Software Industrial Revolution". The difference boils down to the difference between a fabrication technology, such as a silicon fab line and/or C++, and an assembly technology such as a soldering gun and/or Smalltalk/Objective-C. Please send flames to /dev/null. My point is not that assembly technologies are better or worse than fabrication technologies. My point is that it is nonsense to debate that point. Neither makes sense without the other. That is why Objective-C does not prevent access to C. : -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482