3 ms·

I'm all for Objective-C, but your arguments were weak in the first place, and you're dragging a dead horse here. I mean: "I put about as much effort into my cr

I'm all for Objective-C, but your arguments were weak in the first place, and you're dragging a dead horse here. I mean: "I put about as much effort into my critique as the original article's author did in arguing for C#'s superiority." -- Why even write your critique then? At least the original article's author had a reason, it is marketing copy. >This is a problem that has bit me in the ass maybe once or twice since I started developing in Obj-C several years ago The general consensus is hardly that type safety in large applications is something to not be concerned with that only bites you "once or twice" when you are a novice. So I don't see the reason for the anecdotal reference. >70% code reuse across iOS and Android (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4998661 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4998661) is hardly what I'd call "portable" This is horribly mistaken in more than two ways. 1) Nat says: "Both of these apps are using 100% _native widgets_ for their user interface, and I think it's fair to say that both of them are fairly UI-heavy.". Which means it's a worst case scenario. For a less UI-heavy app, or one with a custom canvas based GUI etc, the percentage would be far higher. 2) 70% is far better than rewriting everything (or 0% re-use) if you use Objective-C. You could use C++ or C to write a common base, but then you're not using a single language anymore, whereas with C# you are. 3) 70% in itself is nothing to sneer at when discussing portability. Especially considering your own argument that "write once, deploy everywhere" is a pipe dream, then 70% is quite high level of reuse -- basically meaning you merely re-do the UI parts to tune it to each platform.

king_magic 14y ago
I direct you to my final statement in my original post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4998697 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4998697): > Edit: just for the record, I'm not necessarily trying to refute all or some of the OP's points. I think the original article was poorly written, and the case for C# was poorly made. Hence my "let's play this game" comment. RE: "This is horribly mistaken in more than two ways." Not all code is created equal. That 30% that needs to be rewritten for each device could be difficult to tune for each platform. Native widgets in iOS do not work the same as native widgets in Andoid. Unless there is some magical abstraction layer (which doesn't appear to exist), you're potentially rewriting the most difficult code for each platform. But again, please see my original post. In my original post, I said the focus of the original article should have been the potential for reuse across platforms - but it was glossed over in a disappointing 3 sentences.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >Not all code is created equal. That 30% that needs to be rewritten for each device could be difficult to tune for each platform. Native widgets in iOS do not work the same as native widgets in Andoid. Unless there is some magical abstraction layer (which doesn't appear to exist), you're potentially rewriting the most difficult code for each platform. Again, far better than writing ALL the code for each platform. And in a lot of cases the GUI code is not the "most difficult", it's just the one that cannot be easily written once for all platforms (and still look native). For example, if you make a music application, the sound engine, FFT, filters etc would be the difficult part (but it can be written just once) and the GUI layer is quite easy compared.

king_magic 14y ago

I direct you to my final statement in my original post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4998697 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4998697): > Edit: just for the record, I'm not necessarily trying to refute all or some of the OP's points. I think the original article was poorly written, and the case for C# was poorly made. Hence my "let's play this game" comment. RE: "This is horribly mistaken in more than two ways." Not all code is created equal. That 30% that needs to be rewritten for each device could be difficult to tune for each platform. Native widgets in iOS do not work the same as native widgets in Andoid. Unless there is some magical abstraction layer (which doesn't appear to exist), you're potentially rewriting the most difficult code for each platform. But again, please see my original post. In my original post, I said the focus of the original article should have been the potential for reuse across platforms - but it was glossed over in a disappointing 3 sentences.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>Not all code is created equal. That 30% that needs to be rewritten for each device could be difficult to tune for each platform. Native widgets in iOS do not work the same as native widgets in Andoid. Unless there is some magical abstraction layer (which doesn't appear to exist), you're potentially rewriting the most difficult code for each platform. Again, far better than writing ALL the code for each platform. And in a lot of cases the GUI code is not the "most difficult", it's just the one that cannot be easily written once for all platforms (and still look native). For example, if you make a music application, the sound engine, FFT, filters etc would be the difficult part (but it can be written just once) and the GUI layer is quite easy compared.