Slashdot Mirror
Sony Adopts Objective-C and GNUstep Frameworks
EMB Numbers writes "Sony has revealed that the new SNAP development environment for 'consumer electronics' is based on Objective-C and the open source GNUstep implementation of Apple's Openstep spec. While Apple has continued to update their specification in the form of Cocoa and Mac OS X, GNUstep has preserved the original standard. Anyone familiar with Cocoa Touch and iOS will feel right at home developing for Sony. There may even be some source code compatibility between the platforms. The world continues to chase apple — probably for the better."
No, Cocoa is almost a superset of OpenStep (with the exception of a couple of classes like NSDataLink that Apple ditched). We (GNUstep) track the changes from Cocoa and have done for the last ten years. We also track changes from iOS. For example, we have NSRegularExpression, which is only in iOS Foundation, not yet in OS X Foundation.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Or more accurately, One foreign company adopts a compiler.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
GNUstep's objective is to create a free and open source implementation of the Cocoa libraries, with some additional libraries. It does not target the OpenStep spec, which is antique and obsolete.
Please read the definition
Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
Qt is LGPL, it's not "owned" by Nokia - certainly not in the way Apple controls Cocoa and GNUstep strives to keep up.
That said, as far as I am concerned GNUstep is at least the second best choice of the two / it's nice to see that their efforts might finally give something big.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Actually, Objective-C's performance is very very good, and verbosity is absolutely a good thing. The problems I might raise with objective-c would involve it's highly dynamic nature, and lack of a decent type system, not it's implementation's speed or it's code clarity, which are both positive advantages for it!
Cocoa is also one of the absolute cleanest application development frameworks out there by far (CocoaTouch improves on it a chunk though purely by binning a lot of old cruft), so I'd say sony made a bloody good choice.
For all the things Apple has done right and does well, clinging on to Objective-C is not one of them.
It'd be nice if you pointed out, you know, actual reasons rather than just make snide comments. I'm sure some knee-jerk Apple haters will vote you up though.
My issues with iOS development lie not with Objective-C, but with Apple's frameworks and libraries. It's frustrating to only have header files and not be able to check out what a method actually does when debugging. Fortunately, the documentation for their classes is top-notch. The objc runtime is also a pretty wild ride, but once you know your way around you can poke at it and find out where your messages are going at least. Can check out the source for the runtime here http://opensource.apple.com/source/objc4/
Another issue of course, is XCode. I've switched to writing most of my iOS code in vim, building my code with the xcodebuild command. I still rely on XCode to do things like add files to the xcodeproj and manage the build configurations. XCode has a mind of its own, wacky completions, a completely fucked up undo buffer, strange locations for settings, and more frustrating joys. Would love to do away with that.
Check out the cocoa.vim plugin, and also, while I'm at it, you can get your vim for your local environment pimped out in minutes with Vimlander 2: The quickening. Test driving my apps with Pivotal's Cedar framework.
Long live the BSD license
Some of the biggest NeXT clients were precisely from the military, intelligence, banking, financial services and science communities. And they chose NeXT precisely because of Objective-C and NeXTStep.
Also doesn't it's dynamic runtime stuff allow certain things that C++ doesn't?
Yeah, like built-in introspection and reflextion. Stuff like RPC (remote procedure calls) is simple and flexible under Objective-C but under C++ it has to be hard-coded in and can be very brittle.
Sapere aude!
Yes , I agree about the syntax. Instead of creating a nice consistent extension to the C language as Bjarn did with C++ (albeit with some kludges) , Obj-C really looks like someone tossed a completely different language into C because it was easier than making an effort to actually extend C nicely, and then didn't even bother to stir the resulting dogs dinner.
I laughed at this post, but then I realized you might not be trying to be funny. As a C++ programmer myself, I've never heard anyone referring to C++ in a serious way as a "nice consistent extension to the C language." C++ is an absolute monster. It's completely inconsistent in many ways and is riddled with so many "gotchas" that it takes years until you should be able to call yourself an expert. That's a long time in the context of learning a new way to describe what a computer should do.
I haven't programmed in Objective-C in years, but I do remember that it is far simpler to learn than C++. It adds comparatively little to the C language, as far as syntax goes; basically just the [] message-passing construct and the @ keywords. I think Objective-C "2.0" may have distinguished itself a little more, but I haven't looked into it.
Anyway, hopefully you're being funny. Otherwise, we have completely different opinions. Objective-C seems to have extended C in a way that is much nicer and cleaner than C++ IMO.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
But that's a completely different argument, his point is that C++ extends the C syntax and rules pretty consistently, whilst Objective-C does not, it changes them.
The complexity of C++ stems not from the syntax per-se, but simply because you can do that much more with it- not only have you got namespaces for better code organisation in large projects, not only have you got tools such as operator overloading, true multiple inheritance, but you also have options such as template meta-programming.
