Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Regards Pete
Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
John Todd wrote:
I don't know why people say bad things about Objective-C.
Regards,
Avishkar Nikale
John Todd wrote:I don't know why people say bad things about Objective-C.
John Todd wrote:Some say Objective-C has a crazy syntax and it is not a true OO language.
Jesper Young wrote:
Objective-C is C with Smalltalk syntax for OO stuff. Really strange. The Smalltalk syntax does not fit at all with the syntax style of C, in my opinion. It looks like a hack, not like a language that was designed from the ground up to be a nice, clean, pure OO language.
John Todd wrote:Objective-C is created around the 80s which I think it is obvious why it smells like Smalltalk.
Regards,
Avishkar Nikale
Mike Simmons wrote:I consider Mandarin Chinese a complete failure. Sure, its widely used still, but not by me.
John Todd wrote:...I agree [Objective-C] looks like a hack but a nice hack IMHO...
"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer
sscce.org
Frank Bennett wrote:No computer programming language is ever a failure, only programmers that fail to use them correctly or fail to develop an expertise in them are the failures...
SCJP 1.4, SCWCD 1.4 - Hints for you, Certified Scrum Master
Did a rm -R / to find out that I lost my entire Linux installation!
Pat Farrell wrote:I will also claim that we professionals have failed by not kicking C++ to the junkyard of obsolete languages at least 15 years ago.
VIJINDAS
vijin das wrote:For real time mission critical applications in domains like aeuronotics ,radar ,avionics etc C is the preferable one and still using
No Kaustubh No Fun, Know Kaustubh Know Fun..
Are you sure about that?Pat Farrell wrote: . . . Smalltalk was the first OO language. . . .
Campbell Ritchie wrote:Are you sure about that?
The Smalltalk language introduced the term object-oriented programming to represent the pervasive use of objects and messages as the basis for computation.
From that article, it appears people were thinking object-oriented as far bask as the 1950s. I think this might well be relegated to one of those great "don't know"s.Pat Farrell wrote: . . . You take Wikipedia as a source? . . . But to use the same weak source: Object oriented programming . . .
Better, faster, lighter Java ... you mean Ruby right ?
SCEA5,SCBCD1.3,SCWCD5,SCJP1.4 - memories from my youth.
Pat Farrell wrote:
. . . Smalltalk was the first OO language. . . .
Pat Farrell wrote:
. . . You take Wikipedia as a source? . . . But to use the same weak source: Object oriented programming . . .
No Kaustubh No Fun, Know Kaustubh Know Fun..
Jimmy Clark wrote:For marketing purposes and to ease and promote adoption from existing C programmers and their programs, C features were added to the C++ language to make every C program compatible with C++ compilers.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Regards Pete
No Kaustubh No Fun, Know Kaustubh Know Fun..
Anand Hariharan wrote:
Jimmy Clark wrote:For marketing purposes and to ease and promote adoption from existing C programmers and their programs, C features were added to the C++ language to make every C program compatible with C++ compilers.
Wrong.
No Kaustubh No Fun, Know Kaustubh Know Fun..
they can't be seroius
when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:
for(;P("\n"),R--;P("|"))for(e=C;e--;P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("| "+(*u/4)%2);
Regards Pete
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater. |