Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!rkitts From: rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c Subject: Re: health of Stepstone and ObjC Message-ID: <1991May23.185616.9851@netcom.COM> Date: 23 May 91 18:56:16 GMT References: <1991May23.031433.11017@netcom.COM> <1991May23.075820.983@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest} Lines: 82 In article cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes: >Suppose Brad Cox, head of and creator of Objective-C, made the company >a public corporation with an issue of stock at very affordable cost >(you could call these junk bonds, if you like)? Good question. However, someone somewhere has put in $10,000,000 in seven years. I assume that at least some of that money is owed still, meaning that I suspect that they would have a lot of input on this, and in fact Mr. Cox may not be in the position to dictate the companies financial direction. >I for one would like to own several shares of stock if they sold at >around $25.00 (U.S.) each. If for no other reason, think of how neat >the stock would be framed and on the wall of your office!! Yah, me too. >And as a stock holder, one could participate in the company. Well yes, but the people who would probably own the most stock and have the most control would be the people running it now. As I've said before these individuals seem to feel that they are best served by holding onto Obj-C very, very tightly. They clearly don't understand the difficulty in introducing a new technology into a company, and that single sourcing the language is a very big hurdle for proponents of that language to overcome within their respective companies. Since I'm babbling I will propose what Stepstone needs to do to make Obj-C a success. The market to beat is C++. This window of opportunity is closing fast as more and more companies move in that direction with no other viable alternative. The thing to emphasize is that with Obj-C you can move gradually into OOP operation without any change to existing code. Get a native code compiler quickly. Put it on the PC. I have a PC at home, not a Sun. So do most programmers. If they can use it at home, and find it is better than what is at work, they will bitch alot to get this better tool at work. Make the thing very cheap. $150.00 is a viable number if you sell directly. If you go through distributors this will obviously have to be higher. Attack and defame C++ as the clear and obvious hack that it is. License the Objective-C trademark for a pittance (say $500.00). This small fee keeps out the riff-raff, but makes it simple for anyone who is serious to use it. Show C++ to be clearly inferior to Obj-C. Sell the IC-Pak 101 to other developers for a very small fee (say $10.00 or so a copy). Next work very hard to promote this as a standard. Run around with spray paint a write C++ Sux everywhere. Set up a mail server which allows for a catalog of existing classes which are both free and for sale. Let anyone post to this server. Users then make requests of the server like "Send me an index of all Collection classes.". Make freely available class source available in the same way. (e.g. Send class ASortedCollection). This helps promote the IC concept which is key. Attack C++ totally and without mercy. C++ is not a better C, and therefore a path to a better Obj-C as come might propose. C++ is a kludge, and the competition. C++ does not address my biggest problems, growing complexity and decreased development time nearly as effectively as Obj-C. Find people who write books. Pay them some amount of money to write and publish a book on Obj-C by itself. It is important that consumers have some positive feedback that the language they are choosing has support outside of the company that develops it. >-- Chuck Herrick > campus consultant at > Texas A&M University for > NeXT Computer, Inc ---Rick > The opinions expressed herein are mine and are in no way attributed > to any of the many people for whom I work. Who they are is irrelevant. Me to.