🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CNH5730.91May23094434@calvin.tamu.edu> cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
>Suppose Brad Cox, head of and creator of Objective-C, made the company
>a public corporation with an issue of stock at very affordable cost
>(you could call these junk bonds, if you like)? 

Good question. However, someone somewhere has put in $10,000,000 in
seven years. I assume that at least some of that money is owed still,
meaning that I suspect that they would have a lot of input on this,
and in fact Mr. Cox may not be in the position to dictate the companies
financial direction.

>I for one would like to own several shares of stock if they sold at
>around $25.00 (U.S.) each. If for no other reason, think of how neat
>the stock would be framed and on the wall of your office!!

<Grin> Yah, me too.

>And as a stock holder, one could participate in the company.

Well yes, but the people who would probably own the most stock and
have the most control would be the people running it now. As I've
said before these individuals seem to feel that they are best served
by holding onto Obj-C very, very tightly. They clearly don't understand
the difficulty in introducing a new technology into a company, and that
single sourcing the language is a very big hurdle for proponents of
that language to overcome within their respective companies. Since
I'm babbling I will propose what Stepstone needs to do to make Obj-C
a success.

The market to beat is C++. This window of opportunity is closing fast
as more and more companies move in that direction with no other viable
alternative. The thing to emphasize is that with Obj-C you can move
gradually into OOP operation without any change to existing code.

Get a native code compiler quickly. Put it on the PC. I have a PC at
home, not a Sun. So do most programmers. If they can use it at home,
and find it is better than what is at work, they will bitch alot to
get this better tool at work. Make the thing very cheap. $150.00 is
a viable number if you sell directly. If you go through distributors this
will obviously have to be higher.

Attack and defame C++ as the clear and obvious hack that it is.

License the Objective-C trademark for a pittance (say $500.00). This
small fee keeps out the riff-raff, but makes it simple for anyone who
is serious to use it.

Show C++ to be clearly inferior to Obj-C.

Sell the IC-Pak 101 to other developers for a very small fee (say $10.00
or so a copy). Next work very hard to promote this as a standard.

Run around with spray paint a write C++ Sux everywhere.

Set up a mail server which allows for a catalog of existing classes
which are both free and for sale. Let anyone post to this server.
Users then make requests of the server like "Send me an index of
all Collection classes.". Make freely available class source available
in the same way. (e.g. Send class ASortedCollection). This helps promote
the IC concept which is key.

Attack C++ totally and without mercy. C++ is not a better C, and therefore
a path to a better Obj-C as come might propose. C++ is a kludge, and the 
competition. C++ does not address my biggest problems, growing complexity
and decreased development time nearly as effectively as Obj-C.

Find people who write books. Pay them some amount of money to write and
publish a book on Obj-C by itself. It is important that consumers have
some positive feedback that the language they are choosing has support
outside of the company that develops it.

>-- Chuck Herrick
>  campus consultant at
>  Texas A&M University for
>  NeXT Computer, Inc

---Rick

>  The opinions expressed herein are mine and are in no way attributed
>  to any of the many people for whom I work. Who they are is irrelevant.

Me to.