Re: FW: Objective C vs. Java
Re: FW: Objective C vs. Java
- Subject: Re: FW: Objective C vs. Java
- From: David P Henderson <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 01:28:46 -0400
On Thursday, May 10, 2001, at 07:09 , Tyler LaGrange wrote:
It's hard to argue with some of the points that a lot of the
Objective-C fans out there are bringing up about speed issues and
loosely typed objects/methods or whatnot. But you must also take in to
consideration the maintenance of the code and the ability to find
people with skills that will add to your project.
But the skills you want are Cocoa Mac OS X programming skills; Java and
Objective-C are both secondary to that need. I can know Java or ObjC and
use them without knowing dit about Cocoa.
Java is a much smarter choice if you would like to find reference
materials and other snippets to add to your code. On amazon.com we can
see 1571 listings for Java, and 17 matches for Objective-C, most of
which aren't even relative. fatbrain.com has 1168 books for java, and
8 for Objective-C - only half really relevant (Objective-C isn't even
listed under Programming Languages -
http://www1.fatbrain.com/catalogs/computing/subjects.asp?VM=c&SubjectCode=
PGLS&SubjectID=&filter=). I bet a trip down to Borders or something
would make this point pretty obvious as well. The few sites I have
come across for Cocoa and Objective-C have been pretty devoid of real
good examples.
This argument is meaningless given the context of the inquiry. We are
talking about developing Cocoa apps for Mac OS X. How many jobs does a
search for Cocoa produce? How many books?
[snip]
And again how many of these Java jobs are for Cocoa programming? Why not
do a search for Macintosh programming jobs and see how many come up. If
you want to use Cocoa with Java, then do so but at least get a better
justification for choosing Java over ObjC for Cocoa dev than there are
more Java jobs out there than ObjC jobs.
Dave
--
Chaos Assembly Werks
"Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the
streets after them."
- Bill Vaughn