Re: Abstract classes and methods
Re: Abstract classes and methods
- Subject: Re: Abstract classes and methods
- From: stuartbryson <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:17:15 +1000
Ondra,
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 04:30 AM, Ondra Cada wrote:
Chris,
Chris Gehlker (CG) wrote at Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:15:58 -0700:
CG> The old ObjC hands will tell you that ObjC is a simple extension to
C but
CG> they lie. ObjC is full of conventions that aren't enforced by the
CG> compiler, extra-linguistic conventions?, but that "everybody knows"
and
CG> that are really necessary to make the language useful. The
complexity of
CG> ObjC + ObjC extra-linguistic conventions approaches the complexity
of C++
CG> + C++ extra-linguistic conventions.
Not really. First, a vast majority of those are not "ObjC" conventions,
but
"Foundation" (or, rather, "Cocoa") ones -- that's a world of difference.
After reading this thread (since I started it - oops), I think this is
the point to make.
Obj-C is a great language however it MIGHT be missing some features -
depending on who you are talking to.
I totally agree with Michael Johnson about "using a mechanism that the
language provides to help the developer be more efficient". This is what
we are talking about. When I first posted the question it wasn't to make
my program work more efficiently, but rather that it would help explain
what this class was designed to do - that is - not be instantiated. Now
if I or someone else tried to use my "abstract" class in a way that it
was not designed to be used, the compiler would warn them. This will
"help the developer be more efficient".
I think that Ondra you have some great disciplines and patterns which we
can all learn from and I thank you for your help. That is a good point
about conventions Ondra. A vast magority of those are not "ObjC"
conventions but "Foundation" or "Cocoa". The point here is that because
they are "just conventions" and the compiler will show no warning about
it, how are newbies like me supposed to discover these conventions. If
it weren't for this list I would be lost.
Oh and LOL @ Erik - The "Design and Evolution of C++" is nothing but a
half hearted apology.
Stuart