Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 548794
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It does NOT mention C#
by Hypnos on Tue 15th Jan 2013 03:39
in reply to "It does NOT mention C#"
RE[2]: It does NOT mention C#
by hhas on Tue 15th Jan 2013 11:59
in reply to "RE: It does NOT mention C#"
I'm with you on everything except Objective-C -- what's wrong with it in your estimation?
To me it's a winner: all the benefits of C, combined with an object-orientation system with a simple, smalltalk-like syntax and dynamic dispatch.
To me it's a winner: all the benefits of C, combined with an object-orientation system with a simple, smalltalk-like syntax and dynamic dispatch.
All the drawbacks of C too, unfortunately.
I really wish Apple would take Cyclone (http://cyclone.thelanguage.org/), which is basically C done right, lash it to their existing OO mechanism, and call it Objective-C 3.0. It wouldn't be perfect (e.g. error handling would still suck), but it'd address [Obj]-C's single biggest weakness (safety) and with luck help drive the wider adoption of 'safe C' dialects on other platforms too (something long overdue).





Member since:
2010-05-06
C# dulls the mind.
Would anyone use Objectionable-C were it not required for Apps for Apple?
Java is cross-platform and consistent, but Android and some web' apps need it.
FORTRAN, nor its more malignant sibling, COBOL, aren't dead yet.
C comes closest to the hardware, a high level assembler. C++ is nonplussed. Scriptography needs simplicity and flexibility, so Python is squeezing out the competitors.
I like the a-b-c's, Awk, bash, C.