🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6737@stpstn.UUCP> cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes:
   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 high interest in better technologies for fabricating gate- and 
 > block-level components as in C++ should not be confused with technologies,
 > such as Smalltalk and Objective-C, for assembling software from libraries 
 > of pre-fabricated chip-level components, or Software-ICs. 

Please explain why C++'s implementation of the object oriented paradigm cannot
be used to implement software ICs. Please explain why a library of C++ classes
(such as NIHCL or Interviews) is not useful in the same way that an
objective-c class library would be.

 >In other words,
 > C++ is not a 'competitor' for Objective-C. It is a better C; a basis for
 > building a better Objective-C.

If C++ only extended C with function overloading, reference variables, and
other *non-objected-oriented* extensions, I could see your point, however
C++ has its own way of implementing object-oriented paradigms such as
multiple inheritance, and runtime based message selection thru the use of
virtual functions. It is this side of C++ that competes head on with
objective-c's object-oriented features. If your point is that objective-c's
implementation of OO is better than C++'s then argue on that level. But
realize that C++ object-oriented features allow you to create software-ics
as well.


--Sal

--
 Sal Cataudella	
 Internet: salc@alfred.shearson.com
 UUCP:     ...!uunet!slcpi!alfred!salc
 (212) 464-3871