3 ms·

Says the individual that had to farm out mobile development until you could use a language with which you were already familiar. There's little I've seen in Ru

Says the individual that had to farm out mobile development until you could use a language with which you were already familiar. There's little I've seen in RubyMotion that provides a substantive improvement on ObjC, and a lot that is worse than ObjC.

cnp 14y ago
It just depends on what you want to do. For example, if I wanted to develop a 3D shooter game do you think I would do it in Objective-C, C++, etc? No -- I'd use Unity or Stage3D and then compile to the target. For 90% of the fairly-standard apps that we'll ever develop, the overhead and headaches and needless code-bloat that Objective-C brings to the project is only a reminder of the elegance of Ruby and the beauty of simplicity. (It's also a reminder that you'll no longer need to budget for XCode crashes every hour.)
- hans_olo 14y ago
  > overhead and headaches and needless code-bloat care to elaborate that? sounds like you are a clueless fucking idiot with a hip hat. ruby motion is a 1:1 projection of the "bloated" cocoa API you are whining about. only ruby's foo.do_shitWithKeyword(blah, anotherKeyword: idiot) syntax makes it really ugly and retarded. > the elegance of Ruby and the beauty of simplicity god, seems like you got a fucking huge brain tumor ... or are you really that retarded? drill holes into ruby and fuck it ...
- rabenfrass 14y ago
  elegance, simplicity, beauty.. do those words emanate from Ruby in waves or from your inability to give a technical description? what overhead and code-bloat are you talking about? you can read the LLVM code and the objc runtime from Apple and go into specifics if you like. To write a 3D shooter you can use Objective-C specific features as much or as little as you want. For intensive performance code you can bypass the messaging system and write pure C, for the rest you can use Cocoa APIs. This is what you do in any language. Unless you want to argue that dynamic languages as a whole are not worth it. If you are happy with RubyMotion go ahead, but don't preach bad mouthing a language you haven't even developed on.

cnp 14y ago

It just depends on what you want to do. For example, if I wanted to develop a 3D shooter game do you think I would do it in Objective-C, C++, etc? No -- I'd use Unity or Stage3D and then compile to the target. For 90% of the fairly-standard apps that we'll ever develop, the overhead and headaches and needless code-bloat that Objective-C brings to the project is only a reminder of the elegance of Ruby and the beauty of simplicity. (It's also a reminder that you'll no longer need to budget for XCode crashes every hour.)

hans_olo 14y ago
> overhead and headaches and needless code-bloat care to elaborate that? sounds like you are a clueless fucking idiot with a hip hat. ruby motion is a 1:1 projection of the "bloated" cocoa API you are whining about. only ruby's foo.do_shitWithKeyword(blah, anotherKeyword: idiot) syntax makes it really ugly and retarded. > the elegance of Ruby and the beauty of simplicity god, seems like you got a fucking huge brain tumor ... or are you really that retarded? drill holes into ruby and fuck it ...
rabenfrass 14y ago
elegance, simplicity, beauty.. do those words emanate from Ruby in waves or from your inability to give a technical description? what overhead and code-bloat are you talking about? you can read the LLVM code and the objc runtime from Apple and go into specifics if you like. To write a 3D shooter you can use Objective-C specific features as much or as little as you want. For intensive performance code you can bypass the messaging system and write pure C, for the rest you can use Cocoa APIs. This is what you do in any language. Unless you want to argue that dynamic languages as a whole are not worth it. If you are happy with RubyMotion go ahead, but don't preach bad mouthing a language you haven't even developed on.