[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++)

From: Philippe C.D. Robert
Subject: Re: ObjC additions (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Objective-C++)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:20:53 +0100


On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:43:18 +0100
Bjoern Giesler <address@hidden> wrote:
> adding my .02 Euro...

...adding my .02 Rappen...;-)

> Am Dienstag, 20. November 2001 01:33 schrieb Björn Gohla:
> > On Monday 19 November 2001 23:45, Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> > > 1. Exception handling.
> Seconded. I'd like to see this as well. Personally, though, I'd prefer 
> something along the lines of Python, which has try...except...finally but 
> also try...except...else (the else gets executed in case no exception has 
> occurred).
> > > 2. Class variables. A "must add" in my opinion, as the current way of
> > > defining them using static variables is far from being acceptable. 
> Yep.
> > > 3. Blocks, as described by Brad Cox.
> Yep.
> > > 4. Syntactic sugars for constant property objects.
> Yep.

Uhm ... just one question: why? There are rate situations where such features 
really are needed. So while I agree that there are (some) situations where such 
(theoretical/academical) add ons might be 'nice', I much more fear languages 
which are too complicated, bloated, have too many features etc. ... and I know 
what I am talking about, I earn my living writing C++ code...;-)

Smart (the car company) once had a brilliant PR strategy saying: Reduce to the 
max! This is exactly what we need and what makes ObjC such a beautiful 

> > 5. how about operators? 
> Please, no. IMHO, you don't gain much with this, but it makes debugging a 
> nightmare. I'm in the process of debugging a program which makes use of 
> operator overloading in C++. I don't want operators. No. :-/

Well.... I should actually agree, esp. after my statement above, *but* did you 
ever do maths in ObjC ... *Very* ugly and *very* annoying (not to speak of 
string handling in OpenStep/ObjC...).
Anyway, let me throw in another issue. Coming from a parallel world (SGI 
machines with only 1 CPU are bastards...grin) I'd vote for another feature:

- synchronisable blocks and methods

But then, maybe this would do harm to the simplicity of the language as well...

Philippe C.D. Robert
Software Engineer
Silicon Graphics, Inc.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]