Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!uunet!ogicse!pdxgate!eecs!hal
From: hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release
Message-ID: <2552@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 91 21:22:23 GMT
References: <47889@ut-emx.uucp> <xh9Ghhry1@cs.psu.edu> <47946@ut-emx.uucp> <v#4Gu$*-1@cs.psu.edu> <1538@ewu.UUCP> <#a6Gpom_1@cs.psu.edu> <48298@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP
Reply-To: hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh)
Organization: Portland State Univeristy
Lines: 20

In article <48298@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
>You don't understand, do you?!  I didn't bring up hardware standards and
>they are not what concerns me.  My concern is with language and code
>portability.  Porting between systems doesn't bother me as long as _good_
>compilers can be found for each system.  
>
>In the case of Obj. C, there aren't enough compilers on enough platforms to
>cause the competition to create fast enough, good enough compilers.

  The sources for the NeXT compiler are freely distributable.  Once the FSF
has taken care of them, there will be fast, good Objective C compilers for
almost every machine.
  This is irrelevant anyway, since the only part of a NeXT program that has
to be in Objective C is the user interface (which wouldn't be portable no
matter what it's written in).

>Greg

Aaron Harsh
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu