home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Education Sampler 1992 [NeXTSTEP]
/
Education_1992_Sampler.iso
/
NeXT
/
Misc
/
HigherEducationMailbox.mbox
/
Archives_provide_val_.attach
/
May_91
/
objc.342
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1991-05-21
|
1KB
|
40 lines
{\rtf0\ansi{\fonttbl\f0\fmodern Courier;\f3\fnil Times-Roman;}
\paperw13040
\paperh10200
\margl120
\margr120
\pard\tx960\tx1920\tx2880\tx3840\tx4800\tx5760\tx6720\tx7680\tx8640\tx9600\f0\b0\i0\ul0\fs24 objc Objective-C C++\
\
Q: Why did NeXT choose Objective-C rather than C++?\
\
A: NeXT chose Objective-C over C++ for several reasons:\
\
(1) We wanted a language which represented the smallest perturbation\
to the C language, to make it easier for programmers to learn. In\
our opinion, C++ was a significantly major change to the C language\
compared to Objective-C, which adds only a few new constructs to C.\
\
(2) At the time we made the decision, C++ did not support run-time\
binding, and this lack greatly reduces the advantages of taking an\
object-oriented approach. With run-time binding, you need not\
know the details of the object to which you're sending a message.\
This supports modularity and reusability of code, and is essential\
for a true object-oriented programming environment. See Chapter\
Two of the Brad Cox book (
\i Object-Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary\
Approach
\i0 ; Addison-Wesley, 1987) for a fuller description of these\
issues.\
\
(3) C++ does not support dynamic loading of objects, once again\
a key feature necessary in order to take full advantage of the\
power of Interface Builder.\
\
QA342\
\
Valid for 1.0\
Valid for 2.0\
\