Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
- Subject: Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
- From: Marcel Weiher <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:14:01 +0200
On Friday, April 5, 2002, at 05:23 Uhr, Matthew Johnson wrote:
One benefit I can see is with shared objects introducing new features
to a
executable without the need for recompiles. But I can reproduce this in
straight C.
There is NOTHING in Objective-C that you cannot reproduce in straight
C. Apart from the catch-all "Turing-complete" argument, Objective-C is
just an object-model modelled on Smalltalk's and implemented in, yes,
straight C.
But don't take my word for it:
"Messages are set by writing message expressions, which are translated
directly into calls on the messager. In fact, were it not for needing a
bit of compile-time assistance in defining new classes, the special
syntax well be dispensed with altogether and calls written directly on
the messaging routine, like this:
reply = _msg( aReceiver, "aMessage", argument1, ... );
This would not require any special syntax and now new tools to handle
the modified syntax. And it models the intended semantics perfectly.
In fact the only reason for not adopting this path here is efficiency.
A compile-time tool is needed to convert message selectors into some
representation that can be compared efficiently to avoid string
comparson overhead."
(Object Oriented Programming - An Evolutionary Approach, Brad Cox, pp
55-56)
Marcel
--
Marcel Weiher Metaobject Software Technologies
email@hidden www.metaobject.com
Metaprogramming for the Graphic Arts. HOM, IDEAs, MetaAd etc.
_______________________________________________
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.