• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]


  • Subject: Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
  • From: Matthew Johnson <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:26:58 +1000

> * It solves the fragile base class problem. If you try to ship a C++ shared
> library that others can use, as soon as you update it, all apps need to be
> relinked since everything is pointer driven. With the message dispatching
> in Objective-C, no such problem exists.

That9s not true. I think your are mistaking static libraries with dynamic
libraries. A good example of shared objects doing what you say they cannot
is plugins for programs like netscape or explorer.

>
> * It makes a lot of the functionality in IB possible. For example, you can
> specify in IB to call a function basically by name when a button is clicked
> or whatever. Of course, you get a runtime error instead of a compile time
> error if you screw up. To do the same thing in with a C++ framework
> requires having the interface builder generate code instead of just
> resources, and that because a big mess when you also want to edit that code
> and then go back and make UI changes.

Again this can be be done using shared objects in C.

> * Some idioms like delegates rely on being able to query an object to see
> what it can refer to. C++ soltuions, like PowerPlant's Lattachment aren't as
> elegant.

I am not familiar with PowerPlant but you can get the available list of
methods/functions/globals from shared objects.
> Dan

I think the advantage is that the code is written for you to do this and it
happens seamlessly. Where with C you would have to write all the code
yourself. Doing this is really forcing a methodology. I am not sure how I
feel about this and need to give it more thought.

But again this is really the essence of C. Its power lies in its simplistic
low level small language. C does very little for you but it lets you do
anything. Because of its size it compiles to very efficient object code.

Matt

> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
      • From: Sherm Pendley <email@hidden>
    • Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
      • From: Dan Crevier <email@hidden>
    • Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
      • From: "Erik M. Buck" <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C] (From: Dan Crevier <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Localizing about files
  • Next by Date: HID & QueryInterface(), COM & Carbon
  • Previous by thread: Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
  • Next by thread: Re: Dynamic Languages [was: Re: why Obj-C]
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread