Re: Docs, questions and stuff
Re: Docs, questions and stuff
- Subject: Re: Docs, questions and stuff
- From: Jonathan Hendry <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:58:02 -0500
On Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 09:27 , Chris Gehlker wrote:
On 8/24/01 10:13 PM, "Jonathan Hendry" <email@hidden> wrote:
That's a form of delegation, not MI. Rather different. Multiple
Inheritance is, by definition, an issue of type. Delegation
doesn't imply anything about type.
Forwarding is not a form or delegation and it is about type, specifically
about being able to instantiate objects that behave as if they are of more
than one type.
Well, I guess I see 'inheritance' as a bit of a misnomer for that, but
I can't think of an alternative name.
What, you mean the switch statements? How do you propose to
use Polymorphism? The switches aren't comparing against
the type of something, like you'd find in most OO book
explanations of polymorphism. (frex, switch statements
discriminating between circles, squares, and triangles.)
I see I'll have to post an example. This may take a little while. In the
mean time, look at Vermont Recipes.
How is Apple's Objective-C book (not Learning Cocoa) deficient?
Apple's Objective-C book is great as a reference. It's all anyone really
needs to master ObjC if they have a background in any of C, C++ or Java.
Or Pascal, for that matter.
It also starts with a pretty simple introduction to OO concepts. It
then goes on to Objective-C specifics, and revisits the previously
mentioned OO concepts in the Objective-C context.
It's a lot better than anything that was available when I started
learning Objective-C, which was before I'd had a C class, but
after I'd had Pascal classes and done some Hypertalk code.
It doesn't teach programming or introduce more than a tiny subset of
Cocoa.
No, of course it doesn't introduce 'more than a tiny subset of Cocoa'.
Why do you think it should? It's about Objective-C, not Cocoa. You want
Cocoa, use a different book. A book about Cocoa.
And no, it doesn't teach programming. If it were full of such
basic material, it would lose value to people who do know
programming to some extent.
we can do is find a book that gets the principles right in a related
language.
For the OO principles, that would be Java, which at least approaches
the dynamic features of ObjC. C++ is too static.
C++ is too static and Java enforces strong typing without supporting it. I
think the latter is a greater flaw but I wouldn't bother to argue with
anyone who felt the other way.
Now if you want to say that someone with little programming experience
should get a good Java book, like "Thinking in Java" and just work the
exercise in ObjC I would support you all the way.
You won't though and you won't provide a comprehensible reason why this
is a
bad idea. You will just make some inane comment.
Actually, no, Java would be fine. I just really think C++ would be
the wrong track, and too much work by half.