Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!noc.MR.NET!gacvx2.gac.edu!gacvx2.gac.edu!scott From: scott@mcs-server.gac.edu (Scott Hess) Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c Subject: Re: Health of Stepstone and ObjC Message-ID: Date: 1 Jun 91 07:04:52 GMT Article-I.D.: mcs-serv.SCOTT.91Jun1020452 References: <2842A34C.983@deneva.sdd.trw.com> Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College Lines: 60 Nntp-Posting-Host: mcs-server.gac.edu In-reply-to: thomsen@spf.trw.com's message of 28 May 91 18:36:59 GMTLines: 60 In article <2842A34C.983@deneva.sdd.trw.com> thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) writes: Chris Petrilli writes I really should clarify this... In my discussions with NeXT, which concerned Objective-C in GNU C, I was told that the object libraries, in general, belong to StepStone (appologies to NeXT if this is incorrect interpretation), as I was told that the FSF would have to recreate them since NeXT didn't own them. I would guess the Object class is an example of an intrinsic class for Objective-C that is in the object library. NeXT refers to this as a common class. Others are HashTable, List, NXStringTable, Storage, and StreamTable. Obviously NX___ is a NeXT item. All others have at least a NeXT feature (e.g., archiving) added. To maintain compatibility with OC specifications, the methods would have to be a superset (or a subclass, though this does not appear to be how it was done). It is noteable that 'StepStone' does not appear anywhere in the NeXT documen- tation (V2.0) except under suggested reading - not even as a trademark. I don't believe that even the so-called "Common" classes that NeXT distributes are StepStone. The main reason that I don't think they are is that there is quite a large gap in the general ideas behind NeXT's Common classes and their StepStone counterparts (at least this is the impression I get from the StepStone manuals). For instance, NeXT doesn't use the AsciiFiler stuff - though there is similar functionality in the archiving methods, it's not done in the same manner. Also, the method names do not follow the same conventions (for the List and Storage classes). The NeXT classes don't follow the same hierarchy - I would expect List to be a subclass of Storage, like IdArray is a subclass of Array in StepStone's stuff. Then again, I might be full of it. But I think that NeXT did their own base classes, and probably the runtime stuff, too. ... NextStep and Interface Builder cannot exist (in anything resembling their current state) under C++. I would hazzard that NeXTstep could be built (same functions, similar interface, etc.) with C++. Oh, NeXT might have to add and play with it some (more than with OC?), but they would get there. (This is not hard for me to imagine since we added the stuff to C to make ClassIC - create the dynamic glue and map appropriate procedure calls and variables into the message/name table within the glue parts, ...). Somehow, I suspect it would not look as "elegant", which is a big thing with NeXT . . . :-). Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer Graduated GAC Undergrad! Note: I have moved home for a time. My email address will still be valid. Any SnailMail should be redirected, along with phone calls. At the least, my parents can tell you how to get hold of me, or forward any mail . . . Old: PO 829, GAC, St. Peter, MN 56082 (507) 933-8466 New: RR#4 Box 227 Pipestone, MN 56164 (507) 825-2788