Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Thread beginning with comment 548802
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[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).
RE[3]: It does NOT mention C#
by Hypnos on Tue 15th Jan 2013 12:21
in reply to "RE[2]: It does NOT mention C#"
Can Cyclone compile ANSI C code? If not, I don't think it will ever gain traction, so would not be worth including in a new Obj-C.
The beauty of Obj-C is that you have standard C (with all of its warts), plus an elegant OO system that includes all the niceties of a modern OO language. This gives you one toolchain for the entire OS stack, from kernel up to web services.





Member since:
2008-11-19
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.