[comp.lang.objective-c] health of Stepstone and ObjC

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'......"