Subject: NeXT-specific server (was Re: vm_deallocate error)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 23:11:49 -0700

>Is is possible for the creators/maintainers of the MOO server code to make
>a nextStep specific version, so it knows how to release memory properly? 
>
Well, this would be nice, but why not some NeXT programmers work on a server
in NeXT's (GNU's?) Objective C?  I've worked faint-heartedly on such a thing,
Instead of faking object orientedness with C, use actual objects in Objective
C.  Of course, Objective C is faked object orientedness, but why not let the
compiler do it for you?

Ideally, this NeXT server would be written in ObjC, be db and interpreted code
compatible, and of course, be as solid as Lambda on a Sparc.  Might even be
faster if Objective C provided any optimizations.  And here's be a kicker:
It will compile and run on IBM clones running NeXTStep.  Heck, you could even
write a front end for the restart script which would ask for port number, etc.

Don't look to me for code, I've graduated! :) :)  I'll be happy to discuss
ideas, however.

---------
T. Pascal, King of Pascal          | "He travels fastest who travels alone,
1600 Campus Road, Box 829          | but not when the frost drops below zero
Los Angeles, CA 90041              | fifty degrees or more."
                                   |         -Old eskimo saying
       t_pascal@{{{cub,cheetah,jaguar}.math},tiger,cheshire}.oxy.edu

---

From: [email-masked] (Greg Hudson)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1993 10:40:23 -0700

[Here follows the human-readable text of Greg Hudson's recent message -- Pavel]

> C.  Of course, Objective C is faked object orientedness, but why not let
> the compiler do it for you?

I think you're confusing the program's behavior with its implementation.
If you want to be database-compatible with MOO, then you're presumably
interpreting MOO code, and not letting people attach their own objects
(which is too dangerous for a multi-programmer environment anyway).
Therefore, using or not using Objective C is an implementation question.

> Might even be faster if Objective C provided any optimizations.

Why?  This is an interpreter.  I've never seen any great advantage to
object-oriented programming for interpreters, and Objective C isn't
known for its blinding speed.  Yes, the interpreter is for an object-oriented 
language (well, so they say; I don't find MOO very object-oriented), but this
doesn't mean an object-oriented implementation is going to do the job any
better.

> And here's be a kicker: It will compile and run on IBM clones running
> NeXTStep.

I'm typing this message on an IBM clone running NEXTSTEP, and I think it's
very nice, but I don't consider your "kicker" a great achievement.  Lambda
already compiles and runs on IBM clones running NEXTSTEP; for that matter,
it presumably compiles and runs on considerably less heavyweight IBM clones
running Linux, and without any silly memory allocation errors.

--GBH