3 ms·
> Because Apple makes it tough not to use it That's not very accurate. Apple has gone out of their way more so than other companies in giving you options. Appl
by yan 17y ago
> Because Apple makes it tough not to use it
That's not very accurate. Apple has gone out of their way more so than other companies in giving you options. Apple has always provided the Java bridge for their entire Cocoa API which exposed all of its functionality to the JVM. Apple also ships Python and Ruby bindings and provides documentation and sample code on how to use them.
I have limited experience with all those bindings, but I choose to use Obj-C. In my humble opinion, it's an excellently-designed language that mixes low and high level concepts with great success.
- ohhmaagawd 17y agojvm support has been deprecated. other language options are 2nd thoughts.
- yan 17y agoIt's deprecated for a reason -- hardly anyone's been using it.
- steveklabnik 17y agoI don't think MacRuby is really a second thought. I mean, I haven't personally done anything with it, as I like Objective C as well as Ruby, but I've only heard that the integration is absolutely stellar.
- tumult 17y agoHe's talking about RubyCocoa, which is what OS X comes with, not MacRuby. RubyCocoa uses the Objective-C/Cocoa object bridge, to allow Ruby to talk to Cocoa objects and send messages. MacRuby is a different beast. It compiles with LLVM, is not bridged, and therefore works directly with Obj-C/Cocoa. (Though, honestly, the bridged languages are really pretty good, too. Obj-C bridging is good in general. MacRuby is just sensational.)
- steveklabnik 17y agoAh, thanks. It's funny, I love Apple, and I love Ruby, but I've yet to code Ruby on a Mac.
- henriklied 17y agoBut you still can't write PyObjC for the iPhone, right?