geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) (05/23/91)
I've been hearing ugly rumors that IBM dropped NeXTStep and that Stepstone and Objective-C are in trouble. Someone please tell me this is disinformation. Geoffrey S. Knauth E-Mail: geoff@bos.camex.com Camex / DuPont Imaging Systems Inc. VoiceMail: (617) 426-7550 x451 75 Kneeland Street Reception: (617) 426-3577 Boston, Massachusetts 02111 --standard disclaimers--
rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) (05/23/91)
In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: >I've been hearing ugly rumors that IBM dropped NeXTStep and that >Stepstone and Objective-C are in trouble. Someone please tell me this >is disinformation. I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the phone (not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' and that ``very(?) few employees were left.''. The president then informed me that he was currently putting together a deal himself to get SS finances back in order. For various reasons I asked how much to purchase the company. $1,000,000.00 for 50% interest with the other half controlled by the employees (more on this in a second). Also, $50,000.00 will by a 2.5% interest in the company, up to a maximum of 15% or $250,000.00. If SS folds the company will sell its customer list to someone who will then presumably provide support and upgrades. The Objective-C trademark, nor the SS IC-Pak library are for sale or license. It is ``the only thing [they] have.''. (Personal note: This I think is the reason why SS is not doing as well as it could. One does not promote a tool and expect millions of dollars to be invested in it without having a second source. I wonder really if SS is suprised at their situtation?). Ok, so those were facts as I understood them. Here are my impressions. This is entirely subjective, and should be dismissed as frivolous hearsay for serious conversation. First, the $1Meg seems pie in the sky to me. It is too even, and I think that it was simply thrown out to me. Secondly, towards the latter part of my conversation with the president, I asked who would have controlling interest, and quickly said "Oh yes, the employees.". He responded by indicating that the employees would control 40% of the company. See the note above about how employees would own 50% of the company. This might have been a simple mistake, but my impression was and is that this is being played by the seat of the pants. Finally it seems clear to me that the buisness folks at SS have no concept of how to market a language. Ridiculous license restrictions, unwillingness to even license their trademark, etc. I've been fighting very hard at work for Objective-C (C++ is the contender). Technically I was winning hands down. This morning after my conversation I informed my boss that we would be dropping Objective-C as a possible development language. I suspect that this scene will be repeated in many places. This, sirs, is a genuine shame. With regard to IBM dropping NeXTStep I do not know for certain. I offer this information however. The president of SS is placing great hopes for IBM, and when I saw Steve Jobs speak he indicated (very indirectly) that NeXTStep and IBM were in the offing. SS stands to gain $500,000.00 if the IBM deal goes through. At the previous burn rates ($10,000,000.00 in seven years) this translates into 4 months of operation. >Geoffrey S. Knauth E-Mail: geoff@bos.camex.com >Camex / DuPont Imaging Systems Inc. VoiceMail: (617) 426-7550 x451 >75 Kneeland Street Reception: (617) 426-3577 >Boston, Massachusetts 02111 --standard disclaimers-- ---Rick
izumi@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May23.031433.11017@netcom.COM> rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) writes: >In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: >>I've been hearing ugly rumors that IBM dropped NeXTStep and that >>Stepstone and Objective-C are in trouble. Someone please tell me this >>is disinformation. > >I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones >financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the phone >(not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' and that >``very(?) few employees were left.''. The president then informed me I am a bit confused. How critical is Stepstone's continued operation to NeXT and NeXT users? What part of NeXT software is directly dependent on Stepstone? I am confused because I thought Objective-C compiler technology is now/soon part of GNU compiler, which is free. Izumi Ohzawa [ $@Bg_78^=;(J ] USMail: University of California, 360 Minor Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 Telephone: (415) 642-6440 Fax: (415) 642-3323 Internet: izumi@violet.berkeley.edu NeXTmail: izumi@pinoko.berkeley.edu
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) (05/23/91)
Suppose Brad Cox, head of and creator of Objective-C, made the company a public corporation with an issue of stock at very affordable cost (you could call these junk bonds, if you like)? I for one would like to own several shares of stock if they sold at around $25.00 (U.S.) each. If for no other reason, think of how neat the stock would be framed and on the wall of your office!! And as a stock holder, one could participate in the company. How about it, Stepstone? Objective-C is great and I have my checkbook ready! I'll put my money where my USENET-mouth is... -- Chuck Herrick campus consultant at Texas A&M University for NeXT Computer, Inc -- The opinions expressed herein are mine and are in no way attributed to any of the many people for whom I work. Who they are is irrelevant.
rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) (05/24/91)
In article <CNH5730.91May23094434@calvin.tamu.edu> cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes: >Suppose Brad Cox, head of and creator of Objective-C, made the company >a public corporation with an issue of stock at very affordable cost >(you could call these junk bonds, if you like)? Good question. However, someone somewhere has put in $10,000,000 in seven years. I assume that at least some of that money is owed still, meaning that I suspect that they would have a lot of input on this, and in fact Mr. Cox may not be in the position to dictate the companies financial direction. >I for one would like to own several shares of stock if they sold at >around $25.00 (U.S.) each. If for no other reason, think of how neat >the stock would be framed and on the wall of your office!! <Grin> Yah, me too. >And as a stock holder, one could participate in the company. Well yes, but the people who would probably own the most stock and have the most control would be the people running it now. As I've said before these individuals seem to feel that they are best served by holding onto Obj-C very, very tightly. They clearly don't understand the difficulty in introducing a new technology into a company, and that single sourcing the language is a very big hurdle for proponents of that language to overcome within their respective companies. Since I'm babbling I will propose what Stepstone needs to do to make Obj-C a success. The market to beat is C++. This window of opportunity is closing fast as more and more companies move in that direction with no other viable alternative. The thing to emphasize is that with Obj-C you can move gradually into OOP operation without any change to existing code. Get a native code compiler quickly. Put it on the PC. I have a PC at home, not a Sun. So do most programmers. If they can use it at home, and find it is better than what is at work, they will bitch alot to get this better tool at work. Make the thing very cheap. $150.00 is a viable number if you sell directly. If you go through distributors this will obviously have to be higher. Attack and defame C++ as the clear and obvious hack that it is. License the Objective-C trademark for a pittance (say $500.00). This small fee keeps out the riff-raff, but makes it simple for anyone who is serious to use it. Show C++ to be clearly inferior to Obj-C. Sell the IC-Pak 101 to other developers for a very small fee (say $10.00 or so a copy). Next work very hard to promote this as a standard. Run around with spray paint a write C++ Sux everywhere. Set up a mail server which allows for a catalog of existing classes which are both free and for sale. Let anyone post to this server. Users then make requests of the server like "Send me an index of all Collection classes.". Make freely available class source available in the same way. (e.g. Send class ASortedCollection). This helps promote the IC concept which is key. Attack C++ totally and without mercy. C++ is not a better C, and therefore a path to a better Obj-C as come might propose. C++ is a kludge, and the competition. C++ does not address my biggest problems, growing complexity and decreased development time nearly as effectively as Obj-C. Find people who write books. Pay them some amount of money to write and publish a book on Obj-C by itself. It is important that consumers have some positive feedback that the language they are choosing has support outside of the company that develops it. >-- Chuck Herrick > campus consultant at > Texas A&M University for > NeXT Computer, Inc ---Rick > The opinions expressed herein are mine and are in no way attributed > to any of the many people for whom I work. Who they are is irrelevant. Me to.
thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) (05/24/91)
Izumi Ohzawa writes How critical is Stepstone's continued operation to NeXT and NeXT users? What part of NeXT software is directly dependent on Stepstone? Stepstone is not a critical component to NeXT in the sense a) NeXT only uses OC and not IC-Pak and b) NeXT liscences OC but did the critical parts of the compiler themselves (apparent from the trademarking). NeXT selected OC at the time because dynamic binding was there ... C++ was not there yet. However it looks like C++ could become the 'native language' easily for NeXT. Afterall, they are selling NeXT computers and not Objective-C computers. Personally I would hate to see OC and Stepstone go under. My people really prefer OC to C++, and so do I. Stepstone was good to work with when we used their products on Sun, and the product worked well. Mark R. Thomsen
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (05/24/91)
Mark R. Thomsen writes: Stepstone is not a critical component to NeXT in the sense a) NeXT only uses OC and not IC-Pak and b) NeXT liscences OC but did the critical parts of the compiler themselves (apparent from the trademarking). NeXT selected OC at the time because dynamic binding was there ... C++ was not there yet. However it looks like C++ could become the 'native language' easily for NeXT. I really should clarify this... In my discussions with NeXT, which concerned Objective-C in GNU C, I was told that teh object libraries, in general, belong to StepStone (appologies to NeXT if this is incorrect interpretation), as I was told that the FSF would have to recreate them since NeXT didn't own them. As for C++ becomming the 'default' language for NeXTs, don't hold your breath. For reasons that are more complex, C++ is technically incapable of supporting the NeXT fully. The machine is designed for the message passing architecture of Objective-C (which is similar to Flavors under LMI Lisp). After discussing C++ v. Objective-C with people, I think NeXT supports it grudgingly, and I know the programmers at NeXT despise it, as do I. Coming from an OOP background before OOP was the 'buzzword' that it is. (I started with Flavors and Lisp), I do not like C++, as it missis most of the spirit of the idea of OOP. (Please, do not continue this discussion of C++ v. O-C, as it doesn't belong here). Afterall, they are selling NeXT computers and not Objective-C computers. True, but Objective-C is the HEART of NextStep, which is what really DEFINES a NeXT. A NeXT would be just another pretty face if it wasn't for NextStep. NextStep and Interface Builder cannot exist (in anything resembling thier current state) under C++. Personally I would hate to see OC and Stepstone go under. My people really prefer OC to C++, and so do I. Stepstone was good to work with when we used their products on Sun, and the product worked well. This is the concensus of REAL OOP people... peolpe who come from Lisp and SmallTalk backgrounds, rather than moving to C++ from C or Pascal. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.
lerman@stpstn.UUCP (Ken Lerman) (05/28/91)
In article <CNH5730.91May23094434@calvin.tamu.edu> cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Charles Herrick) writes:
->Suppose Brad Cox, head of and creator of Objective-C, made the company
Brad Cox is not, and never has been, the head of Stepstone.
->a public corporation with an issue of stock at very affordable cost
->(you could call these junk bonds, if you like)?
Going public at this time would be a very difficult and expensive
operation.
->I for one would like to own several shares of stock if they sold at
->around $25.00 (U.S.) each. If for no other reason, think of how neat
->the stock would be framed and on the wall of your office!!
If all you want is a certificate, send us some money and we'll send
you a certificate. Would you like to be a donor, a sponsor, or a
patron. For a million bucks, I'll send you a certificate saying that
you are the head Poobah, or whatever.
->And as a stock holder, one could participate in the company.
->How about it, Stepstone? Objective-C is great and I have my checkbook
->ready! I'll put my money where my USENET-mouth is...
Seriously, though, thanks for your (moral) support.
