Re: ObjC Method naming
Re: ObjC Method naming
- Subject: Re: ObjC Method naming
- From: "David W. Halliday" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:54:52 -0500
- Organization: Latin AmeriCom, formerly Latino Online
Greg Titus wrote:
>
...
>
>
> P.S. I miss Bjarne Stroustrup!
>
>
You won't for long. Once you get going I can almost guarantee that
>
you'll prefer Objective-C. Everyone else seems to. (The one major
>
exception are the mathematicians among us. Writing things like
>
quaternion classes that do operator overloading is more convenient in
>
C++. That comes at the huge cost of all the other C++ programmers
>
overloading operators willy-nilly to do who knows what.)
>
>
--Greg
This was also one of the nice features of the SmallTalk, where method
names had more allowed characters (and didn't require the colons), since they
didn't have to be careful not to conflict with C's syntax. This meant that "a
= (q1 * q2) + q3"* could be used instead of "[a setValue: [[q1 times:q2] add
:q3]".
* I'm not certain of SmallTalk's binding rules---I think they're simply left
to right, so I need the parentheses.
David email@hidden
P.S. Incidentally, as a Theoretical Physicist (close kin to Mathematicians) I
certainly understand the issue. I too would like to see a better solution.
(I would also like to see a successor to OO that takes full advantage of
Category theory, Representation theory, and Systems theory---the full versions
used in Mathematics, rather than the more limited Computer Science versions
[CS, like most sciences, for practical reasons, tends to use narrower concepts
than those used in Mathematics, but this is also one of the reasons, when one
wishes to move to greater generalization, it's often instructive to take a
look at what has already been done within Mathematics].)