Re: Objective-C Question
Re: Objective-C Question
- Subject: Re: Objective-C Question
- From: "Alastair J.Houghton" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:59:55 +0100
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 04:26 pm, email@hidden wrote:
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 03:56 AM, Steve Ehrenfried wrote:
1) Being a able to make a method and/or class "final",
i.e. it can't be overridden or subclassed.
Why? This is a stupid hack to try to get more efficiency out of Java.
If the J-heads had spent their time implementing efficient dynamic
dispatch instead of trying to fake it with static binding half the
time they wouldn't need it.
AFAIUI it isn't an efficiency hack... it's there to implement the
security for the sandbox; without it you couldn't provide a secure
environment within which to run applets using only the facilities of
the Java language.
4) Being able to specify the access control of members
(public, protected, private). Isn't everything public
in Obj C? Sorry, I'm a newbie here, but isn't data
encapsulation part of the object model?
What makes you think you know better than I what members should and
shouldn't be callable? There are conventions for specifying private
members - name them with a leading underscore
That's Apple's convention, and it's reserved for their use (search the
archives for a [fairly] recent thread on the subject).
The other thing to say, Todd, is that recently someone said to me that
they found the Cocoa developer community to be frankly rather offensive
and more than a little patronising; whilst I agree that Steve is
arguing from the point of view of someone with a fairly narrow
experience of OO programming, I think that fact (and your criticism of
his "typical newbie rant") could have been expressed more politely.
Kind regards,
Alastair.
_______________________________________________
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.