• 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: Objective-C and it's future
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Objective-C and it's future


  • Subject: Re: Objective-C and it's future
  • From: Rob Ross <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:15:57 -0700


NSString *str = [[NSData alloc] init];

because both `NSData' and `NSString' have `init' methods, and `init' methods return an object of type `id', which is NOT statically typed.


This looks like the kind of bug that would be easy to make, especially with class names that are very similar. I guess you won't find out until you send the object a message at runtime that it can't process; then you'd have to hunt back through the stack trace to see how you declared the object. I suppose in practice, it wouldn't be that hard to debug this kind of error.



For more egregious violations, like for example ...

Cat *cat = [[Cat alloc] init];
[cat bark];

... the compiler will throw up a warning and tell you that `cat' may not respond to the selector `bark'.


Well I'm glad at least it does that!




So my understanding is you can have the best of both worlds. Or have I misunderstood something?


Not quite. Objective-C is pretty well entrenched in the runtime.

You have to remember that you're NOT actually "calling a method" when working with Objective-C objects. You are sending them messages. Think about it this way. If language objects are people, then C++ objects are basically puppets. You don't tell them to do something; you just pull the string, and they do it. Objective-C objects are more independent. You TELL them that you'd like something done, and they'll do it if they can.
--



That's interesting, because I remember a point long ago when I was first learning OO programming (in C++), that I understood the concept of "message passing", but that C++ didn't really implement that (nor does Java): you're invoking a method, not passing a message. I was always puzzled by the definition because the languages I used didn't really seem to behave as described. It's nice to finally meet a language that does what I intuitively understood "message passing" to be.


Rob



_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >Re: Objective-C and it's future (From: Damien Sorresso <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Objective-C and it's future
  • Next by Date: Re: Objective-C and it's future
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Objective-C and it's future
  • Next by thread: Re: Objective-C and it's future
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread