←back to thread

107 points wmlive | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
panick21_ ◴[] No.42121263[source]
This is very narrow history. Basically a history that excludes everything that isn't Jobs walk to glory and perfection and domination. Ignore many important points, problems, accidents, alternatives and so on.

NeXT used 'Display Postscript' a display server that was basically a inferior copy of Sun's NeWS system. This was later changed because NeXT was to small and Adobe didn't want to support Display Postscript anymore. Sun of course killed NeWS because they wanted to be a 'standard'. Next didn't care about standards. They had less applications then CDE Unix, and far lower deployment in the 90s.

Objective C is one of many language that you could use to build UI libraries on top of some display system. Objective C wasn't the best or inherently better then many others. Objective C adoption by Next was kind of a historical accident based on office location.

Having something VM based for UI development isn't actually that much of an issue, when the hardware manufacture delivers the OS with the VM included. And usually it his the hardware manufacture that delivers the OS. And VM bases system can be integrated well with the core OS, object oriented or not. And that VM are inherently to slow is also questionable, specially for UI apps that can use C libraries and the Display Server for the most performance relevant stuff.

Apple itself had a very nice system for UI development on Dylan that was arguable better in many way then the Next system. But when Steve Jobs came and they had Next, that wasn't developed anymore.

What Jobs showed of in the late 90s wasn't exactly revolutionary stuff. But Jobs always presents everything as revolutionary.

IPhone development in 2010 working the same as Next development in 1990 is a sign of 'failure', not of success.

replies(7): >>42128948 #>>42128971 #>>42129049 #>>42129288 #>>42129449 #>>42129700 #>>42130118 #
bluedino ◴[] No.42130118[source]
Mac OS development introduced me to Objective-C. Quirky, but I grew to like it. I think it was the first time I 'got' object-oriented programming. I had done Windows programming before and while it was 'fine', writing Mac OS GUI code was so nice. Probably a credit to the frameworks as much as the language, though.

What other choice did NeXT have?

C++ was invented about the time NeXT started. Microsoft didn't even release MFC until 1992.

C...yikes.

Pascal. Would Steve had went along with that?

replies(3): >>42131511 #>>42134514 #>>42136341 #
1. panick21_ ◴[] No.42134514[source]
I'm not saying taking Objective-C was wrong.

There were many alternatives.

Pascal is language family. Xerox did Pascal like Cedar at around the same time. Thing Modula-2 existed. Next could have done something along those lines. I'm sure there were commercial versions of that kind of stuff floating around.

Smalltalk was a big family at the time. Lisp OO system were already common. There were lots of commercial version of that they could have licensed.

Sun with NeWS had a very extended PostScript that basically allowed you to write most of the application in it.

There was a lot of stuff going on back then already. History always hides how much stuff was actually happening. Sadly most of it isn't open source, so tons of great stuff goes into a historical blackhole.

My point is, with the amount of money Next was able to raise and invest in these systems, they could have gone a number of different ways. They made a reasonable discussion at the time.