Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release Message-ID: <47946@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 26 Apr 91 07:37:50 GMT References: <47889@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: root@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 74 In article melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <47889@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > > Well, for one thing C++ is standard. I don't use non-standard languages > unless I _know_ I'm not going to be porting something. On the NeXT, I > can't assure that, even if I'm using DP for something. Using a non- > standard language on _any_ Unix box is not a very smart thing to do. Who's > to say that you _won't_ port it, re-writing the GUI code for the other > platform? > >The IBM PC is standard why don't you use it? Standard does not imply >better. I left what I wrote previously in so you could re-read it. You see, MessyDOS binaries can not be run on other platforms without an emulator. C++ code can be compiled on any platform with a compiler for it with minimal mods for any platform-dependant stuff. See the difference? Maybe someone there could spend more time explaining it to you... BTW, the PeeCee line is no more standard than the NeXT is the best-selling Unix box on the market. Also, in the case of programming languages, standard _is_ better because not only can you find more programmers who are proficient and even talented in that language, but you can also port to multiple platforms. You see, I live in the real world where people make a living from programming... >Anyway you can program using C++ on the NeXT, if you so >desire. A C++ compiler is include free when you buy the NeXT(didn't I >mention this before). Yeah, it's pretty easy to compile g++ and rename it, isn't it? > Of course, NeXT went and stuck you with Obj-C if you want to use their > Interface Builder. It'd be nice if you could select the language like most > other interface design packages I've used. > >So, don't use the IB. You can program the old fashion way if you >want. Ah, but I can get interface-building programs that use languages other than Obj-C on other platforms. NeXT sticks you with one language when many IB style programs allow you to pick the language. >You can write the biggest part of your code in C++ and write >your interface code in Objective C too. Sorry, but C++ doesn't have >the ability to dynamically load objects at run-time. As if it can't be implemented in any language... I'm sure there are libraries available if I really had the need for it. >The other IB's >generate code. On the NeXT, binary files are generated that you never >look at. So you aren't able to go in a tweak it once you're done, eh? What happens if you have some last-minute changes? If you're lucky they were smart enough to allow IB to load the binary and allow you to modify it. Otherwise you're SOL. I don't see the advantage of _not_ having actual source for it. You don't have to look at the code if you don't want to. Just link it in. Also, given code you can use a more optimizing compiler on it, and you can read it if you need to learn how to work with the GUI yourself. >-Mike Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic