On Apr 3, 2005, at 11:55 PM, James B. Tuley wrote:
I think Marcel's point is that being a strict superset of C which is
useful in OS X when most of your libraries are C and very singular,
if you get rid of that aspect, how is it different from SmallTalk? I
think the likely answer to that is it would be a similar language
that is not quite as good.
Yes, but with an important difference to Smalltalk: it still allows
me to compile and use my already existing ObjC code with only
moderate or no changes.
No difference there. Nobody is going to take your Objective-C compiler
away from you, and it will continue to work just as you expect.
Whereas your changes would be fairly dramatic changes to Objective-C...
Moving to Smalltalk, or that matter any other language, means
throwing existing code away. Is the hypothetical introduction of one
single high-level feature really worth the price of throwing the
whole language and with it all existing source code away ? I say no.
Who says you have to throw your code away? Just leave it as is. A
Smalltalk that runs on top of the Objective-C runtime obviously
interoperates seamlessly with Objective-C objects, because from the
runtimes point of view, objects/classes implemented in
Objective-Smalltalk are (largely/fully) indistinguishable from objects
implemented in Objective-C.
Remember: the runtime is where the music is, the "language" bit of
Objective-C is just a little bit of syntactic sugar thrown on top.
Once stuff is compiled, as long as it interoperates with
objc_msgSend(), who cares what syntax you used to specify it? Could be
Objective-Assembler for all anyone would know...
Marcel Weiher Metaobject Software Technologies
The simplicity of power HOM, IDEAs, MetaAd etc.
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Objc-language mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden