Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news
From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger)
Subject: Re: NeXT Press Release
In-Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 30 Apr 91 17:30:43 GMT
Message-ID: <v#4Gu$*-1@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws4.sys.cs.psu.edu
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
References: <47889@ut-emx.uucp> <xh9Ghhry1@cs.psu.edu> <47946@ut-emx.uucp>
	<6o6G#_oz1@cs.psu.edu> <48101@ut-emx.uucp> <-54Gwp=?1@cs.psu.edu>
	<48158@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: Wed, 1 May 91 04:10:43 GMT
Lines: 60


In article <48158@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:


   It's still not standard, especially from a programming standpoint.  I am a
   programmer, so the lack of standards would be very apparent to me.  You
   started this by saying, "IBMs are standard.  Why don't you use them?"  You
   brought the IBM up when I mentioned that Obj. C is not standard.  Have you
   changed your meaning of the word "standard" since then?

I work on an IBM at work, and I menioned Objective C on the IBM
because you said something to the effect that the NeXT was the only
machine that one uses Objective C on.

   Ok, so there is one compiler available.  That means no competition.
   Competition keeps prices low and quality high.  Without it...

By IBM PCs.  Plenty of competition for everything.

   I didn't say C++ was the be-all, end-all of languages.  I said it was good
   and standard.  If Eiffel or Smalltalk gain more acceptance and get more
   support I might consider them.  As of now, neither is a suitable
   development language for the work we do.  

If the Amiga gains more acceptance then I might use it.  I'm the kind
of guy that uses only uses something only after it becomes a standard.

   Also, what we have done has been in C.  After upgrading our compilers to
   C++ we have been able to directly continue updating the software without
   having to do any porting.

So, any change that you make will have to be slowly over time.  And
your old C code will compile with Objective C too.  The are both
supersets of C(although C++ is different in a few ways).

   One to check out is Power Windows.  I haven't directly worked with the
   others.  Also, I didn't claim that they were as complete as NeXT's IB.
   What I _was_ saying was that NeXT's IB isn't a totally new idea thought up
   by Stevie himself.  You continually infer these things.

I already knew that it wasn't new.  Windows weren't new on the Mac
either.

   Also, why don't you "rattle off" about what it would take to do some normal
   window functions on the NeXT under DP.  Under the Amiga OS opening a
   window, for example, simply involves passing a NewWindow structure pointer
   to a function.  Other functions are similarly easy to do.  Because of this
   many programmers haven't had to bother with IB style programs.  You can
   roll your own windows in no-time.

On the NeXT, I visually create a window by dragging it onto my screen
from a palette(a tool kit).  I don't write any code.  The same with
sliders, buttons, etc.  IB gives me a a way of communicating(a
pointer) with the objects.  I guess after initialization, a lot of
stuff is similar in both cases.  You just call the appropriate
methods.  However, being able design your interface visually can be
very helpful at times -- it takes some of the guessing work out of it.

-Mike

