Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!mce
From: mce@tc.fluke.COM (Brian McElhinney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: LSC++?
Message-ID: <7235@fluke.COM>
Date: 8 Mar 89 19:28:26 GMT
References: <1791@viscous.sco.COM> <1330@husc6.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Organization: SRS Recursive Software, Castrovalva, WA
Lines: 26

In article <1330@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes:
>In article <1791@viscous.sco.COM> jamesm@sco.COM (James M. Moore) writes:
>>Have Symantec/Think announced any plans for Lightspeed C++?
>
>	At the Developer's Breakfast that we threw at MacWorld, Michael
>Kahl gave a sneak preview of Object C, which will be provided in an upcoming
>release.

Why invent a new language?  Aren't you concerned about the acceptance of a
unique, non-standard language?  As much as I love LSC, the idea Object C gives
me pause.  There wouldn't be any other compiler on any other computer that
would compile my code.  (Or did you mean Objective C?  Nah...)

I'm aware of the problems with C++ (still evolving, very complex, etc), but
there are many C++ compilers, and more in development.  Apple started out with
this same approach (minimal changes to C; known as C--) and in the end switched
to an extended version of C++.

On the other hand, the idea is not all bad.  I assume from the name that
Object C will have just enough extensions to work with programs written in
Object Pascal (eg MacApp).  Certainly a wonderful thing!  It should also
resemble C to a greater extent than C++.  Could you post a short description?
 
 
Brian McElhinney
mce@tc.fluke.com