Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++

[Markus Grabert]

Ziemowit Laski wrote:

> PUTTING OBJECTIVE-C++ INTO GCC 3.x

[...]

> We are currently working on rolling out gcc 3.x on Mac OS X.
> Obviously, this work will include bringing up the Objective-C++
> 3.x front-end.  This time around, however, we would like to
> coordinate its development with the community at large, so
> that the finished (or even evolving) product can become part
> of the FSF tree.  Obviously, we will strive to integrate
> Objective-C++ into the FSF tree in such a way that it will
> have minimal impact on those _not_ wishing to use it. :)
> 
> The purpose of this post is twofold.  First, we'd like
> to know whether there exists an interest in the community
> for incorporating Objective-C++ capability into FSF gcc 3.x.


LOL.


People were waiting for *YEARS* for this ...
... and YOU are asking whether there exists an interest ...


> The good news about adding Objective-C++ to gcc is that
> very little actual new code will be required!  Most of the
> functionality already exists in the cp/ and objc/ folders. :)
> 
> Thanks for reading this.  We look forward to hearing from all
> of you.



/troll mode on

Nice try.

Well, of course I like a ObjC++, but what I REALLY want to see is

- ANSI Objective-C, with a full definition of the runtime; and
  therefore one standard way to combine ObjC with other languages.
- a common (or at least fully compatible) objc runtime of GNU's gcc
  and Apple's cc.

- OpenStep API alive and kicking (=used) for MANY more years,
  even if this means new versions of OpenStep (well, I don't know much
  to improve, but other people might have some ideas).


Well, perhaps I'm fanatic and a troll, but I think if Apple wants to go
the OpenSource way, there should be a way to combine the ressources of
the GNUstep world and MacOS X and their community, since this is the only
way to establish the best development framework: OpenStep.

IMHO one reason why Objective-C is not popular (I'm not talking about
OpenStep) is that there are just 3 maintained compilers AFAIK, each using
a different (or no) runtime and their own extentions.
And just because there is no ISO-ObjectiveC or similar standard. I think
it is nearly too late to establish an ISO-ObjectiveC, this should have
been done years ago.
If there is a standard, people will more likely use it and therefore will
be more compilers for that standard.

Well, if it is no standardized programming language, why should people use
an API that uses this proprietary programming language ?
I don't this this is the only reason why OpenStep or GNUstep is so
unpopular. I don't even think it is the most important one. But at least
it was an important one for the last years.

I think Objective-C++ will at least make it easier to evangelize people
to use ObjectiveC and/or the OpenStep API.
C++ is common and if you can convince developers that they still can
develop (sort of) C++ programms, they're willing to give it a try.

PS: I had a very bad week, so sorry for any insults.

/troll mode off


... and yes, I'm very interested ;)

greetings max