Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!mimsy!cvl!elsie!nih-csl!keith
From: keith@nih-csl.UUCP (keith gorlen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ vs Objective-C
Message-ID: <274@nih-csl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Sep-87 13:40:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: nih-csl.274
Posted: Sat Sep 26 13:40:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Sep-87 07:24:52 EDT
References: <3405@ece-csc.UUCP> <638@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <1811@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <1406@pdn.UUCP>
Organization: NIH-CSL, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 67
Summary: If you need support for O-OP in C now, Objective-C may be for you. If you have the luxury of time to plan, go with C++.
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.misc:695 comp.lang.smalltalk:336 comp.lang.c++:466

In article <1406@pdn.UUCP>, ken@pdn.UUCP (Ken Auer) writes:
> In article <270@nih-csl.UUCP>, keith@nih-csl.UUCP (keith gorlen) writes:
> > C++ features such as strong type checking and references make it
> > a better C for those not doing O-OP...
> 
> True, but why use either if you are not going to be using O-OP?

You would use C++ if you don't need O-OP because it is an improved C.

> > ...Features such as classes,
> > function and operator overloading, user-controlled implicit type
> > conversion, and guaranteed initialization/finalization make it far
> > better for programming with abstract data types than Objective-C or
> > Modula-2, for example.  And derived classes and virtual functions make
> > C++ as good or better than Objective-C for O-OP.

> I believe I detect a bit of bias in this statement.

Absolutely!  In 1985 I set about looking for a language to do O-OP in
C.  I evaluated C/Flavors, Objective-C, and C++.  I went to one of
PPI's seminars (which I recommend), purchased a set of Objective-C
reference manuals, and read Cox's book (which I also recommend, but
the info on C++ is not correct).  My choice was to go with C++ because
it was the best designed language and I felt that it would win out in
the long run.

> To name just one feature that is missing from C++, Objective-C has the concept 
> of "class methods" (i.e. Classes are treated like objects).

C++ also doesn't have I/O because "you can program that yourself" with
the features the language does have.  I wrote a fundamental
Smalltalk-80 -like class library for C++ that is very similar to what
the Objective-C class library was like circa 1985.  It has a class
Class, derived from class Object so that class descriptions can be
manipulated like objects.  It's not quite as good as Objective-C's,
but good enough for most practical purposes and probably more
efficient.

> I don't know about you, but most of the work I do has to be done in the
> present and not in the future.

You are right.  I happen to have the luxury of time to plan for the (not so
distant) future.

> One last point (take it or leave it) is that if/when C++ has the "symbolic 
> debugger and the extensive, mature, supported class library that Objective-C 
> has" now, what additional features might Objective-C have.  

Objective-C might have multiple inheritance, dynamic linking and
garbage collection some day, but I doubt that it will ever have the
non-O-OP features of C++.

Speaking of extensive class libraries, I just read that IBM is placing
C-MU's Base Environment 2 (BE2) class library in the public domain, to
be distributed with the December release of X Windows.  BE2 is the
most impressive class library I've seen in action.  It is written in
Class, yet another C preprocessor that adds O-OP support to C.  From
the sketchy preliminary documentation I've read, it appears to do a
cleaner job than Objective-C, though not as good as C++.  One powerful
feature it has is dynamic linking.  Maybe someone who knows something
about Class can jump in the fray.  I'd love to be able to use the BE2
class library from C++ -- talk about HEAVEN!
-- 
	Keith Gorlen			phone: (301) 496-5363
	Building 12A, Room 2017		uucp: uunet!mimsy!elsie!nih-csl!keith
	National Institutes of Health
	Bethesda, MD 20892