People calling others 'mactards,' 'windoze lusers,' or 'linux phreaks' aren't at a sufficient level to criticize programming languages, be they Objective-C, C++, Java, Pascal, or Assembler.
>>13
are you sure about the runtime overhead? i was under the impression that objective-c had a smaller runtime overhead than c++, not that i have any references for that.
also, i like the message passing model of OO programming much better than the whatever-it-might-be-called model of other OO languages (C++, Java, etc.). there just seems to be something more intuitive about it. that might just be me tho.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-13 18:19
>>19
C++, runtime overhead WTF ?!!! Do you mean .NET managed C++ faggotry ?
The only runtime overhead in compiled C++ can come from RTTI and even that can be avoided if you want to get lightningfast code.
>>21
ahhahahahah
a PHP kiddie advocating code and data intermingling and spaghetti-code! how UNUSUAL!
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-14 20:50
>>21-22
Have you read the article? It doesn't say much about "POO".reverse(), nor it says much about spaghetti-code or data intermongling.
It just addresses, with varying degrees of success, the fact that data objects suck. They suck for far more reasons than mentioned, mostly including you just fucking reinvent the wheel one more time with a new model that's always much less powerful than SQL and even more verbose in the end. Data objects are also more confusing and less nice to work with. Data objects are just fap material for OOP methodologists and fags who can't do SQL.