Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!gumby.dsd.trw.com!deneva!news From: thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c Subject: Re: Health of Stepstone and ObjC Message-ID: <28485A48.694A@deneva.sdd.trw.com> Date: 2 Jun 91 02:39:03 GMT References: Sender: news@deneva.sdd.trw.com Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 27 Scott Hess writes I don't believe that even the so-called "Common" classes that NeXT distributes are StepStone. ... Then again, I might be full of it. But I think that NeXT did their own base classes, and probably the runtime stuff, too. They did - there is no StepStone in the NeXT software, as noted by the NeXT gent who posted last week. The only Common Class in question really would have been Object, and it was rewritten. 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 . . . :-). Yes, elegance would probably suffer, though I would have faith by now in the NeXT designers in doing a good job. The NeXTstep crew has earned my faith - their work transcends Objective-C. Mark R. Thomsen