🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Mar30.165230.11364@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
>I'm interested in Objective-C, but I'm wondering about it.  Relative volumes
>in the C++ and Objective-C groups shows C++ is getting a lot more attention
>on the net; likewise, there are multiple C++ implementations for DOS, none
>for O-C that I know of (using DOS as a barometer).
>
>The questions are, are there Objective-C vendors other than Stepstone?
>Are there forthcoming affordable implementations for "standard" 
>architectures, no matter how offensive those architectures may be?  Does
>anyone have a feel for how Stepstone themselves are doing, i.e. will they
>still be around a year or two, five years, from now?
>
>-- 
>-- uunet!sugar!karl		Keeping 255 messages and deleting 158.
>-- 

Well, how timely this post is. I have a sort-of working version of 
Objective-C which I would like to sell at some point in the future. I
called Stepstone, asking them about licensing agreements for the
class library. I don't want to have to re-implement it, and also I
don't want to deviate from whatever 'standard' exists now. Anyway, it
turns out that to license their library I am required to provide them
with my translator for them to QA and approve before I will be able
to use their library. The rationale for this is apparently that the
Stepstone name will be on the class library and they have had
problems with other products they have recommended which resulted in
complaints because the product was broken or dysfunctional in some
way (I did not get the details). I feel that to be completely
ridiculous. My competitor wants to test my program and then tell me
that it is OK to sell it. The point of this then is that I am not
suprised that their are apparently no non-Stepstone implementations of
Objective-C. Having spoken with a few people (buisness types, not
techno-geeks such as myself), they have indicated that to enter into
such an agreement would be 'folly' and 'dangerous'. I would be curious to
know if anyone has elected not to do an Objective-C because of these
licensing arrangements.

By way of a personal note I have to say that the licensing
arrangement for the class library seems to indicate the demise of the
Software-IC concept.  Hitatchi, for instance, does not require that
that they have the right to QA all devices which incorporate some
chip of theirs. Neither does Microsoft require that Stepstone submit
their translator for QA because Stepstone says that it works with
their C compiler. 

Additionally I have been informed that Objective-C is trademarked.
Meaning that I cannot really call my implementation Objective-C.
Rather I would have to call it 'Something: Compatable with
Objective-C(tm)'. I can live with this, but it seems somewhat silly
to me. If anyone has a good idea for what 'Something' should be I
would like to hear it.

With respect to how long they will be around, I have no way of
knowing. I did, however, receive a letter the other day which I was
required to fill out and return. It stated that mailing costs where
getting to be quite large and that if I wasn't using Objective-C
(which I own) actively then please don't return the letter so they
could remove me from their customer data base.