4 ms·
Nothing wrong with a nice bit of CS dogma! You're welcome to ignore what those fancy pants doctors with their clever titles tell you to do. After all, they just
by to3m 11y ago
Nothing wrong with a nice bit of CS dogma! You're welcome to ignore what those fancy pants doctors with their clever titles tell you to do. After all, they just read a few books, and books could say anything. But for my part, I think this is a good move, since I don't think "practically never" is a very high bar ;)
With static checks, you can guarantee this absolutely never happens. Whether Objective-C's checks reach are as exhaustive as they could be, I don't know, but I think this seems to be one case where the future is turning out to be actual genuine progress rather than merely the inevitable outcome of the passage of time.
- pavlov 11y agoYou have to understand that Obj-C is sort of a single-purpose language: it's primarily used for user interface code. Most larger projects (including most of Apple's own software) have a C++ core underlying an Objective-C GUI layer. This split is actually quite useful in practice. C++ language features are useful for data modelling, whereas Obj-C's dynamism is useful for building GUIs. Hence I feel that Obj-C doesn't automatically benefit from new C++-like syntax, because real-world code is already using C++ for the sections of code where it matters. The interactions between C, C++ and Obj-C are already pretty complex. Adding new syntax into Obj-C may only muddy the waters further. I'm not sure if it's worth adding stuff to Obj-C at this point in its history.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]