4 ms·

Obj-C will always be a dear example to me, because after people praised it so much on HN in contrast with C++, Java I expected it to be something at least a lit

by blub 8y ago

Obj-C will always be a dear example to me, because after people praised it so much on HN in contrast with C++, Java I expected it to be something at least a little bit special. When I actually had the chance to use it, I found a mediocre and pretty error-prone language. And then the cherry on top, Apple unceremoniously flushed it down the drain... This taught me to take any programming language recommendations from HN with a huge quantity of salt and also mostly ignore Kay-style OO purists.

saagarjha 8y ago
I'm sad to see that you feel that way about the language; since I had exactly the opposite experience. Objective-C is a beautiful (if syntactically verbose) language, and I prefer it to C++ as an "object-oriented C". I'm actually curious what you tried doing with the language, because > I found a mediocre and pretty error-prone language. makes it seem like you didn't get a chance to dive down into the runtime and how the message-passing model works. FYI, > Apple unceremoniously flushed it down the drain... this is not true at all. Most of the code that Apple themselves writes is Objective-C.
- jcelerier 8y ago
  why would you supoose that C++ is an object-oriented C ? the primary paradigm in C++ is generic programming, not OO.
  - theoh 8y ago
    Maybe now it is, but before STL etc. were thought of, C++ was intended by its creator to bring better support for OOP to C. See http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#why http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#why
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Modern C++ kind of. Gang of four book was written with Smalltalk and C++ examples. Back in the 90's we had Mac OS PowerPlant, CSet++ on OS/2, OWL/VCL/MFC/ATL on Windows, Motif++ on UNIX, Telligent, and a myriad of ORM, distributed computing, image libraries and what not written in OOP C++. Then came Java, took the best practices out from OOP C++, and two decades later 90's C++ is known as Java OOP and people act as if C++ OOP never happened.

by blub 8y ago

saagarjha 8y ago

I'm sad to see that you feel that way about the language; since I had exactly the opposite experience. Objective-C is a beautiful (if syntactically verbose) language, and I prefer it to C++ as an "object-oriented C". I'm actually curious what you tried doing with the language, because > I found a mediocre and pretty error-prone language. makes it seem like you didn't get a chance to dive down into the runtime and how the message-passing model works. FYI, > Apple unceremoniously flushed it down the drain... this is not true at all. Most of the code that Apple themselves writes is Objective-C.

jcelerier 8y ago
why would you supoose that C++ is an object-oriented C ? the primary paradigm in C++ is generic programming, not OO.
- theoh 8y ago
  Maybe now it is, but before STL etc. were thought of, C++ was intended by its creator to bring better support for OOP to C. See http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#why http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#why
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Modern C++ kind of. Gang of four book was written with Smalltalk and C++ examples. Back in the 90's we had Mac OS PowerPlant, CSet++ on OS/2, OWL/VCL/MFC/ATL on Windows, Motif++ on UNIX, Telligent, and a myriad of ORM, distributed computing, image libraries and what not written in OOP C++. Then came Java, took the best practices out from OOP C++, and two decades later 90's C++ is known as Java OOP and people act as if C++ OOP never happened.