HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ogeisser@uni-paderborn.de (Oliver Geisser)
Subject: Re: Objective C library, Free Software Foundation
Organization: Uni-GH Paderborn
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:02:24 GMT

rpomeroy@aunext3.cam.amd.com (Ron Pomeroy x(Coop)) writes:
: In article <1992Sep1.204045.42152@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> gdb0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu  
: (GLENN BLANK) writes:
: >>In article <BtLso6.5H4@world.std.com>, gsk@world.std.com (Geoffrey S Knauth)  
: writes:
: >>>Quick Status
: >>>------------
: >>>There have been several dozen positive responses (zero negative) to
: >>>the idea of creating a free software library containing Objective C.
: >>>
: >>>This is for you, the public.  If you want to be heard, climb aboard.
: >>
: >>Let me add another positive response.  A FSF library could stimulate
: >>the popularity of Objective-C, and get more folks involved in adding
: >>features and libraries that folks need and would be easier to support
: >>in Objective-C than C++.  For example, garbage collection and persistence.
: >>
: >>Will the FSF version provide something analogous to Stepstone's
: >>foundation class library or any of Next's library or will these
: >>be add-ons?
: 
: For the last few months I've been using both Objective-C on the NeXT and  
: SmallTalk\ObjectWorks on various platforms.  My conclusions ?  NeXT smokes  
: everyone when it comes to the GUI classes, but is sorely lacking when it comes  
: to data modeling classes (i.e. Set, Bag, SequenceableCollection, Collection,  
: SortedCollection, OrderedCollection, Array, etc. etc. etc....the list is long)  
: like we find in SmallTalk.  What I would love to see is equivalents to these on  
: the Obj-C side.  FSF seems like the one to do the job :-)
: --
: Ronald Pomeroy
: Advanced Micro Devices
: CAM Applications Group
: rpomeroy@aunext3.amd.com


I agree with you !!!!!

List class and storage class are well done, but that is not enough. Where are the other
usefull classes, i.e. a B-Tree ?

Ciao !

		Olli
-- 
|  Oliver Geisser * Steindruefft 11 * W-4791 Altenbeken 3 * Germany  |
|      e-mail: ogeisser@uni-paderborn.de * Phone: 05255/7966         |
|     I prefer ASCII-Mail, but you can also send me NeXT-Mail        |
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
From: trirex!taff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Affinito)
Subject: Re: Objective C library, Free Software Foundation
Reply-To: trirex!taff@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Trirex Systems Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:31:11 GMT

In article <BtLso6.5H4@world.std.com> gsk@world.std.com (Geoffrey S  
Knauth) writes:
> Quick Status
> ------------
> There have been several dozen positive responses (zero negative) to
> the idea of creating a free software library containing Objective C.
> 
> Simson Garfinkel, Dave Pollak, Richard Stallman and I may meet next
> week in Boston to determine a preliminary course of action.  Simson
> and Dave and Dennis Glatting all have code to start this project
> rolling.
> 
> I've also heard Cygnus Support may be interested in this project, or
> they may have an existing project of their own.
> 
> This is for you, the public.  If you want to be heard, climb aboard.
> -- 
> Geoffrey S. Knauth, Marble Associates, Inc.                Member  
BCS-NeXT, LPF
> gsk@marble.com, (617) 891-5555 work, (617) 547-5247 home   Standard  
Disclaimers

If I use gcc and this library and runtime, will I be able to sell programs  
I develop with it?  If the GNU source code license holds with regard to  
the class library, then could there be problems for developers in this  
regard?

just curious ...

Tom Affinito

 
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
From: carroll@mercury.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:33:41 GMT

In article <l9pvs3INN23a@west.west.sun.com> comp.lang.objective-c writes:
>It seems that I'm the only person who I've heard say that the best features
>of C++ have nothing to do with object orientation.
>
>The power of operator overloading provides the programmer with the ability to
>define a data structure and the operations on it.  Since the natural
>progression of reusable software is from in-line-code -> function ->
>library-member -> language feature, this functionality is key in providing a
>powerful, high level language.
>

You don't seem to have a good grasp on the terminology...

