g2k@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) (12/20/89)
Marry NeXT and Eiffel ? I love my NeXT and understand that nostalgics of the MacII be worried. Also, I do not really see the point of debating on the comparaison between the two machines. Does anyone compare a Che- vy to a Ford Taurus ? We are going to start a long-term development project in CADCAM and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Since high degrees of in- teractivity, abstraction, and flexibility are required, and that we are engineers before being programmers (as engineers, our interrest is to reduce the need for development programmers, and make sure that the software is of good quality), the NeXT and OOP seem self-imposed. I am concious of the conditions in 1985 when NeXT choose Objective-C to support its environment; at that time Obj-C was probably the best product available. However since, things in the world of OOP have become better defined and more structured. Obj-C and C++ have always looked more like bricolage kits than anything really serious; Smalltalk is definitively han- dicapped by its lack of structure, incompatibility and ineffi- ciency. Fortunately, out of the dim, B. Meyer and its team have finally presented something one step ahead of anything else. As computer manufacturers feel threatened by NeXT, C hackers are justified when they fear Eiffel; their species is endangered. Well, NeXT and ISE have also in common the fact they are not offsprings of industry moguls (AT&T, IBM, Xerox are moguls), and do not have the negative corporate policy of the latters. More seriously, I thing that Eiffel is particularly fitted to support the programming environment of the NeXT. Not only both products embody concepts which define the future of computer ap- plication development, but Eiffel provides all the qualities necessary to intense development of well-defined (ANSI-C or C++ code is not well defined) and reusable class-libraries neccessary to the NeXT. Everybody would gain to such an union (ISE, NeXT, and most of all the user who would escape the inherent problems of C and use a real, well-constructed, complete language). I have obvious interrest in writing this letter because the best of Eif- fel would be joined with the best of the NeXT, on top of the best of MACH so that, in despite that I can't have one to drive home, I would work with a Rolls-Royce all day long. Frederic
ed@DTG.COM (Edward Jung) (12/20/89)
In article <6058@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, g2k@mentor (Frederic Giacometti) writes: > >Marry NeXT and Eiffel ? > For that matter, I would love to work on such a project, having some experience in the area. There are, however, some non-trivial problems in marrying the ubiquitous NeXT run-time system and Eiffel, and ISE must be wondering about the numbers of developers that will flock to Eiffel. But we can always hope. -- Edward Jung The Deep Thought Group, L.P. BIX: ejung 3400 Swede Hill Road NeXT or UNIX mail Clinton, WA. 98236 UUCP: uunet!dtgcube!ed Internet: ed@dtg.com
elkins@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Elkins) (12/21/89)
> ... but Eiffel provides all the qualities > necessary to intense development of well-defined (ANSI-C or C++ > code is not well defined) and reusable class-libraries neccessary > to the NeXT. I agree. When I last programmed in Eiffel, it seemed that about 60% of the code I ended up using was inherited from class libraries or demo code. Application development, as a result, was extremely fast (especially considering that I had never done any Eiffel programming or OOP before this). As a result of this experience, I would take NeXT more seriously if an Eiffel compiler and Eiffel class libraries were available. Is ISE considering this possibility? George Elkins
bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) (01/11/90)
In <6058@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, g2k@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Frederic Giacometti) raises the question of Eiffel on the NeXT. In <Dec.20.11.22.12.1989.14846@topaz.rutgers.edu>, elkins@topaz.rutgers.edu (George Elkins) adds: > [...] I would take NeXT more seriously if an Eiffel > compiler and Eiffel class libraries were > available. Is ISE considering this possibility? Here is a brief statement of the ``party line'' at Interactive Software Engineering. We support about 30 platforms (which, by the way, is driving us crazy, but I'll comment on that some other time). At the moment the NeXT is not one of them. Because we constantly get requests (from either computer vendors or potential users) to port to new machines, we must be careful about which ports we decide to undertake. Three major factors are involved in each decision: A. Technical interest. Some ports are an intellectually rewarding experience, others a pain in the neck. B. Market share. Obviously the number of units of a given platform out there, either current or projected, is a point to consider before we invest in a significant porting effort. Customer pressure also falls under this heading. C. Relationship with the computer vendor. Some vendors understand the value of good software and we have had very fruitful cooperations. I am eager to see Eiffel on the NeXT. Apart from all other good reasons, the presence of Mach, mentioned by Mr. Giacometti, is particularly enticing because it seems to fit well with the recently designed Eiffel mechanism for concurrency (presented in a few talks but not yet published), about which I am quite excited. A straightforward port of the basic facilities is a relatively small job. A version that will take advantage of all the specific NeXT facilities is a bigger task. We do have to consider all of the above criteria, however. If I were to rate the NeXT on a scale of 1 to 10 for each of them, I would give it 10 for A and unknown for B (most people would agree that the jury is still out). By the way, anyone who thinks that Interactive is shamefully dragging its feet on the NeXT is welcome to go ahead and write a compiler. -- Bertrand Meyer bertrand@eiffel.com
mb@sparrmsuucp (Michael Bell) (01/11/90)
In article <221@eiffel.UUCP>, bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: > > ... it seems to fit well with the recently designed Eiffel > mechanism for concurrency (presented in a few talks but not yet > published), about which I am quite excited. > Could you elaborate on the proposed concurrency mechanisms? Thanks -- Mike Bell -- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -- Mike Bell -- <mb@sparrms.uucp> | Spar Aerospace Ltd, 1700 Ormont Dr| | Voice/Fax: +1 (416) 745-9680/4172 | Weston, Ontario, CANADA M9L 2W7| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) (01/12/90)
From <238@sparrmsuucp> by mb@sparrmsuucp (Michael Bell):
> Could you elaborate on the proposed concurrency mechanisms?
Yes, I intend to post a fairly detailed note. The note is not quite
ready yet but should be by the end of next week.
--
-- Bertrand Meyer
bertrand@eiffel.com