3 ms·

They only dropped Java after being validated that Mac developer community was fine with Objective-C. They dropped Java because it was obvious that Java couldn’

They only dropped Java after being validated that Mac developer community was fine with Objective-C. They dropped Java because it was obvious that Java couldn’t handle they dynamic nature of the Cocoa framework. It was a horrible fit.

cmiles74 8y ago
I put a couple applications together that worked with the Java bridge to get Java code updating a Cocoa UI and it felt kind of hacky even at the time.
pjmlp 8y ago
I bet that if the Mac OS developers had eschewed Objective-C, Apple would had fix all the ongoing issues with the Java bridge. Also we shouldn't forget that Java semantics and execution model are closer to Objective-C than C++, thanks to OpenSTEP project collaboration.
- protomyth 8y ago
  > Apple would had fix all the ongoing issues with the Java bridge I really don't think they could have given the non-dynamic nature of Java. That part missing from Java's semantics and execution model is pretty critical and would only be added to the JVM much, much later. I have to agree with cmiles about the "hacky" nature of the bridge.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Dynamic loading, interfaces, bundles, reflection was already there in those Java versions. The only things I can recall not being there aren't that well supported by Swift as well, regarding dynamic patching classes, missing method handling, swizzling and such.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      Categories were missing and viewing all the challenges JRuby had to work through is a good start for the problems with trying to duplicate Objective-C functionality.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Yes, I forgot about categories. Regarding JRuby, most of the issues were related to translating Ruby code into JVM semantics. Doing FFI to external Objective-C is a bit different.
- zeveb 8y ago
  I really, sincerely doubt that even Apple with all its capital could fix all the issues with Java. At heart, it's just not a good language. You can get work done in it, slowly and painfully, paying a great deal of money to a great number of code monkeys. But it's an embarrassingly bad language.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    That is a matter of opinion. I could never get over typing @ and [] everywhere and typing retain/release by hand. In fact my biggest contact with Objective-C was to port a particle simulation framework from NeXTSTEP into Windows and C++. Thankfully there is Swift now.
    - zeveb 8y ago
      Oh, I'm not going to take a position on Objective-C vice Java (I have some residual fondness for the former, from back in the 90s, but never really used it in anger) — only on the fact (well, in my opinion it's a fact) that Java is in bad taste.

cmiles74 8y ago

I put a couple applications together that worked with the Java bridge to get Java code updating a Cocoa UI and it felt kind of hacky even at the time.

pjmlp 8y ago

I bet that if the Mac OS developers had eschewed Objective-C, Apple would had fix all the ongoing issues with the Java bridge. Also we shouldn't forget that Java semantics and execution model are closer to Objective-C than C++, thanks to OpenSTEP project collaboration.

protomyth 8y ago
> Apple would had fix all the ongoing issues with the Java bridge I really don't think they could have given the non-dynamic nature of Java. That part missing from Java's semantics and execution model is pretty critical and would only be added to the JVM much, much later. I have to agree with cmiles about the "hacky" nature of the bridge.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Dynamic loading, interfaces, bundles, reflection was already there in those Java versions. The only things I can recall not being there aren't that well supported by Swift as well, regarding dynamic patching classes, missing method handling, swizzling and such.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Categories were missing and viewing all the challenges JRuby had to work through is a good start for the problems with trying to duplicate Objective-C functionality.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Yes, I forgot about categories. Regarding JRuby, most of the issues were related to translating Ruby code into JVM semantics. Doing FFI to external Objective-C is a bit different.
zeveb 8y ago
I really, sincerely doubt that even Apple with all its capital could fix all the issues with Java. At heart, it's just not a good language. You can get work done in it, slowly and painfully, paying a great deal of money to a great number of code monkeys. But it's an embarrassingly bad language.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  That is a matter of opinion. I could never get over typing @ and [] everywhere and typing retain/release by hand. In fact my biggest contact with Objective-C was to port a particle simulation framework from NeXTSTEP into Windows and C++. Thankfully there is Swift now.
  - zeveb 8y ago
    Oh, I'm not going to take a position on Objective-C vice Java (I have some residual fondness for the former, from back in the 90s, but never really used it in anger) — only on the fact (well, in my opinion it's a fact) that Java is in bad taste.