First of all: what you are describing above is _not_ operator
overloading. Operator overloading is simply the ability to define
the meaning of the languages operators. 

The ability to define a data structure and the operations on it is
one of the basic features of object orientation. Add in inheritance,
and that IS object-orientation as implemented in C++.

>The ability to define template classes takes the notion of code reusability
>another step.  The container class and the operations on it are defined once
>and the programmer instantiates this template class as needed for each type,
>removing the need for repeated code modification.
>

The ability to define templates (not just template classes, but
templates as a whole) is a feature added to C++ to overcome a weakness
in its type system. In other languages, other methods of reusing code
have been implemented. In Objective-C, there is no need for templates
because of weak types/fully dynamic binding. In Standard-ML, there is
no need for templates because the type system is sufficiently powerful
to cope with polymorphic functions without the help provided by templates.
Frankly, I consider templates to be one of the greatest weaknesses of C++ -
they're only needed because C++ chose to use a strong by unintelligent type
system. With a weaker type system, or a strong intelligent type system, the
template kludge is unncessary.

>The exception capability is nice, but overly complex and will meet with
>widespread lack of use, much like the MI features.

Exception handling is _absolutely_ _crucial_. In _every_ major
production program, exception handling is absolutely pervasive. In the
past, it's always been done fairly kludgily, with gotos, setjmps, and
other bizzare messes. The C++ system is certainly excessively complex
and confusing, but it's THERE. It exists, it works, and it's a whole
lot better then setjmp/longjmp. I tend to think that the presence of a
functional standard exception handling mechanism is one of the best
additions to C++ since the language was initially released. (I wish it
were a better system, but I'm glad to have it. I wish Objective-C
provided as much!)

	<MC>


-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"Don't ever think that you can't
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS||    change the past
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker ||       or the future"
|| carroll@udel.edu             ||  - _Love_and_Anger_, Kate Bush
From: rpomeroy@aunext3.cam.amd.com (Ron Pomeroy x(Coop))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:09:15 GMT
Reply-To: rpomeroy@aunext3.cam.amd.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

In article <3330@tivoli.UUCP> taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
>>Obj. C does not have multiple inheritance.
>>I find the a BIG loss.

As a SmallTalk programmer I have found that the lack of multiple
inheritance forces me to be more complete in my analysis and seek more
complete abstractions.  Also with multiple inheritance, there is
the problem of method collision (or has that been solved ?).  In
general I think it's the easy way out.  I've bitched and moaned
when I couldn't use it - but was thankful later on that I didn't.  BTW -
there are ways to beat single inheritance.  A bit hackish but...

>>Objective C syntax is even weirder in class
>>definition than C++.

Disagree - they seem fairly simple to me.

	@interface myView:View
	{
	  id instance_variable(s)
	}
	- method_one;
	- method_two;
	- method_three;
	@end

	@implementation myView
	- method_one
	{}
	- method_two
	{}
	- method_three
	{}
	@end

>>I don't seen to remember any operator overloading
>>in Obj. C  I may be wrong.

Agree - this would be nice to have.  I'd like to redefine all the C types
and operators to make them first class classes objects and methods (like  
SmallTalk).  In an OO world EVERYTHING should be an object - right ?

Should I slip into my asbestos undees ?

