Re: Objective-C and it's future
Re: Objective-C and it's future
- Subject: Re: Objective-C and it's future
- From: Rob Ross <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:29:39 -0700
On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
On Jul 7, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Thomas Davie wrote:
The most basic extension of the type system I can think of is to
allow something akin to generics, or ADTs to allow us to specify
such things as what type of object an array contains.
Dynamic typing means you don't *need* Java-style generics or C++-
style templates -- they are, after all, an attempt to give static
typing the flexibility of dynamic typing. Java needs generics so
that the compiler can determine what type an object is; Objective-C
punts the decision to runtime. This is not a mistake, but an
intentional design decision; the things that prevent you from doing
stupid things often also prevent you from doing brilliant things.
I'm just learning Obj-C myself, so maybe my understanding is not
correct. But, don't you actually have the option to use static typing
in certain instances, and use dynamic typing in others?
Eg:
id myStr;
vs
NSString *myStr;
Won't the second version give you the benefits of static typing
(compiler time checking)?
So my understanding is you can have the best of both worlds. Or have
I misunderstood something?
Rob Ross
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden