3 ms·
> It looks like a really well thought out language Well, I think it could have been more cleanly designed if it was able to abandon the burden of Objective-C i
by yokohummer7 10y ago
> It looks like a really well thought out language
Well, I think it could have been more cleanly designed if it was able to abandon the burden of Objective-C interoperability. (But Apple can't do this, obviously.) The standard libraries could have also been much cleaner if it didn't rely on NextStep. Also, I don't personally like the dichotomy of value types and reference types, but YMMV.
- cies 10y agoYou say > it could have been more cleanly designed if it was able to abandon the burden of Objective-C interoperability You mean this for the language itself and not the (standard) libraries; right? > The standard libraries could have also been much cleaner if it didn't rely on NextStep. I agree.
- TillE 10y agoThere are at least a few aspects of the language (eg, the special case for the first argument passed to a method) which would be completely bizarre decisions if not for the Objective-C compatibility requirements. Though I think they're tweaking that a bit.
- donut2d 10y ago> special case for the first argument passed to a method Are you talking about the weirdness where the first argument doesn't require a label? If so, that decision has been made explicit in the last few dev snapshots of 3.0. Basically, if you don't want to require a label when call a function/method then it must be made explicit.