--
Ronald Pomeroy
Advanced Micro Devices
CAM Applications Group
rpomeroy@aunext3.amd.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
From: dglattin@trirex.com (Dennis Glatting)
Subject: Re: Objective C library, Free Software Foundation
Organization: Trirex Systems Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:13:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.143111.9296@Trirex.COM> trirex!taff@uunet.uu.net  
(Tom Affinito) writes:
> In article <BtLso6.5H4@world.std.com> gsk@world.std.com (Geoffrey S  
> Knauth) writes:
> > Quick Status
> > ------------
> > There have been several dozen positive responses (zero negative) to
> > the idea of creating a free software library containing Objective C.
> > 
> > Simson Garfinkel, Dave Pollak, Richard Stallman and I may meet next
> > week in Boston to determine a preliminary course of action.  Simson
> > and Dave and Dennis Glatting all have code to start this project
> > rolling.
> > 
> > I've also heard Cygnus Support may be interested in this project, or
> > they may have an existing project of their own.
> > 
> > This is for you, the public.  If you want to be heard, climb aboard.
> > -- 
> > Geoffrey S. Knauth, Marble Associates, Inc.                Member  
> BCS-NeXT, LPF
> > gsk@marble.com, (617) 891-5555 work, (617) 547-5247 home   Standard  
> Disclaimers
> 
> If I use gcc and this library and runtime, will I be able to sell  
programs  
> I develop with it?  If the GNU source code license holds with regard to  
> the class library, then could there be problems for developers in this  
> regard?
> 
> just curious ...
> 
> Tom Affinito

The run time and class Object will be bundled with libgcc and therefore  
covered by the same license (included from libgcc1.c below).  The object  
library, however, will most likely be CopyLeft. 

--- GPL from libgcc1.c ---
This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
later version.

In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
compiled version of this file with other programs, and to distribute
those programs without any restriction coming from the use of this
file.  (The General Public License restrictions do apply in other
respects; for example, they cover modification of the file, and
distribution when not linked into another program.)
---

--
Dennis P. Glatting / Sr. Technical Manager / Trirex Systems Inc.
315 Post Road West / Westport, Connecticut 06880 / (203)221-4600
dennis_glatting@trirex.com (NeXTmail Ok)
Member League for Programming Freedom
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
From: dglattin@trirex.com (Dennis Glatting)
Subject: Re: PD Implementation?
Organization: Trirex Systems Inc.
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:15:27 GMT

In article <KHERA.92Aug18111600@thneed.cs.duke.edu> khera@cs.duke.edu  
(Vivek Khera) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.123634.5905@news.th-darmstadt.de>  
uli@aida.intellektik.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Ulrich Grepel) writes:
> 
>    In article <41299@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, gvw@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Greg Wilson)  
writes:
>    |> Apologies if this is a FAQ, but I am looking for a PD  
implementation of
>    |> Objective-C, and accompanying documentation (i.e. language  
description
>    |> with tutorials).
> 
>    I would suggest looking at GNU and it's gcc version 2.2.x. There's an  
Objective-C
>    compiler in it, and GNU is (kind of) PD. With the tutorials, it is  
quite different...
> 
>    Uli
> 
> yes, and it is totally useless until someone writes the runtime
> message dispatching routines.  basically, it doesn't have an Object
> class.

FYI:  "someone" wrote one has recently donated it to the FSF -- paperwork  
still pending.  It requires some clean up and porting -- about a weekend  
worth of work.  In fact, I know that someone quit well :).  There will be  
a announcement in some of the newsgroups soon.

> what's "kind of PD" supposed to mean?  PD, assuming that the original
> poster was referring to public domain, is a legal term.  either
> something is or is not public domain.  you can't be "kind of" public
> domain.  GNU stuff is freely distributable.  you just can't claim you
> wrote it.

--
Dennis P. Glatting
Sr. Technical Manager
Trirex Systems Inc.
315 Post Road West
Westport, Connecticut   06880
203-221-4614
From: fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:27:27 GMT

rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin) writes:

>MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>>One thing that makes Obj-C "better" is that it lacks a large number of features
>>that C++ has but doesn't need.  Computer science has been fighting the
>>battle for a long time.  Should a language offer every possible feature,
>>or should it offer a slimmed down subset of just enough features?
>
>I am sure that you could find many C++ programmers who would agree
>that the language is complex, and that there are features that could
>be removed.  I doubt you could get them all to agree on which features
>to remove.

