4 ms·

Does Objective-C really need defending? After doing a couple of projects with it I've found it to be a really beautiful language from a code formatting point o

by 5hoom 15y ago

Does Objective-C really need defending? After doing a couple of projects with it I've found it to be a really beautiful language from a code formatting point of view. The whole 'overly verbose' thing is probably just because you are encouraged to give your methods and arguments good descriptive names, and often when you do need short variable names for some maths calculations or something it will be while inside a method block using good old C style anyway. I don't know, it's flexible, (arguably) attractive and it runs fast. Yay Objective-C! :)

chubs 15y ago
Wow - this is fantastic! I'm glad i submitted this now, just reading the comments here is very heartening. I was beginning to think i was the only guy in the world who liked obj-c :) (i work in a c#/java predominaated environment where most people troll me about obj-c all day!)
- 5hoom 15y ago
  I'd always considered myself a C++ guy before picking up obj-C, but looking at the result I get from the two I'm finding I'm just a lot faster with obj-C. Now I have no desire to incite a language flamewar (to each their own blub!), so I will leave it at that ;)
- matwood 15y ago
  I like obj-c, and never really found it hard. IMHO, the real challenge with Apple development is not the language but learning all the frameworks and the Apple way of doing things. The learning curve is a bit steep at first, but quite powerful (and intuitive) once you get over the hump.
wisty 15y ago
99% of the people who use it have no choice, so not really. But it's nice to see a semi-tutorial wrapped in an argument. Arguments are more fun to read than tutorials, so I picked up a few factoids (named args) without having to read Apple's documentation (which is a little dry).
- dfox 15y ago
  It's important to realize, that ObjC (and Smalltalk, Self...) does not have named arguments in the conventional sense (ie. like Python, &key arguments in CL...) but mix parts of message name with it's arguments. In essence, it only looks like named arguments - and on the other hand, this syntax essentially precludes support for real named arguments. For why this is bad look at all these #with:, #with:with: ... #withValues: methods in Smalltalk's standard library that are only thin wrappers used to simulate true optional or named arguments.
jinushaun 15y ago
I think Objective C is awesome, but I suspect many people have a hard time separating the language from the library. Apple has a pretty unique way of developing frameworks and SDKs. Comparing Android and iOS development, the Android SDK makes sense out of the box because it follows typical Java/C#/C++ style framework design.

by 5hoom 15y ago

chubs 15y ago

Wow - this is fantastic! I'm glad i submitted this now, just reading the comments here is very heartening. I was beginning to think i was the only guy in the world who liked obj-c :) (i work in a c#/java predominaated environment where most people troll me about obj-c all day!)

5hoom 15y ago
I'd always considered myself a C++ guy before picking up obj-C, but looking at the result I get from the two I'm finding I'm just a lot faster with obj-C. Now I have no desire to incite a language flamewar (to each their own blub!), so I will leave it at that ;)
matwood 15y ago
I like obj-c, and never really found it hard. IMHO, the real challenge with Apple development is not the language but learning all the frameworks and the Apple way of doing things. The learning curve is a bit steep at first, but quite powerful (and intuitive) once you get over the hump.

wisty 15y ago

99% of the people who use it have no choice, so not really. But it's nice to see a semi-tutorial wrapped in an argument. Arguments are more fun to read than tutorials, so I picked up a few factoids (named args) without having to read Apple's documentation (which is a little dry).

dfox 15y ago
It's important to realize, that ObjC (and Smalltalk, Self...) does not have named arguments in the conventional sense (ie. like Python, &key arguments in CL...) but mix parts of message name with it's arguments. In essence, it only looks like named arguments - and on the other hand, this syntax essentially precludes support for real named arguments. For why this is bad look at all these #with:, #with:with: ... #withValues: methods in Smalltalk's standard library that are only thin wrappers used to simulate true optional or named arguments.

jinushaun 15y ago

I think Objective C is awesome, but I suspect many people have a hard time separating the language from the library. Apple has a pretty unique way of developing frameworks and SDKs. Comparing Android and iOS development, the Android SDK makes sense out of the box because it follows typical Java/C#/C++ style framework design.