7 ms·
The arguments over performance, compiler features, and the definition of garbage collection aside, I'm curious what members of the HN community think about the
by adriand 15y ago
The arguments over performance, compiler features, and the definition of garbage collection aside, I'm curious what members of the HN community think about the chances of Ruby becoming an iOS-approved programming language.
It seems as though the groundwork has been laid, and from an aesthetic perspective, Ruby seems like a nice fit for Apple. Plus, it's not Python, which is arguably Google's baby.
- jcnnghm 15y agoI think it's a certainty that it's a feature in the pipeline. The only question is when it will happen, which is really a function of performance and memory usage. I suspect this is a big step forward.
- nupark2 15y agoI don't think it's quite the certainty you're making it out to be. Ruby is a step sideways, if not backwards, from Apple's current strategy. We're far more likely to see an Objective-C without the C than we are to see Ruby as a first class development target for iOS.
- skidooer 15y agoRuby essentially is Objective-C without the C. If Apple was looking for a language that moved away from the low level C, what benefit would an "Objective" language bring over MacRuby, which is already using the native Objective-C system frameworks?
- nupark2 15y agoA non-runtime type system. First class familiar Objective-C-style messaging and block syntax. Stable, mature, well defined language invariants on par with Apple's requirements for its own APIs and languages. "Objective-C without the C" would look more like Smalltalk or Strongtalk with a near identical syntax, not Ruby.
- skidooer 15y agoI may be misunderstanding you, but: When you remove the C bits, Objective-C and Ruby use the same type system, conceptually speaking. They are both descendant from Smalltalk; the main feature differences really come down to the syntax alone. I really like the idea of a higher level Objective-C-based language, I just don't necessarily see the business appeal of creating and maintaining a brand new language that only brings a more familiar, to Objective-C developers at least, syntax. Especially given the amount of effort Apple has been putting into MacRuby.
- nupark2 15y agoWhen you remove the C bits, Objective-C and Ruby use the same type system, conceptually speaking. They are both descendant from Smalltalk; the main feature differences really come down to the syntax alone. Objective-C is typed -- not just the C part, but the 'Objective' part too. You can cast around type system, but it's there. The new compiler even uses inference of those types in order to implement ARC. Especially given the amount of effort Apple has been putting into MacRuby. Not Apple, just a few people that also work for Apple.
- skidooer 15y agoThe type system exists, but when working with the Objective half of the language, it is mostly meaningless, at least from a developer's point of view. With the C parts removed, you could replace every type definition with id and your program would run just fine. The article says that MacRuby is bundled with Lion as a private framework. Surely they wouldn't bundle it if they weren't using it? And being a private framework, it is not there for the benefit of third-party developers.
- nupark2 15y agoObjective-C is typed, and that's considered (by Apple, and most developers) as a feature, not just a legacy inheritance from C.