johnc@ms.uky.edu (John Coppinger) (01/23/91)
My impression was that the port of NeXTStep 1.0 was withdrawn so they could work on porting 2.0. If they have dropped it all together, it's probably because they realized that they could never cludge together an interface library in C++, and they weren't prepared to commit to Objective C. If that's true, then I think they'll regret their inflexibility in the future. -- John Coppinger "You'll find that your left cuff link University of Kentucky will be communicating with your right johnc@s.ms.uky.edu cuff link via satellite" JOHNC@UKMA.BITNET -- Nicholas Negroponte
news@NeXT.COM (news) (01/24/91)
In article <68@oink.UUCP> cgb@oink.UUCP (Charles G. Bennett) writes: >Does anyone know why IBM decided to give up porting >NeXTstep? >I read the rumors that it was too hard but I'd like to know >exactly what was hard about the port. >Inquiring minds... :-) I can make no official statement at this point, but please ask you IBM rep before you suggest that the IBM had given up the 2.0 port. ... jeff martin NeXT Developer Support
PFKEB@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Paul Kunz) (01/24/91)
I can make no official statement about NextStep on the RS/6000 either but given there is much confusion about what NextStep on the RS/6000 means I think I should make a few statements which should be commonly known... - NextStep 1.0 is running on the RS/6000 and has been shown by IBM at many trade shows. I even saw it at the SHARE (IBM users group) meeting in Paris France last fall. - NextStep on the RS/6000 uses Objective-C, just like on the NeXT. All rumors of IBM using C++ instead of Objective-C are completely false. - I've ported my project, Reason (that was mentioned in the BaNG meeting review posted here), to NextStep on the RS/6000. Due to the non-disclosure terms by which I obtained NextStep for the RS/6000, I can not give any details of the difficulty or non-difficulty of the port, but I will be demonstrating my NextStep application at the SHARE meeting in San Francisco next month. Also, don't ask me to compare speed or other attributes of my application on the RS/6000; I can't tell you. - The following is opinion, not fact: Why should IBM start shipping NextStep 1.0, just when NeXT is shipping 2.0? You all know how much better (IMHO) 2.0 is over 1.0. - Don't ask me when IBM will start shipping NextStep 2.0, I wish I knew myself. I hope this posting clears the air about NextStep under IBM's AIX, and I hope it doesn't get me into trouble by exposing something that is not public knowledge.
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan23.152038.2324@ms.uky.edu> johnc@ms.uky.edu (John Coppinger) writes: >My impression was that the port of NeXTStep 1.0 was withdrawn so they >could work on porting 2.0. I hope this is the case. >If they have dropped it all together, it's >probably because they realized that they could never cludge together >an interface library in C++, and they weren't prepared to commit to >Objective C. If that's true, then I think they'll regret their >inflexibility in the future. If it's true [that IBM NeXTstep has been dropped entirely] this is very bad news for anyone who wants to see NeXTstep become a viable multi-vendor platform, and it makes a usable X implementation for 2.0 even more important than before. Does anyone have facts instead of rumors on this? _____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!" _|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / R90/6 pilot, DoD #0105 "Gaijin ha doko?" |_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Niichan ha gaijin." --|-- /| |||| |___| /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Chigau. Omae ha gaijin." /|\ | |/\| _______ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909 "Iie, boku ha nihonjin." / | \ | |__| / \ / \MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU "Souka. Yappari gaijin!" Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.