Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!hplabsc!kempf
From: kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Objective-C
Message-ID: <172@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Apr-86 16:32:59 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.172
Posted: Thu Apr  3 16:32:59 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Apr-86 09:44:41 EST
References: <780@well.UUCP> <700@tymix.UUCP> <5896@fortune.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 18

I haven't had a chance to use C++ yet, so I can't comment on
how good/bad it may be in relation to Objective-C. I have used
Objective-C a little, mostly modifying the internals of the
generated C code to support a persistent object system. Debugging
is a bit of a problem if you don't know (or care to know) the
internals. You need to include something in the source in order
to have the debugger understand the object format. In addition,
the class and phylum files generated by the preprocessor are
a bit of a bookkeeping headache. C++ has a real advantage here.

On the other hand, I wonder if we may not be getting into an
"IBM PC vs. Victor" situation here. Bell can afford to give
away C++ to the universities (as they did with UN*X) while
PPI, being a small company, can't. The result may be (no value
judgements intended) that a technically inferior solution gets
accepted as a standard just because of marketing clout. But
maybe that's the way it goes...
		Jim Kempf		kempf@hplabs