5 ms·

One day, nobody will remember Objective-C. Let Apple have its 15 minutes of fame.

zachlipton 12y ago
As someone recently noted in the discussion of Swift, Objective-C is basically older than the CD-ROM. I'd say the language has had several decades of life, not 15 minutes of fame. (Actually, it appears Objective-C is certainly older than the CD-ROM and is from about the same era as the audio CD.)
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  And the CDROM wasn't a blip in history between the Compact Cassette and now? BTW the CD-ROM is still way more popular than Objective-C. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=cd%20rom%2C%20objective-c&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=cd%20rom%2C%20objecti... But nice try anyway.
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  Looks like Objective C finally surpassed Fortran and Cobol somewhere in 2011. Good luck to you in the future ;-) http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22objective%20C%22%2C%20fortran%2C%20cobol&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22objective%20C%22%2...
jsmthrowaway 12y ago
Funny thing, you saying "15 minutes," since Objective-C had existed for 15 years by the first time Apple used it. Eighteen years ago. As a multi-decade PHP developer, I would have guessed you'd be used to people deriding your language of choice and, based on that experience, developed enough common sense to not make a fool of yourself so publicly. I guess I expect too much of people.
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  I don't expect much wisdom from the youngsters here. If you were even able to read back then, nobody had heard of Objective-C until your idol Steve touched it with his golden finger. If you remember, Apple was a sad joke of a failure from the 80s till the iPod launched. And I'm sure Objective-C was really integral to the success of the Apple IIe and the iPod. Thanks for proving my point.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
    Even if your assumption Objective-C was only relevant after the release of iOS was correct, then Objective-C was still relevant since 2007. That's 7 years.
    - pjbrunet 12y ago
      Do you think I literally meant 15 minutes? 7 years is nothing. Check this out. Objective-C wasn't even Apple's first choice. "Apple CEO Gil Amelio started negotiations to buy Be Inc., but negotiations stalled when Be CEO Jean-Louis Gassée wanted $200 million; Apple was unwilling to offer any more than $125 million. Apple's board of directors decided NeXTSTEP was a better choice and purchased NeXT in 1996 for $429 million, bringing back Apple co-founder Steve Jobs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS So you're all using Objective-C because Apple couldn't afford to buy the OS they wanted. Kinda sad!
      - austinz 12y ago
        So Apple is willing to pay $125 million for Be, Gassée wants $200 million, Apple ends up buying NeXT for $429 million (at least $319 million in cash, according to the citations), and your conclusion is that Apple "couldn't afford to buy [Be]"?
      - mikeash 12y ago
        NeXT was a reverse acquisition. The company known today as "Apple Inc." is essentially the result of NeXT being paid $400 million to acquire Apple.
      - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
        It's a language. Get over it.
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        > So you're all using Objective-C because Apple couldn't afford to buy the OS they wanted. Kinda sad! In the early Mac OS X days, developers could choose between Objective-C and Java as the Mac OS X main language, the majority went for Objective-C and the JavaBridge was dropped.
pjbrunet 12y ago
Wow I lost 20 hitpoints (and falling rapidly) over this opinion. Did I touch a nerve? I can just imagine $AAPL shareholders quivering. "What is this guy talking about?" Betting it all on Objective-C, a unknown language based on a superseded language. Steve was so ballsy. Google at least had a clue. Java + Android actually makes sense.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - pjbrunet 12y ago
    How about you use your real name and explain why you dislike my opinion? It's a fact people would love to write apps for the iPhone in other languages. But that's not possible because Apple is a tyrannical company. Do you endorse this tyranny and do you believe it's sustainable? I don't believe it's sustainable and I believe history agrees with me, based on my 30 years of following programming languages. Who is the child now?
    - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
      Just want to point out that you're complaining about Apple being a tyrannical company, while at the same time you're praising Google for using Java.
    - micampe 12y ago
      Your opinions are fine, but some of your facts are incorrect. http://xamarin.com http://xamarin.com http://www.rubymotion.com http://www.rubymotion.com http://www.appcelerator.com http://www.appcelerator.com http://unity3d.com http://unity3d.com http://developer.coronalabs.com http://developer.coronalabs.com

