Re: why Obj-C
Re: why Obj-C
- Subject: Re: why Obj-C
- From: "Erik M. Buck" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:34:48 -0600
- Organization: EMB & Assocites Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Johnson" <email@hidden>
>
Look syntax shouldn't be a issue. And its my own time constraint issues
that is my major problem. I had a very small
>
oportunity to bring OSX development into our site and to impress the hard
core UNIX programmers that I work with of how
>
easy it was going to be to write code for this sucker. They were blown
away with how long it took me to build a GUI with
>
IB (about a hour and I had never picked up IB before (thanks apple)). But
both them and I hated the syntax of Obj-C. And
>
two weeks later I am still battling with the syntax. I guess I expected it
to be miraculously easy.
>
The irony in your experience is that the same features that Make IB possible
and productive can be applied to many types of programming problems besides
GUIs. IB is cool, but Cocoa is amazingly productive even without it. Cocoa
really shines after the GUI (or multiple user interfaces) are complete and
the real application is built. The beauty of IB is that it lets you
concentrate on the important parts rather than struggling with the GUI.
Objective-C really shines for the important parts.
There are many application domains that Cocoa can not help. If your problem
is in one of those domains, Cocoa may not be the best tool.
It is possible to write your application in C and use the C code from a thin
veneer of Cocoa. You can mix C++ and Objective-C also. If you are more
productive with C in your application domain, use C. Objective-C is a
superset of ANSI C.
>
> > Writing for the Mac for the first time (I am a solaris programmer
(C/C++))
Another irony is that Sun bought a perpetual license to Openstep and pushed
it as their main software development technology. Openstep is a public
specification created jointly by Sun and NeXT. Scott McNeally said that at
Sun they "put all their wood behind one arrow" and that Openstep was their
one and only main focus. Then Sun started to push Java. Sun purchased
several Openstep software development firms and had them "port" their
applications to Java. We are still waiting for most of the ports.
>
> I thought I would try cocoa to write a one
>
> > off application for my company. Personally I have found this was a
very
>
> large mistake. If I every have to write another
>
>
>
> To each his own. Cocoa is partly an aesthetic choice. Many people
>
> including me find Cocoa vastly more productive than alternatives.
>
>
>
>
you'll have to prise my C compiler from my cold dead hands ;)
You do know that Objective-C is/was a preprocessor for C right ? Gcc
integrates the Objective-C parser into the C parser as an optimization.
>
>
for me the "["'s suck. my kingdom for a makeObjCLikeC preprocessor ;)
I am not sure how to interpret you wink smiley. You could conceivably write
[someObject doSomething] as
objc_msgSend(someObject, @selector(doSomething)).
Objective-C's message expression [receiver selector] is translated into
objc_msgSend(receiver, selector) by the compiler. You can access all of
Cocoa from ANSI C without using the Objective-C compiler at all, but it
would be hideous.
>
>
I wish they made methods look like C functions. Less smalltalk more C.
>
Get over it, use Java + Cocoa, use ANSI C + Cocoa, or don't use Cocoa.
There are lots of options.
>
I didn't know they were about the same age.
>
C with Classes would of probably done fine.
>
C++ is now a monster and far from making life easier for developers it
makes a damn mess.
>
Smalltalk is really dead.
>
I agree that C++ is a monster. Isn't it so nice that Objective C is such a
small simple extension of ANSI C rather than a monster.
>
> > I wish people would understand that the power of Java is not Java
syntax
>
> but its the collection of Standard classes Sun
>
> > could of done the same thing with C/C++ or Perl or Pascal etc. Same
with
>
> Obj-C.
>
>
>
> And Cocoa makes the Java standard libraries look like buggy slow toys in
>
> comparison and for some application domains. The main reason to use
>
> Objective-C is to be able to use Cocoa and to be able to use the
language
>
> features that make Cocoa possible.
>
>
>
>
Java is a buggy slow toy (duck) ok that was flame bait. But I don't like
Java either. Its like C++ with all the good
>
bits taken out. pointers rock!!!
I said the standard Java libraries look like buggy slow toys for some
application domains. I actually LIKE Java the language and I think some
parts of the standard libraries are awesome. I just think Java sucks for
desktop GUI applications.
>
All the languages I have learnt (see above) the most flexible/powerful I
know is C. This is why Obj-C has been a bit of
>
a dissappointment for me. I didn't expect to have to learn the language as
well the programming methodology/Classes.
If Objective-C the language took more than a few hours for you to learn
given your background, I would be astounded. It is exactly the methodology
and classes that take a long time to learn. Fortunately, Cocoa is very
consistent and logically organized. Cocoa is an excellent example of how to
use Objective-C.
>
>
Anyways I think I shall continue with Obj-C with less stress in my free
time. Maybe I can give it a fairer more
>
considered chance.
I hope that you have good experiences.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.