->-- Chuck Herrick
Ken Lerman
thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) (05/29/91)
Chris Petrilli writes I really should clarify this... In my discussions with NeXT, which concerned Objective-C in GNU C, I was told that the object libraries, in general, belong to StepStone (appologies to NeXT if this is incorrect interpretation), as I was told that the FSF would have to recreate them since NeXT didn't own them. I would guess the Object class is an example of an intrinsic class for Objective-C that is in the object library. NeXT refers to this as a common class. Others are HashTable, List, NXStringTable, Storage, and StreamTable. Obviously NX___ is a NeXT item. All others have at least a NeXT feature (e.g., archiving) added. To maintain compatibility with OC specifications, the methods would have to be a superset (or a subclass, though this does not appear to be how it was done). It is noteable that 'StepStone' does not appear anywhere in the NeXT documen- tation (V2.0) except under suggested reading - not even as a trademark. As for C++ becomming the 'default' language for NeXTs, don't hold your breath. For reasons that are more complex, C++ is technically incapable of supporting the NeXT fully. The machine is designed for the message passing architecture of Objective-C (which is similar to Flavors under LMI Lisp). After discussing C++ vs. Objective-C with people, I think NeXT supports it grudgingly, and I know the programmers at NeXT despise it, as do I. I am told that Objective-C was selected when it was selected because the dynamic binding was real and C++ was just getting out of the gate. We started a project here with a desire for OOP on a Sun in 1986. Since neither OC nor C++ were ready for prime time we devised ClassIC (classes in C), modeled after OC as described in the old Cox book. Added mixins, class variables, and a few other Smalltalk features. Worked well but has since been getting killed. OC seemed to have the right light syntactic features. We built something like NeXTstep without the Interface Builder. Of course, when NeXT announced their product we were most interested and well prepared. C++ is sort of a reality issue - not supporting C++ would be a religious issue. I sense a widening arena of C++ software development and while I agree wholeheartedly with your OC vs. C++ assessment, the tide of history seems to favor C++. Allowing users to port and write C++ code and using OC as an internal development capability gives NeXT and us a good, balanced position. For now I will continue to listen to my developers and support OC development - I don't feel OC would die with StepStone. ... NextStep and Interface Builder cannot exist (in anything resembling their current state) under C++. I would hazzard that NeXTstep could be built (same functions, similar interface, etc.) with C++. Oh, NeXT might have to add and play with it some (more than with OC?), but they would get there. (This is not hard for me to imagine since we added the stuff to C to make ClassIC - create the dynamic glue and map appropriate procedure calls and variables into the message/name table within the glue parts, ...). However productivity might suffer and the programmers would not be pleased. Oh, and I don't want this construed as a C++/OC comparison on technical merits. The original, underlying issue remains in the subject line, with NeXT and NeXTstep as the subtopic. Mark R. Thomsen
mrs@ms.secs.csun.edu (Mike Stump) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May23.075820.983@agate.berkeley.edu> izumi@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >In article <1991May23.031433.11017@netcom.COM> > rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) writes: >>In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: >>> I've been hearing ugly rumors that [...] Stepstone [...] >>> [is] in trouble. Someone please tell me this is disinformation. >> >> I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones >> financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the >> phone (not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' >> and that ``very(?) few employees were left.''. [...] > > I am a bit confused. > > How critical is Stepstone's continued operation to NeXT and NeXT > users? > > What part of NeXT software is directly dependent on Stepstone? > > I am confused because I thought Objective-C compiler technology > is now/soon part of GNU compiler, which is free. I love free market economies. Simply put, Stepstone was pulling in to much money, not really providing the bang for the buck. NeXT knew this (or found it out) decided to cut cost, knew they could do better than to continue to give any more money to Stepstone. So they extened the GNU compiler (for which they don't have to give a red cent to anyone if they don't want to), and came up with a more cost effective solution for their needs. They relied on Stepstone in the past, now they are ``free'' (pardon the pun). I think everyone should drop their current compiler vendor, take half the money, and give it to a company like cygnus or some other support organization that supports a un-encumbered compiler. I think in the long run, this will prove to be a win. A win for everybody involved. Take a look at what it has done for NeXT, no more money to Stepstone, a C++ compiler for free, and others will do some bug fixing, bug reporting, documentation, maintainance, and upgrading, as well as things like porting, so that maybe if they choose to switch to (name almost ANY popular processor) in the future, not a whole lot of real work needs to be done. (The above are optionions of mine, I do not claim ANY of the above as fact. I would like to see e-mail if you followup to this.) -- If I can get mail to you via a legally registered fully qualified domain name, you could be on Saturn for all I care. -- quote by Bob Sutterfield <bob@MorningStar.Com>
scott@mcs-server.gac.edu (Scott Hess) (06/01/91)
In article <2842A34C.983@deneva.sdd.trw.com> thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) writes:
Chris Petrilli writes
I really should clarify this... In my discussions with NeXT, which
concerned Objective-C in GNU C, I was told that the object libraries,
in general, belong to StepStone (appologies to NeXT if this is
incorrect interpretation), as I was told that the FSF would have to
recreate them since NeXT didn't own them.
