Re: Objective-C Question
Re: Objective-C Question
- Subject: Re: Objective-C Question
- From: Steve Ehrenfried <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
--- email@hidden wrote:
>
First things first - Java is not a good OO language.
>
Not according to
>
Alan Kay - the inventor of the term "Object
>
Oriented". Smalltalk is a
>
good OO language (it is the prototypical one) -
>
Objective C is a lot
>
closer to Smalltalk than Java is in most respects.
So? This is just one person's opinion. Kay did coin
the term "object-oriented", but the grandfather of all
OOP languages is generally considered to be
Simula/Simula-67. Even Smalltalk was influenced by
Simula. For what it's worth, Kay did not consider that
objects should model the real world; this notion in
OOP came later. OOP is not like the Ten Commandments
as obviously some people on this list regard it; it is
an evolving thing, not set in stone. Although I
respect a lot of the work Kay has done, he's not
Moses. So you can get up off your knees if you'd like.
>
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.
Can you not discuss language differences without
slamming? Obviously not. The reason for this has
already been explained by another poster. Do some
homework buddy.
>
This "feature" provides no value. Why don't you
>
just call the class
>
"AbstractWhatever" - that communicates the idea just
>
as weel.
You're ignorant. As explained by another poster, Obj
C actually supports this "no value feature" (partial
implementation). Do you even know what you're arguing
about????
>
>
NSDURING not working for you?
As I already mentioned, I'm new to the language. I
thought this list was supposed to be helpful.
>
>
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 and
>
leave them out of the
>
header file (define them in a private category in
>
the implementation
>
file). Otherwise they're public. Its not a
>
problem. The C++ and
>
J-heads are paranoid control freaks.
You're talking about something else. I asked about
DATA encapsulation, and yes Obj C supports it.
>
We use naming conventions - it amounts to the same
>
thing - longer names
>
to be distinct. NSString is in the namespace NS -
>
get it?
It's more than just naming conventions, which only
work if everyone follows them.
>
>
This is a typical newbie rant. You've learned one
>
language and so your
>
criticism of every other language is that its not
>
the same as your
>
first language. I could go the other way and smash
>
Java for not being
>
like ObjectiveC - its newer but its designers
>
haven't learned anything
>
significant and have absorbed the worst traits of
>
the languages they
>
claim to have borrowed from. But this isn't the
>
space to do it.
No one was ranting dude. I was merely asking about
support for various things that several OOP languages
have. You're obviously smarter than both Gosling
(Java) and Stroustrup (C++), so your
heavily-opinionated opinions are to be treasured like
jewels of wisdom.
>
>
Go learn a few more languages. Then maybe your
>
critiques will be worth
>
something.
Very presumptuous of you. I know six OOP languages,
and have developed shipping apps in four of them; how
many do you know?
>
>
-Todd Blanchard
>
Professional Language Basher
I suggest you find another occupation; you're not very
good at it.
All I can is UNBELIEVABLE! I asked some simple
questions, not even meaning it as a slam against the
language and stating that I don't yet know everything
about Obj C, and I get attacked. There's an awful lot
of narrow mindedness, condescension and arrogance on
this list (I'm not referring to the people who were
actually helpful). Of course, this also explains why
Obj C and Cocoa is a "we know best" cult and will
continue to be for some time. Too bad. Some people
feel the need to get religious about things they
partially understand; an intelligent person can look
at things from multiple points of view without getting
defensive. Later.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
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.