You found C++ harder simply because it has more features, and more complex features to learn, not because of it's syntax. C++'s complexity stems purely from it's power, Objective-C's complexity stems from it's obscure syntax- the former is the price you pay for extra features, the latter is just simply inexcusable difference for the sake of difference and/or poor language design.
C++'s syntax change complexity is purely down to the amount of syntax that is required to implement such a rich set of features. If you base your argument purely on syntax without any consideration of why that additional syntax is there and without any consideration of language changes then you might as well just argue Java trumps them both because it's much closer to C syntactically than either of them, but that would be ignorant of the fact Java offers a completely different featureset again.
Perhaps the most obvious test though is this, write an application that's not overly complex and uses the base set of shared features the languages provide using their preferred syntax (rather than the fact you can just use C for either) and which then more closely represents a C program syntactically? you really can't argue it's anything other than C++, which is precisely why the jump to C++ is much more natural than to Objective-C as per the GP's argument.
I think you have that backwards. Objective-C doesn't change any of the rules of C. On the other hand there's a lot of C syntax that is not valid C++.
Both C++ and Objective-C started off as object oriented extensions to C, and IMO Objective-C does a much better job. C++ tried to add everything and the kitchen sink, and ended up with horrible, bastardized syntax because it's still trying to achieve C compatibility, even though it hasn't been strictly compatible with C in over a decade.
It's even more noticeable if you look at what's considered "good" code in each language. The following is valid C, Obj-C and C++, but a C++ weenie will whine that it's not using std::cout.
#include <stdio.h> int main() { printf("Hello world!\n"); return 0; }
Have you ever tried to actually do something with a Swiss army knife? Or any other knife with non-fixed blades? Sure, it's possible, but a bunch of special-purpose tools beat it hands-down every time. Which, I suppose, is a pretty good metaphor for C++ :).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
What are you talking about? The example you call insightful is very readable.
It's the brackets and the "initWithThing:x otherThing:y" paradigm that I find unintuitive and difficult to read, most especially the "let's combine the method name with the name of its first parameter!" idea. Why did they throw out perfectly understandable function call syntax in favor of surrounding everything with brackets? I know they're trying to pretend they're sending "messages", but what they ended up with is virtually identical to the standard in C except in superficial syntax.
Why did they throw out C's perfectly readable struct-definition syntax in favor of this "@interface" and "@end" and "@property" nonsense?
Why do you have to manually derive all interfaces as children of NSObject? That would be like Java requiring you to explicitly derive every class from Object. You're never not going to want your class to be derived from NSObject, so it should be assumed.
Why do they use "+" and "-" for static methods vs instance methods? Did they really think "+" and "-" were more intuitively clear than, I don't know, using the 'static' keyword that was already in the language? Is it so absurd to want method specifiers that are actually clear in their meaning?
Why did they throw out perfectly understandable pass-by-value and pass-by-address parameter passing?
None of these changes from C are for the better.
I will say that #import is an improvement over #include; I wish something similar had been adopted in C++. Still, tiny improvements like this do not offset the idiocy with which the rest of Objective-C was designed.
I suspect you are more of a "get off my lawn" type who thinks things should be done the way you learned them and anything different is to be feared.
I have used languages with widely varying syntaxes and design philosophies (I enjoyed working with Scheme, for example). I don't "fear" different ways of doing things; I do have opinions about which ways of doing things are stupid. Having a negative opinion about a specific language you like does not automatically mean I'm just shaking my bony fist in the air and shouting "get off my lawn".
Let me make myself clearer: what bothers me most about Objective-C is that it tries to pretend it's like C even while doing everything it can to be different from C without being so different that it can't have the C in its name anymore, all while retaining several of C's disadvantages and gaining very few of the advantages it claims.
renew/release isn't very difficult to understand, but if you can't keep up, Objective-C has garbage collection.
No, it's not particularly difficult to understand, but that's not my point; Objective-C's garbage collection only collects objects whose reference counts are zero. That's the whole reason you have to properly handle your reference counting. In other words, Objective-C gives you all the downsides of being forced to manage memory, combined with all the downsides of garbage collection.
(I realize garbage collection has advantages; however, by forcing you to manually handle reference counting, Objective-C negates those benefits by design. In other words, all Objective-C gains you is that instead of freeing your memory at predictable times, the garbage collector will come along at unpredictable times and slow down whatever it is your program is doing.)
Objects != string pointers, and that's a problem for you? Seems like a fairly basic idea to grasp.
It's not that, it's that nothing in Objective-C even works with char*s, other than the one init method on NSString. Want to display a char* in your UI? Hope you don't mind converting it to NSString first!
Worse, by default, string constants in your code are char*s, not NSStrings! If you want your string constant to be an NSSt