Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release Message-ID: <6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu> Date: 27 Apr 91 02:33:12 GMT References: <47889@ut-emx.uucp> <47946@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 67 In-Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 26 Apr 91 07:37:50 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu In article <47946@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: 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... Sometimes this is simply not true. That depends on the windowing system used, among other things. BTW, the PeeCee line is no more standard than the NeXT is the best-selling Unix box on the market. Wrong. The PC is a standard! I hate to break it to you. 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... Buy an Objective C compiler for the PeeCee or Sun workstation then. Objective C is a lot easier to learn than C++, which I learned first. >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? Yep. What's your point. 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. The only other IB that I've seen is one for the Sun, and NeXT's looked better. >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. You can reload the binary files(.nib) into Interface Builder as many times as you want and make as many changes as you want. 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. Actually, I think the binary file files aren't executable code because the .nib files didn't need to be changed when they were ported the the IBM RS/6000 running NeXTStep. If you think having source is better, then tell Commodore. When they release their IB with Amiga DOS 3.0 in 1999, you will have the IB that you've always wanted. -Mike