Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!warwick!rlvd!asw
From: asw@rlvd.UUCP (Antony Williams)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++,net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Objective-C
Message-ID: <1194@rlvd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 08:17:09 EST
Article-I.D.: rlvd.1194
Posted: Tue Mar 25 08:17:09 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 01:18:28 EST
References: <780@well.UUCP> <700@tymix.UUCP> <60@cecil.UUCP>
Reply-To: asw@rlvd.UUCP (Antony Williams)
Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Informatics Division, U.K.
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.lang.c++:124 net.lang.c:8287

In article <60@cecil.UUCP> keith@cecil.UUCP writes:
>   In a comparison between
>apples and apples, i.e., Objective-C vs. C++ and my Object-Oriented
>Program Support (OOPS) class library, the latter wins on ease of
>programming and clarity of code, and should also win on speed because of
>C++ inline functions and more efficient virtual function calls.
>
>The OOPS class library is in the public domain, but I have a considerable
>amount of work left to do on the documentation before it will be in
>useable form.
>
How about posting your library to mod.sources, with a pointer
in this newsgroup, when you are happy with it?  I for one would
appreciate it.  Any other votes?
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Williams					|Informatics Division
UK JANET:	asw@uk.ac.rl.vd			|Rutherford Appleton Lab
Usenet:		{... | mcvax}!ukc!rlvd!asw	|Chilton, Didcot
ARPAnet:	asw%rl.vd@ucl-cs.arpa		|Oxon OX11 0QX, UK