feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) (02/28/89)
There is now an archive for software written for or ported to the NeXT computer on umd5.umd.edu. The purpose of the archive is to facilitate the exchange of NeXT software and to reduce the number of times that the wheel must be reinvented. Access to the archive is via annonymous ftp to umd5.umd.edu (128.8.10.5). The archive is in the NeXT directory. The archive is currently empty. What I'd like to see in the archive are: 1) Information -- Known bugs, fixes, work-arounds, suggestions. Pointers to other archives. 2) Executables -- Programs (and objects!) written explicitly for the NeXT, and UNIX programs that have been ported (e.g., Kermit, TeX). Executables will only be made available if source is also made available somehow (could be from another archive). 3) Source -- When space permits and the sources are not available from another archive. If you have something that you would like to see in the archive, send me (feldman@umd5.umd.edu) mail. If you find something useful, chances are that others will find it useful, too. Mark
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (03/01/89)
/ comp.sys.next / feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) / Feb 27, 1989 /
> Programs (and objects!) written explicitly for the NeXT,
Sigh... Why did they have to go and start calling classes "objects"???
Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu
Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore
feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) (03/01/89)
In article <12670017@eecs.nwu.edu> gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) writes: >/ comp.sys.next / feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) / Feb 27, 1989 / >> Programs (and objects!) written explicitly for the NeXT, > >Sigh... Why did they have to go and start calling classes "objects"??? > >Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu >Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore > Jacob (and others), Instead of picking on my incorrect use of the word ``object,'' why not put the same effort into providing me with some object classes to put into the archive so others can benefit from your object-oriented programming knowledge? Between Objective-C, Display PostScript, and the rest of the NeXTStep environment, there are hundreds of new terms and new ways of overloading old terms. Using just the right word and having it understood by the large number of readers on comp.sys.next, many of whom have never done object-oriented programming or used a NeXT, is not always easy. I realize that an object is an instance of a class, however I think that using the word ``class'', without additional qualification, is more confusing to those that have not had as much exposure to object oriented programming. ``object class'' provides enough context for the uninitiated. I will endeavor to be more correct in the future. At least I didn't call them subroutines:-). I am still looking for software (programs and object classes) to place in the archive. Both software that is useful in and of itself and software that demonstrates how to make use of the NeXT are welcome. If you've got something for the archive, send me mail. Mark <feldman@umd5.umd.edu>
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (03/02/89)
In article <12670017@eecs.nwu.edu> gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) writes: >Sigh... Why did they have to go and start calling classes "objects"??? Jacob (and others), >/ comp.sys.next / feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) / Mar 1, 1989 / >Instead of picking on my incorrect use of the word ``object,'' ... (That's what I get for using pronouns out of context.) I wasn't picking on you, Mark. I was complaining to NeXT. You probably inherited the term from the Interface Builder, which misuses it too. >Between Objective-C, Display PostScript, and the rest of the NeXTStep >environment, there are hundreds of new terms and new ways of overloading old >terms. Using just the right word and having it understood by the large >number of readers on comp.sys.next, many of whom have never done >object-oriented programming or used a NeXT, is not always easy. That's why it's so sad to see NeXT propagate inconsistent terminology. Objective-C uses "class", because Smalltalk uses "class", and Objective-C imitates Smalltalk. C++ uses "class". (Heck, didn't even Simula-67 call it "class"?) NeXT had to go and call it "object". (Now, there are O-O languages that are "classless", that is, where an object has the properties of both a Smalltalk class and a Smalltalk instance, but Objective-C isn't one of them. The libraries on NeXT are class libraries, not object libraries.) >I realize that an object is an instance of a class, however I think that >using the word ``class'', without additional qualification, is more >confusing to those that have not had as much exposure to object oriented >programming. Presicely why we should use consistent terminology. >``object class'' provides enough context for the uninitiated. Yeah... that's the ticket :-) >I will endeavor to be more correct in the future. Me too. Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore