From: jake@skatter.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Why, Why, WHYYYY?? USE OBJECTIVE-C for IB??
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:10:59 GMT

From article <1992Nov17.220734.23489@dtint.uucp>, by nevin@dtint.dtint.com:
> In article <1992Nov17.000924.8898@u.washington.edu>  
> basiji@stein.u.washington.edu (David Basiji) writes:
>> thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen) writes:
>> 
>> >Richard D Warner writes:
>> >>     I'm a developer who just wants to get a product out the door, and
>> >> I'm frustrated about having to learn a new language just to interface with
>> >> IB.  I know you're supposed to be able to insert ANSI or C++ code into IB
>> >> but I haven't been able to yet.  You still need to know what's going on
>> >> with the implementation files (in Objective-C).  It's supposed to
>> >> be "easier", but easier than what???  Why doesn't NeXT come up with a 
>> >> version of IB written for C++?  
> 
> If you *really* want to know WHY, I suggest you read at least the first half of  
> Brad Cox's book, "Object-Oriented Programming, an Evolutionary Approach, 2nd  
> Edition".
> 
> To summarize: I don't care what anybody says (even Brad Cox got this one wrong  
> in his book), C++ does NOT allow true dynamic binding-- it simulates it with a  
> method selection mechanism where the desired method is dynamically chosen from  
> a method list that is statically-built at compile time (i.e., the "virtual"  
> method mechanism of C++).  And yes, there is a very big difference, with many  
> ramifications.
>

In the latest issue of Computers in Physics there is an article describing a
language called Sather developed by the International Computer Science
Institute, for the purpose of scientific computing.

Sather is designed, according to the article, to avoid the deficiencies of
C++, that noted above being merely one, without the loss of efficincy
represented by a run-time system.

It is based on Eiffel, and has two parallel messaging schemes built in.  The
first is a run-time message dispatch like objective C and the second a C++
like system which is more efficient.

The compiler generates C code, and is thus highly portable.

Performance tests indicate, according to the article, that compiled Sather
code performs within 10% of hand-written C code on the MIPS processor
(model not specified), and essentially as well as hand-written C code on
the Sparc architecture.

Another consideration, one of those which prompted the development of Sather,
is that it is a non-proprietary, and thus not subject to licensing 
restrictions.

So, you ask, why do I mention this?  The efforts of the Free Software
Foundation to provide an Objective C - like environment may be greatly
aided by adopting a modified version of Sather, which contains extensions
as well.


(further comments on Objective-C versus C++ deleted)
 
> Give me NeXTSTEP!
>  
> --
> Nevin Pratt, Digital Technology, Int'l    Orem, Ut
> NeXTmail preferred, but ONLY at my REAL email address: nevin@dtint.dtint.com
> 
> -- 
> ---
> root	                               root@dtint.dtint.com
> Digital Technology Int.                (801)226-2984	
> 500 W. 1200 South, Orem UT, 84057      FAX (801) 226-8438


jake


--
Jason C. Breckenridge 				jake@skatter.usask.ca

Sometimes the world is a mighty fine place to be dead to.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc