Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!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: <48158@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 30 Apr 91 17:30:43 GMT References: <47889@ut-emx.uucp> <47946@ut-emx.uucp> <6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu> <48101@ut-emx.uucp> <-54Gwp=?1@cs.psu.edu> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 58 In article <-54Gwp=?1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >There are over 25 million IBM compatibles(probably many more), so it >is the standard. I think that we are arguing about two different >things here. And obviously I don't think much of the "standard". It's still not standard, especially from a programming standpoint. I am a programmer, so the lack of standards would be very apparent to me. You started this by saying, "IBMs are standard. Why don't you use them?" You brought the IBM up when I mentioned that Obj. C is not standard. Have you changed your meaning of the word "standard" since then? > Why? C++ is already an accepted standard. I've never even seen an ad for > an Objective C compiler (not that I've been looking for one). Besides, > ease of learning is generally an opinion. > >Well, that's because only one computer company uses Objective C as its >standard programming language. Stepstone does sell Obj. C for several >platforms, and I have seen a verion for the PeeCee. Ok, so there is one compiler available. That means no competition. Competition keeps prices low and quality high. Without it... >And before you go spouting off about how great C++ is, could you check >out Eiffel or Smalltalk? I didn't say C++ was the be-all, end-all of languages. I said it was good and standard. If Eiffel or Smalltalk gain more acceptance and get more support I might consider them. As of now, neither is a suitable development language for the work we do. Also, what we have done has been in C. After upgrading our compilers to C++ we have been able to directly continue updating the software without having to do any porting. >Could you rattle off a few names so that I could look at them? You >sound like the kind of guy that would Bzzt me even all the IB's were >not quite up to par. One to check out is Power Windows. I haven't directly worked with the others. Also, I didn't claim that they were as complete as NeXT's IB. What I _was_ saying was that NeXT's IB isn't a totally new idea thought up by Stevie himself. You continually infer these things. Also, why don't you "rattle off" about what it would take to do some normal window functions on the NeXT under DP. Under the Amiga OS opening a window, for example, simply involves passing a NewWindow structure pointer to a function. Other functions are similarly easy to do. Because of this many programmers haven't had to bother with IB style programs. You can roll your own windows in no-time. >-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