Linked by David Adams on Sun 14th Aug 2011 22:41 UTC, submitted by subterrific
Thread beginning with comment 485015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by Hypnos on Mon 15th Aug 2011 08:40
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
C++ is not proprietary. How the language looks like and what libraries are available by default is defined by ANSI and ISO standards.
Very few languages are ISO standardized. That does not mean the rest are proprietary.
While Objective-C is defined by Apple's documentation. The compilers you mention only offer partial Objective-C 2.0 support for example.
Languages defined by documentation, and having partial compiler support, are also not uncommon.
Plus none of them offer base libraries for the language.
Why does that matter? glibc is separate from gcc, for example.
Outside Apple systems you are left with GNUStep, which still tries to mimic the NeXTStep environment.
While you can assemble a desktop that is some facsimile of NeXTStep using GNUstep, the GNUstep classes now track Cocoa. This is so that OSX apps can be ported to GNUstep platforms (such as Windows), which I think is useful.
***
Perhaps to have a more useful discussion, we should agree on what constitutes a "non-proprietary language standard." How about the Open Source Initiative's definition? Then, which criteria does Obj-C fail to meet?
RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by moondevil on Mon 15th Aug 2011 09:32
in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"





Member since:
2005-07-08
So, by your standard, one could call C++ proprietary, since most software C++ software is written for a proprietary platform.
C++ is not proprietary. How the language looks like and what libraries are available by default is defined by ANSI and ISO standards.
While Objective-C is defined by Apple's documentation. The compilers you mention only offer partial Objective-C 2.0 support for example.
Plus none of them offer base libraries for the language. Outside Apple systems you are left with GNUStep, which still tries to mimic the NeXTStep environment.