4 ms·

It almost certainly doesn't get recognised enough the influence this guy has had on the world by creating a technology that has influenced the lives of hundreds

It almost certainly doesn't get recognised enough the influence this guy has had on the world by creating a technology that has influenced the lives of hundreds of millions. The tools developers use have a big impact on the resulting software and so it's crazy to think where we'd be if Obj-C hadn't been created and hadn't enabled the iPhone etc.

Mikeb85 12y ago
The iPhone would probably just be using C++ if not for Obj-C. And if not C++, then maybe C or Pascal. And maybe in some alternate universe everyone is still using Fortran, or maybe Ada, etc... There are plenty of efficient systems languages out there...
- yarrel 12y ago
  There are, but Objective-C was unique at the time in terms of being object-oriented and late binding and compiled to machine code and interfacing efficiently with C code. IMO these features made it more productive than C++ or Pascal for developing GUI-based applications.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    All those features apply to C++ and Object Pascal as well.
    - pedrow 12y ago
      Does C++ have late binding? For example, in the Obj-C Cocoa framework, a menu item can determine, at run time, whether the current control can respond to it, and enable/disable itself appropriately. Say if a button had the focus, the Paste menu would be dimmed because you can't paste a button.
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        That is not late binding by CS speak. Late binding is deciding at runtime the real implementation of a method to be called, which in C++ is done at via virtual method calls. What you are describing is actually an example dynamic types and reflection. In C++'s case, there are plenty of reflection libraries to choose from.
  - blub 12y ago
    Unless we're talking about ancient versions of C++, those productivity advantages of Objective-C are mostly a myth which I have yet to see any argumentation for. The whole point is moot though, because Swift is the future. It's quite amusing seeing the Objective-C community trying to reconcile their irrational love of the language with the reality that Apple communicated - it's a disadvantage for the platform, keeping developers away with its unusual syntax, lack of safety and overcomplicated paradigms.
    - gchpaco 12y ago
      Interface Builder was impossible in the C++s of the day. It is merely extremely difficult today. Remember that what IB did was build the UI using the actual elements, so you could play with it even without the logic hooked up, serialized that entire object tree, and then deserialized it at runtime.
- PopsiclePete 12y ago
  No, it couldn't actually. A key aspect of Apple's NS* and UI* frameworks are various patterns that rely on dynamic dispatch (via 'id') as well as run-time reflection and discovery, something that is close to impossible in a super-static language like C++, which eschews most of those features. C++ puts performance above all else, Obj-C values productivity as well. As someone who likes C/Obj-C but absolutely despises C++ and everything to do with it, I count my blessings that Apple didn't choose the C++ route.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    > something that is close to impossible in a super-static language like C++, which eschews most of those features. I wonder what all those reflection libraries are about.... > As someone who likes C/Obj-C but absolutely despises C++ and everything to do with it, I count my blessings that Apple didn't choose the C++ route. I hope you never get to write Mac OS X drivers then...
    - PopsiclePete 12y ago
      >I wonder what all those reflection libraries are about.... Libraries exist for everything under the sun for C++. Doesn't mean anything. C++ always prefers static dispatch vs dynamic. It's in every single C++ book/article ever written. C++'s RTTI system is extremely gimped and pahetic, exactly for that reason - it's a "limited, rarely-to-be-used" functionality by design. In Ojb-C, it's opposite. Asking an object what methods it has at runtime, is a very common pattern. Something at which the seasoned C++ programmer screeches in horror and hides in the corner. >I hope you never get to write Mac OS X drivers then... Completely irrelevant. Of course drivers are written in C/C++ (a limited sub-set of C++). How many people write OS X drivers? Are you even listening to yourself? 99% of people do not write drivers, they write user-land applications, and the lingua franca for OSX/IOS is Obj-C. You fail to prove any points. Try harder next time.

Mikeb85 12y ago

The iPhone would probably just be using C++ if not for Obj-C. And if not C++, then maybe C or Pascal. And maybe in some alternate universe everyone is still using Fortran, or maybe Ada, etc... There are plenty of efficient systems languages out there...

yarrel 12y ago
There are, but Objective-C was unique at the time in terms of being object-oriented and late binding and compiled to machine code and interfacing efficiently with C code. IMO these features made it more productive than C++ or Pascal for developing GUI-based applications.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  All those features apply to C++ and Object Pascal as well.
  - pedrow 12y ago
    Does C++ have late binding? For example, in the Obj-C Cocoa framework, a menu item can determine, at run time, whether the current control can respond to it, and enable/disable itself appropriately. Say if a button had the focus, the Paste menu would be dimmed because you can't paste a button.
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      That is not late binding by CS speak. Late binding is deciding at runtime the real implementation of a method to be called, which in C++ is done at via virtual method calls. What you are describing is actually an example dynamic types and reflection. In C++'s case, there are plenty of reflection libraries to choose from.
- blub 12y ago
  Unless we're talking about ancient versions of C++, those productivity advantages of Objective-C are mostly a myth which I have yet to see any argumentation for. The whole point is moot though, because Swift is the future. It's quite amusing seeing the Objective-C community trying to reconcile their irrational love of the language with the reality that Apple communicated - it's a disadvantage for the platform, keeping developers away with its unusual syntax, lack of safety and overcomplicated paradigms.
  - gchpaco 12y ago
    Interface Builder was impossible in the C++s of the day. It is merely extremely difficult today. Remember that what IB did was build the UI using the actual elements, so you could play with it even without the logic hooked up, serialized that entire object tree, and then deserialized it at runtime.
PopsiclePete 12y ago
No, it couldn't actually. A key aspect of Apple's NS* and UI* frameworks are various patterns that rely on dynamic dispatch (via 'id') as well as run-time reflection and discovery, something that is close to impossible in a super-static language like C++, which eschews most of those features. C++ puts performance above all else, Obj-C values productivity as well. As someone who likes C/Obj-C but absolutely despises C++ and everything to do with it, I count my blessings that Apple didn't choose the C++ route.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > something that is close to impossible in a super-static language like C++, which eschews most of those features. I wonder what all those reflection libraries are about.... > As someone who likes C/Obj-C but absolutely despises C++ and everything to do with it, I count my blessings that Apple didn't choose the C++ route. I hope you never get to write Mac OS X drivers then...
  - PopsiclePete 12y ago
    >I wonder what all those reflection libraries are about.... Libraries exist for everything under the sun for C++. Doesn't mean anything. C++ always prefers static dispatch vs dynamic. It's in every single C++ book/article ever written. C++'s RTTI system is extremely gimped and pahetic, exactly for that reason - it's a "limited, rarely-to-be-used" functionality by design. In Ojb-C, it's opposite. Asking an object what methods it has at runtime, is a very common pattern. Something at which the seasoned C++ programmer screeches in horror and hides in the corner. >I hope you never get to write Mac OS X drivers then... Completely irrelevant. Of course drivers are written in C/C++ (a limited sub-set of C++). How many people write OS X drivers? Are you even listening to yourself? 99% of people do not write drivers, they write user-land applications, and the lingua franca for OSX/IOS is Obj-C. You fail to prove any points. Try harder next time.