There is one feature that C++ has that causes 90% of it's problems -
C compatability. Unfortunately this is the last feature that people are
willing to abandon. 1/2 :-)

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature VIRUS is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature VIRUS is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
From: rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:34:19 GMT
Followup-To: comp.lang.objective-c

MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>One thing that makes Obj-C "better" is that it lacks a large number of features
>that C++ has but doesn't need.  Computer science has been fighting the
>battle for a long time.  Should a language offer every possible feature,
>or should it offer a slimmed down subset of just enough features?

I am sure that you could find many C++ programmers who would agree
that the language is complex, and that there are features that could
be removed.  I doubt you could get them all to agree on which features
to remove.

The success of C++ in the industry (to date) is strong testimony to
the notion that the language needs the features it has.

>The Obj-C reference manual on my machine is only 36 very light weight pages
>long (though it assumes you know C 8-).  Just the index for C++ is longer than
>that.

It is quite true that, knowing C, and a little about OOP, Objective C
is quite easy to pick up and use.  Moreover, it provides an OOP
envioronment which performs reasonably well; quite adequate for all
but the most demanding applications.

But, with a few notable exceptions, the industry is putting its muscle
behind C++.  

I find this somewhat surprizing since programming in C++ is very
little like programming in C.  C is flexible and casual, and C++ is
rigid and formal.  Objective C shares the casual and flexible nature
of C.  Yet, most C programmers who are migrating to OOP are accepting,
even demanding the formality of C++ in favor of keeping the causal
environment of C and objective-C.

I know why I, and a few of my friends and associates made that choice;
but I can't speak for the whole industry.  We wanted formality because
we were tired of fighting the maintenance nightmares caused by the
casual nature of C.  We wanted the compiler to lay down strong typing
rules, const rules, rules about instantiating abstract classes, rules
about downcasting and upcasting.  We wanted our programs to be
difficult to compile, because the effort spent in getting a program to
compile is much more efficient than the effort spent in debuggin an
executable.  Every type-error or usage error that the compiler forces
us to remove, saves us the effort of debugging some terrible execution
failure due to type mismatch.  

I and my associates have not been dissapointed by the results.  We
rail and moan against the complexity and odd nature of the language,
but we spend a lot less time debugging.


--
Robert Martin                        Training courses offered in:
R. C. M. Consulting                       Object Oriented Analysis
2080 Cranbrook Rd.                        Object Oriented Design
Green Oaks, Il 60048 (708) 918-1004       C++
From: mas@csa.bu.edu (Mark A. Semich)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
Subject: instance variable declarations..
Date: 30 Aug 92 16:13:06 GMT
Organization: The Internet


I'm just starting working w/ Obj-C, so I've got a beginner's question:

Why is it that instance variables are declared in an object's
@interface portion (interface file) while an object's method's are in
the @implementation portion (implementation file)?

I had kind of pictured the interface file as akin to a prototypes
file, while the implementation file contained the actual code.  Since
instance variables are private data, it seems to me that they should
be declared in the implementation file (along with the methods) rather
than the interface file.

--
===========================================================================
                "I used to be a design but now I'm a tree."
--   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   --
mark a. semich                                               mas@csa.bu.edu
===========================================================================
From: richp@vela-X (Richard Pettit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:14:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: west.l9pvs3INN23a
Reply-To: comp.lang.objective-c
Followup-To: comp.lang.objective-c
Distribution: world
Organization: Hierarchical
NNTP-Posting-Host: vela-x.west.sun.com

It seems that I'm the only person who I've heard say that the best features
of C++ have nothing to do with object orientation.

The power of operator overloading provides the programmer with the ability to
define a data structure and the operations on it.  Since the natural
progression of reusable software is from in-line-code -> function ->
library-member -> language feature, this functionality is key in providing a
powerful, high level language.

The ability to define template classes takes the notion of code reusability
another step.  The container class and the operations on it are defined once
and the programmer instantiates this template class as needed for each type,
removing the need for repeated code modification.

The exception capability is nice, but overly complex and will meet with
widespread lack of use, much like the MI features.

And now for some real code:

  {S(=@[length,%1]->id;apndl@[1,S@tl]@(while not@!and@&<=@distl@[1,tl] rotr))}

Rich
----
Xref: sparky comp.lang.objective-c:476 comp.lang.c++:12914
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:22:26 EDT
From: <MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++

In article <1992Aug25.142415.7762@uc.msc.edu>, andy@uh.msc.edu (Andrew
Hollenbeck) says:

>I've used C++ and would like to know what distinguishes Objective-C from C++.
>The Objective-C FAQ (Q6/A6) only indicates features that C++ contains that
>Objective-C lacks.  What features of Objective-C make it "better"?

One thing that makes Obj-C "better" is that it lacks a large number of features
that C++ has but doesn't need.  Computer science has been fighting the
battle for a long time.  Should a language offer every possible feature,
or should it offer a slimmed down subset of just enough features?

The Obj-C reference manual on my machine is only 36 very light weight pages
long (though it assumes you know C 8-).  Just the index for C++ is longer than
that.

Xref: sparky comp.lang.objective-c:494 comp.lang.c++:13016
From: kstagg@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Stagg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:49:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Aug28.154917.535
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle


  Objective C is to C what Modula 2 is to Pascal: a clean, simple,
genrally elegant extension and update.

  C++ is to C what Ada is to Pascal: a huge, cumbersome update with
many needed features and even more useless ones.

-Ken
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
From: gsk@world.std.com (Geoffrey S Knauth)
Subject: Re: Objective C library, Free Software Foundation
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:08:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.143111.9296@Trirex.COM> trirex!taff@uunet.uu.net writes:
>If I use gcc and this library and runtime, will I be able to sell programs  
>I develop with it?  If the GNU source code license holds with regard to  
>the class library, then could there be problems for developers in this  
>regard?

The GNU license for libg++ is permissive, and I expect the license for
a lib-objc would be as permissive.  rms, other developers and I are
having dinner this evening to discuss this and other issues.
-- 
Geoffrey S. Knauth, Marble Associates, Inc.                Member BCS-NeXT, LPF
gsk@marble.com, (617) 891-5555 work, (617) 547-5247 home   Standard Disclaimers
From: pfkeb@kaon.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul Kunz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.objective-c
Subject: Re: Objective-C vs. C++
Date: 28 Aug 92 04:37:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
In-reply-to: rpomeroy@aunext3.cam.amd.com's message of 27 Aug 92 14:09:15 GMT


   Well here's another two cents worth of opinion.

   There should be no contraversy between C++ and Objective-C.   C++ is
great for mathematical objects, such as matrices, vectors and the
like where the operator overloading of "+", etc. makes a lot of sense.
Also in computational kernals, the in-line functions are an 
absolute must for any descent speed.   Neither can be done with
Objective-C.

   But when your objects are bigger, like windows, buttons, sliders, 
and other controls of an applications, the easy to learn Objective-C
language is more than adequate.   Also the very late binding, and
lack of compile time checking allows techniques such as delegation
to be easily implemented.   C++ is too much of a pain in this area.

   It is easy to conceive of an application that has a C++ computation
kernal with an Objective-C GUI.  All you need is the ultimate
language: Objective-C++.  What is Objective-C++?  Well if Objective-C
is a layer on top of C, the Objective-C++ is a layer on top of C++.
And it is available today from your GNU sources or any NeXT machine.

P.S.

   I had the pleasure of showing Brad Cox, the inventor of Objective-C,
his first view of compilable, linkable, and runable Objective-C++ code.
--
Paul F. Kunz	(NeXT mail ok)
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University
Voice: (415) 926-2884   (NeXT) Fax: (415) 926-3587