cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) (05/27/91)
In article <SCOTT.91May24175620@mcs-server.gac.edu> scott@mcs-server.gac.edu (Scott Hess) writes: >C++ isn't really inferior to Objective-C, >anymore than a tire iron is inferior to an Allen wrench. Thank you, Scott, for your rational treatment of this much-abused topic. I'd modify your analogy in the following way, however. I'd substitute silicon fabrication lines and soldering irons for your tire iron and allen wrench analogy. C++ is *primarily* a silicon fabrication line; a technology for fabricating software from first principles. Objective-C is *primarily* a soldering iron, a technology for assembling pre-fabricated components. Note the emphasis on *primarily*. Objective-C and C++ are not so cleanly separated along this fabrication/assembly dimension as Ada and Smalltalk are. Bjarne and I both started from the middle by using C as the base. But whenever we faced a technical choice, he leaned to the right (pro-fabrication) and I to the left (pro-assembly). The point that is often missed is that neither fabrication nor assembly make sense without the other. This is why Objective-C retains C as its base, and why C++ has dynamic stuff like virtual functions. -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482