Re: Strong language about Cocoa and Qt.
Re: Strong language about Cocoa and Qt.
- Subject: Re: Strong language about Cocoa and Qt.
- From: Rich Warren <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 02:37:44 +0900
On 7/2/03 1:39 AM, "Marco Scheurer" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 05:58 PM, Rich Warren wrote:
>
>
I disagree with most of your points about dynamic vs static, and
>
private/public, but it is just a matter of differing opinions. However
>
the following statement is false:
>
>
> Similarly, while I think it's cool and potentially very useful that
>
> (as I
>
> understand it) in Objective C you can send any message to any object.
>
> If the
>
> object doesn't have a matching method, it just ignores the message.
>
>
A "does not respond to selector" exception is raised. Now it can be
>
catched or not, but at least while debugging you should always break on
>
all exceptions.
Oh, cool. I did not know that. That's really useful.
Again, it's a case of Objective C acting differently than other programs I'm
used to. In Java and C++ an uncaught exception kills the program. I kind of
wish it was the other way around--that Objective C also stopped on
exceptions. I guess that fits squarely in with my other comments (dynamic vs
static and private/public).
As I think I said in my first post, I know there are some valid arguments
against the points I made. I'm not entirely convinced by them, and after
having that style of programming drilled into me for so long, they are hard
habits to break. But I am warming to it slowly.
However, I was responding to a question about what might make Cocoa less
approachable than QT. I just wanted to point out some of the areas where I
had trouble, or things that I felt uncomfortable about.
-Rich-
_______________________________________________
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.