I would guess the Object class is an example of an intrinsic class for
Objective-C that is in the object library. NeXT refers to this as a
common class. Others are HashTable, List, NXStringTable, Storage, and
StreamTable. Obviously NX___ is a NeXT item. All others have at least
a NeXT feature (e.g., archiving) added. To maintain compatibility with
OC specifications, the methods would have to be a superset (or a
subclass, though this does not appear to be how it was done). It is
noteable that 'StepStone' does not appear anywhere in the NeXT documen-
tation (V2.0) except under suggested reading - not even as a trademark.
I don't believe that even the so-called "Common" classes that NeXT
distributes are StepStone. The main reason that I don't think they
are is that there is quite a large gap in the general ideas behind
NeXT's Common classes and their StepStone counterparts (at least
this is the impression I get from the StepStone manuals). For
instance, NeXT doesn't use the AsciiFiler stuff - though there
is similar functionality in the archiving methods, it's not done
in the same manner. Also, the method names do not follow the
same conventions (for the List and Storage classes). The NeXT
classes don't follow the same hierarchy - I would expect
List to be a subclass of Storage, like IdArray is a subclass
of Array in StepStone's stuff.
Then again, I might be full of it. But I think that NeXT did
their own base classes, and probably the runtime stuff, too.
... NextStep and Interface Builder cannot exist (in
anything resembling their current state) under C++.
I would hazzard that NeXTstep could be built (same functions,
similar interface, etc.) with C++. Oh, NeXT might have to add and
play with it some (more than with OC?), but they would get there.
(This is not hard for me to imagine since we added the stuff to
C to make ClassIC - create the dynamic glue and map appropriate
procedure calls and variables into the message/name table within
the glue parts, ...).
Somehow, I suspect it would not look as "elegant", which is a big
thing with NeXT . . . :-).
Later,
--
scott hess scott@gac.edu
Independent NeXT Developer Graduated GAC Undergrad!
<I still speak for nobody>
Note: I have moved home for a time. My email address will still be
valid. Any SnailMail should be redirected, along with phone calls.
At the least, my parents can tell you how to get hold of me, or
forward any mail . . .
Old: PO 829, GAC, St. Peter, MN 56082 (507) 933-8466
New: RR#4 Box 227 Pipestone, MN 56164 (507) 825-2788
thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark R. Thomsen) (06/02/91)
Scott Hess writes I don't believe that even the so-called "Common" classes that NeXT distributes are StepStone. ... Then again, I might be full of it. But I think that NeXT did their own base classes, and probably the runtime stuff, too. They did - there is no StepStone in the NeXT software, as noted by the NeXT gent who posted last week. The only Common Class in question really would have been Object, and it was rewritten. I would hazzard that NeXTstep could be built (same functions, similar interface, etc.) with C++. Oh, NeXT might have to add and play with it some (more than with OC?), but they would get there. (This is not hard for me to imagine since we added the stuff to C to make ClassIC - create the dynamic glue and map appropriate procedure calls and variables into the message/name table within the glue parts, ...). Somehow, I suspect it would not look as "elegant", which is a big thing with NeXT . . . :-). Yes, elegance would probably suffer, though I would have faith by now in the NeXT designers in doing a good job. The NeXTstep crew has earned my faith - their work transcends Objective-C. Mark R. Thomsen
rogers@carol.math.binghamton.edu (John Rogers) (06/07/91)
In article <1991May31.065729.26949@csun.edu> mrs@ms.secs.csun.edu (Mike Stump) writes: >In article <1991May23.075820.983@agate.berkeley.edu> izumi@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Izumi Ohzawa) writes: >>In article <1991May23.031433.11017@netcom.COM> >> rkitts@netcom.COM (Rick Kitts) writes: >>>In article <2058@camex.COM> geoff@circus.camex.com (Geoffrey Knauth) writes: > >>>> I've been hearing ugly rumors that [...] Stepstone [...] >>>> [is] in trouble. Someone please tell me this is disinformation. >>> >>> I spoke with the president of Stepstone today regarding Stepstones >>> financial situation. I was told by the person who answered the >>> phone (not the pres) that SS was undergoing a ``reorganization'' >>> and that ``very(?) few employees were left.''. [...] >> >> I am a bit confused. >> >> How critical is Stepstone's continued operation to NeXT and NeXT >> users? >> >> What part of NeXT software is directly dependent on Stepstone? >> >> I am confused because I thought Objective-C compiler technology >> is now/soon part of GNU compiler, which is free. > >I love free market economies. Simply put, Stepstone was pulling in to >much money, not really providing the bang for the buck. NeXT knew >this (or found it out) decided to cut cost, knew they could do better >than to continue to give any more money to Stepstone. So they extened >the GNU compiler (for which they don't have to give a red cent to >anyone if they don't want to), and came up with a more cost effective >solution for their needs. They relied on Stepstone in the past, now >they are ``free'' (pardon the pun). So, is there any public (electronic) access to that compiler (e.g. ftp sites, postings to appropriate comp.sources.whatever, etc.)? I would appreciate the response very much. Thanks, netters! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ /// | The Blue Wizard (John Rogers) /// Only Amiga | rogers@marge.math.binghamton.edu \\\ /// gives you a | (Don't toucha my wand or I will breaka ya!) \\\/// creative edge | #include <std.disclaimers> \XX/ | cat flames >/dev/null ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (06/08/91)
John Rogers writes: [.. insert mention of GNU Objective-C ...] So, is there any public (electronic) access to that compiler (e.g. ftp sites, postings to appropriate comp.sources.whatever, etc.)? I would appreciate the response very much. Thanks, netters! GNU C v2.0 will include Objective-C support, but I am not sure about run-time support for it. GNU C v2 should be out some time in the VERY near future, but for now, the NeXT version of GNU C v1.39 that has Objective-C extensions (and the gdb debugger to support it) are available from NeXT for a 'distribution fee', which is pretty small (under $100 I think for the entire distribution of GNU software with NeXT modifications). You can reach NeXT at +1 800 848 NeXT. Hope this helps. Chris -- | Chris Petrilli | petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu | I don't even speak for myself.
mycroft@kropotki.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) (06/08/91)
In article <PETRILLI.91Jun7165814@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes:
GNU C v2.0 will include Objective-C support, but I am not sure about
run-time support for it. GNU C v2 should be out some time in the VERY
near future, but for now, the NeXT version of GNU C v1.39 that has
Objective-C extensions (and the gdb debugger to support it) are
available from NeXT for a 'distribution fee', which is pretty small
(under $100 I think for the entire distribution of GNU software with
NeXT modifications). You can reach NeXT at +1 800 848 NeXT.
GCC 2.0 will, of course, have an Objective-C runtime library, written
(I'm told) by Cygnus Support.
BTW, under Release 1.0 of the NeXT software, the GNU sources were made
public, and put on several FTP sites. Anyone with the current GNU
sources (with NeXT's modifications) may legally make them available by
any means he/she wishes. That's part of the GPL.
So, if anyone has the Release 2.0 GNU sources, how about it? B-)
mcintyre@cs.rpi.edu (David McIntyre) (06/14/91)
Charles Hannum writes: >Chris Petrilli writes: > > GNU C v2.0 will include Objective-C support, but I am not sure about > run-time support for it. GNU C v2 should be out some time in the VERY > near future, but for now..... > >GCC 2.0 will, of course, have an Objective-C runtime library, written >(I'm told) by Cygnus Support. > Does anyone know a rough release date for this? I'm really anxious to try it out and see how it works. I am about to start a very large Objective-C project, and I'd like to make an informed compiler decision. -Dave -- Dave "mr question" McIntyre +-----+ "....say you're thinking about a plate mcintyre@turing.cs.rpi.edu | ? | of shrimp.....and someone says to office : 518-276-8633 +-----+ you 'plate,' or 'shrimp'......"