As someone recently noted in the discussion of Swift, Objective-C is basically older than the CD-ROM. I'd say the language has had several decades of life, not 15 minutes of fame. (Actually, it appears Objective-C is certainly older than the CD-ROM and is from about the same era as the audio CD.)

pjbrunet 12y ago
And the CDROM wasn't a blip in history between the Compact Cassette and now? BTW the CD-ROM is still way more popular than Objective-C. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=cd%20rom%2C%20objective-c&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=cd%20rom%2C%20objecti... But nice try anyway.
pjbrunet 12y ago
Looks like Objective C finally surpassed Fortran and Cobol somewhere in 2011. Good luck to you in the future ;-) http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22objective%20C%22%2C%20fortran%2C%20cobol&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22objective%20C%22%2...

jsmthrowaway 12y ago

Funny thing, you saying "15 minutes," since Objective-C had existed for 15 years by the first time Apple used it. Eighteen years ago. As a multi-decade PHP developer, I would have guessed you'd be used to people deriding your language of choice and, based on that experience, developed enough common sense to not make a fool of yourself so publicly. I guess I expect too much of people.

pjbrunet 12y ago
I don't expect much wisdom from the youngsters here. If you were even able to read back then, nobody had heard of Objective-C until your idol Steve touched it with his golden finger. If you remember, Apple was a sad joke of a failure from the 80s till the iPod launched. And I'm sure Objective-C was really integral to the success of the Apple IIe and the iPod. Thanks for proving my point.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
  Even if your assumption Objective-C was only relevant after the release of iOS was correct, then Objective-C was still relevant since 2007. That's 7 years.
  - pjbrunet 12y ago
    Do you think I literally meant 15 minutes? 7 years is nothing. Check this out. Objective-C wasn't even Apple's first choice. "Apple CEO Gil Amelio started negotiations to buy Be Inc., but negotiations stalled when Be CEO Jean-Louis Gassée wanted $200 million; Apple was unwilling to offer any more than $125 million. Apple's board of directors decided NeXTSTEP was a better choice and purchased NeXT in 1996 for $429 million, bringing back Apple co-founder Steve Jobs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS So you're all using Objective-C because Apple couldn't afford to buy the OS they wanted. Kinda sad!
    - austinz 12y ago
      So Apple is willing to pay $125 million for Be, Gassée wants $200 million, Apple ends up buying NeXT for $429 million (at least $319 million in cash, according to the citations), and your conclusion is that Apple "couldn't afford to buy [Be]"?
    - mikeash 12y ago
      NeXT was a reverse acquisition. The company known today as "Apple Inc." is essentially the result of NeXT being paid $400 million to acquire Apple.
    - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
      It's a language. Get over it.
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      > So you're all using Objective-C because Apple couldn't afford to buy the OS they wanted. Kinda sad! In the early Mac OS X days, developers could choose between Objective-C and Java as the Mac OS X main language, the majority went for Objective-C and the JavaBridge was dropped.

pjbrunet 12y ago

Wow I lost 20 hitpoints (and falling rapidly) over this opinion. Did I touch a nerve? I can just imagine $AAPL shareholders quivering. "What is this guy talking about?" Betting it all on Objective-C, a unknown language based on a superseded language. Steve was so ballsy. Google at least had a clue. Java + Android actually makes sense.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  How about you use your real name and explain why you dislike my opinion? It's a fact people would love to write apps for the iPhone in other languages. But that's not possible because Apple is a tyrannical company. Do you endorse this tyranny and do you believe it's sustainable? I don't believe it's sustainable and I believe history agrees with me, based on my 30 years of following programming languages. Who is the child now?
  - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
    Just want to point out that you're complaining about Apple being a tyrannical company, while at the same time you're praising Google for using Java.
  - micampe 12y ago
    Your opinions are fine, but some of your facts are incorrect. http://xamarin.com http://xamarin.com http://www.rubymotion.com http://www.rubymotion.com http://www.appcelerator.com http://www.appcelerator.com http://unity3d.com http://unity3d.com http://developer.coronalabs.com http://developer.coronalabs.com