🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SCOTT.91May24175620@mcs-server.gac.edu> scott@mcs-server.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes:
>C++ isn't really inferior to Objective-C,
>anymore than a tire iron is inferior to an Allen wrench.

Thank you, Scott, for your rational treatment of this much-abused topic.

I'd modify your analogy in the following way, however. I'd substitute
silicon fabrication lines and soldering irons for your tire iron
and allen wrench analogy.

C++ is *primarily* a silicon fabrication line; a technology for fabricating
software from first principles. Objective-C is *primarily* a soldering iron,
a technology for assembling pre-fabricated components. 

Note the emphasis on *primarily*. Objective-C and C++ are not so cleanly
separated along this fabrication/assembly dimension as Ada and Smalltalk are. 

Bjarne and I both started from the middle by using C as the base.
But whenever we faced a technical choice, he leaned to the right 
(pro-fabrication) and I to the left (pro-assembly).

The point that is often missed is that neither fabrication nor assembly
make sense without the other. This is why Objective-C retains C as its
base, and why C++ has dynamic stuff like virtual functions.
-- 

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