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" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^