rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/18/90)
In article <130131@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes: >/ comp.sys.next / tenny@z.dec.com (Dave Tenny) / Dec 10, 1990 / >> If the implementation of Obj-c by GNU means GNU support of Obj-c, >> then this would imply that the Gnu Obj-c implementations will ultimately >> end up running everywhere that gcc/g++ do. Is this true? > >The 2.0 "gcc" compiler will compile C, C++, and Objective-C (the latter >using work done at NeXT). However, there is as yet no run-time support for >Objective-C (the messager library) for the GNU distribution. FSF is >looking for a volunteer to write one. I hope NeXT publishes the runtime sytem as well (of course I understand that they will not publish their appkit...). What do we really need if we want to program the NeXT way? - GNU-licensed Objective-C compiler (we have it now....) - GNU-licensed code for speaker-listener - GNU-licensed code for the basic classes like object, storage, hashtable, list, ... With this at hand we not only could develop client server applications that are data format compatible with the NeXT and do things like expensive calculations or database access or something like this, but also it is easier to write applications that can share data with NeXT applications. Last but not least, applications developed on the NeXT can, if really a need exists, be ported much easier to another platform. Just immagine if you had not to care in network code or distributed programs if it is a NeXT or not you are talking to, just use speaker/listener anyway. Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
wjs@milton.u.washington.edu (William Jon Shipley) (12/18/90)
Yes, it'd be really keen if NeXT released the Obj-C library. However, it isn't NeXT's to release. It's Stepstone's, and NeXT is licensing it. Probably it's modified beyond recognition by now, but since NeXT has the original code, they can't exactly give their new code away. NeXT would love* to see someone port the Obj-C library to another machine. So would I. Heck, I've also got an IBM 3090 here that I'd like to see running NeXTStep (no one at NeXT has said this isn't possible, since we ARE running A/IX). Wouldn't it be keen to run Frame -NXHosted from a 3090? -william shipley *: source: William Parkhurst at the BaNG meeting this summer. (What an awesome meeting, BTW. Eric really new how to throw a party.)
glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) (12/20/90)
>I hope NeXT publishes the runtime sytem as well (of course I understand that >they will not publish their appkit...). What do we really need if we >want to program the NeXT way? Bill Parkhurst stated a few months back that there were legal reasons why they cannot do this. My guess, judging from all of the StepStone O-C features that were deprecated from 0.8 onwards is that they started with StepStone runtime code and went on from there. Is StepStone going to give away their work? Of course not. Writing a runtime would be lots of fun though. I might need it myself for some other work. If that happens I'll probably end up doing it. - g -- Gary T. Lang (415)332-2344 x2702 Autodesk, Inc. Sausalito, CA. MCI: 370-0730
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (12/20/90)
In article <1480@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes: >Bill Parkhurst stated a few months back that there were legal reasons >why they cannot do this. My guess, judging from all of the StepStone >O-C features that were deprecated from 0.8 onwards is that they >started with StepStone runtime code and went on from there. Is >StepStone going to give away their work? Of course not. >Writing a runtime would be lots of fun though. I might need it myself >for some other work. If that happens I'll probably end up doing it. That would be great. However this does not yet solve the other few problems: i.e. the availability of those basic classes that NeXT provides. It is not that some people wouldn't want to buy them from Stepstone, but that the ones from NeXT are different. Thus maybe we would need two things: someone who writes a runtime system that behaves according to NeXTs specs, and then the code for the basic classes from NeXT (these should have the same implementation if e.g. write and read to streams should be compatible). Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet