🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <193@bosslog.UUCP> zack@bosslog.UUCP (Zacharias Beckman) writes:
>Polymorphism is available in both C++ and
>Objective-C.  My personal favorite is C++, as I do not agree with the very
>loose typing of Objective-C.

This is not to start a flame war, just to point out that this is like 
saying 'Variables are supported in both C and shell. My personal
favorite is C, as I do not agree with the very loose typing of that shell
provides for connecting filters through pipes.

There's a figure in my 'Planning the Software Industrial Revolution'
article (November 1990 IEEE Software magazine) that proposes a vocabulary 
for discussing tools at diverse software architectural levels, with 
	pipes/filters as a 'rack-level' modularity/binding technology, 
	Fabrik/Metaphor lightweight processes as a 'card-level' technology, 
	Smalltalk/Objective-C as a chip-level technology 
	Ada, C, and C++ as gate- and block-level technologies.
	
Unfortunately, the published figure contains a serious error in Objective-C's 
favor at the card-level integration level, that they've agreed to fix in 
the next issue.

Just as tightly-coupled gate- and block-level technologies have a place
in hardware engineering, but do not compete with loosely-coupled chip-,
card-, and rack-level technologies, the same is true in software.  Of
course, without a mature vocabulary for making such distinctions, we
waste energy with language wars.

I have always believed that the Objective-C versus C++ debates have been
driven more by misunderstanding than by appreciation for their differences.
I've never viewed them as competitors, any more than shell and C are
competitors. As a better C, C++ provides a better substrate on which to 
base new incarnations of Objective-C.
-- 

Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875
The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482