Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!netcom!dlb!zygot!bruceh
From: bruceh@zygot.UUCP (Bruce Henderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: C++ vs. "Objective C"
Summary: Why not C++
Message-ID: <2393@zygot.UUCP>
Date: 9 Aug 89 16:06:52 GMT
References: 
Organization: ATI Wares Team
Lines: 21

In article , ak10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew Joseph Kompanek) writes:
> First, is there an Objective C standard, either formal or informal?  If not,
> what was NeXT's reasoning behind adopting Objective C?  In any event,
> why wasn't C++ chosen?  Its popularity is growing and more important,
> Stroustrup has defined the language formally.

The main reason behind this is probably due to the fact that C++ is a
fairly recent beast.  When work was begun on the NeXT and NeXTStep
(about 3 or so years ago) C++ was not really a consideration.
Originally there was even a lot of talk about using Smalltalk as the
native software environment.  Thank goodness they at least picked a
flavor of C!  Up until recently the only people who had a good C++
compiler [CFront] working was (believe it or not) Apple Computer Inc.
They also fixed many of AT&T's bugs for them.... so thank you Apple for
C++!
-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bruce Henderson                                       Software Engineer
zygot!bruceh@Apple.COM			    
"Sorry, Mathematica can't goon this much"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^