Objective-C!

I fully expect this thread to get 0 real replies, but:

Anyone up for an ObjC discussion? Anyone else excited about GC coming in 10.5? Some of the new features in ObjC2 (properties, etc) look pretty cool. Thoughts?

I've never used it before, what's it all about then?

GNU Objective C has had GC for ages, trust Apple to be behind the curve.

I am far more interested in Apple's relationship with this: http://llvm.org/

If LLVM gets into GCCs main trunk, it's going to affect a whole lot more than just ObjC and Apple.

That said, any update to ObjC is welcome. It's a damn powerful system language.

Fat chance o'dat, being as GCC is a GNU project and thus requiring copyright assignments of contributions. Sane policy, but tends to drive off people from more minor GNU projects. (GCC has had significant contributions from corporate outside parties before.)

>>5
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html

>>3
Not really the same thing. I'd tell you more details about the GC in ObjC2, but I'm not sure what's NDA'd and what's not (I was at WWDC)

>>5

From what I hear, RMS isn't 100% opposed to it. So it might have a chance.

>>1
I hate the syntax . I suppose it's just a matter of getting used to it but it's not widely used so I don't really care.

>>9
What about it? The square brackets? The named, ordered parameters? What language are you coming from?

>>9
Not widely used? Ever heard about Lisp or Smalltalk?

Named parameters are something I'd quite like to see in other languages, like in C++ for instance. Too bad that C++'s model of "no authoritative prototype except for parameter types and their ordering, and that's only for mangling's sake" doesn't fit well with this.

Named parameters were emulated, to a degree, on the Amiga with the godawful contraption known as tag lists. Thankfully that's no longer a viable proposition with today's ABIs particularly with regard to stdarg.h .

>>12
http://boost.org/libs/parameter/doc/html/index.html

>>13
Boost for teh win!

>>14
If you're gonna be vacuous, at least add more funnay.

>>15
too lazy

>>12

Python does have named parameters as well, but they're unordered and optional, which, IMO can get really confusing. Having ordered, mandataory, named parameters is much more useful (and mostly self documenting, I might add).

>>17
I understand making all named arguments optional (as they get a default value) is arguable, but if they are ordered why do you want them named? If they are named why do you want them ordered? That's BDSM.

Python's named parameters exist so that you don't need to call them all or remember the order.

python's named parameters are equal to lisp in that sense.
smalltalk's named parameters are different.

also, superbump

>>19
wrong

I use Objective-BBCode.

[class=foo]lolHMMM[/class]

[foo.lol]no[/lol]

[class=expertProgrammer]operator.EXPERT PROGRAMMER[/class]
[expertProgrammer]
I am an EXPERT PROGRAMMER
[/expertProgrammer]
I am an EXPERT PROGRAMMER

>>22
>>23
stop this nonsense

>>24
no

>>25
thank you.

I've been kinda tempted to try playing with obj-c but the lack of bindings to non mac os libraries had kinda turned me off the idea

>>27
What do you mean?
Its a great language btw, I improved as a programmer from learning it so I recommend it to anyone.

>>28
There's only Mac OS's Cocoa and GNUstep (which is awfully confusing to install).

>>29
GNUstep has a livecd distro.

>>30
Interesting.  I'll try that out later then.

SAGESAGESAGE

ENTERPRISE QUALITY

@interface Object
{  Class isa; }
- (Class)class;
- (BOOL)isEqual: (id)anObject;
@end

>>34

Fuck you.

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy