Slashdot Mirror
Objective-C Overtakes C++, But C Is Number One
mikejuk writes "Although the TIOBE Index has its shortcomings, the finding that Objective-C has overtaken C++ is reiterated in the open source Transparent Language Popularity Index. The reason is, of course, that Objective-C is the language you have to use to create iOS applications — and as iPads and iPhones have risen in popularity, so has Objective-C. If you look at the raw charts then you can see that C++ has been in decline since about 2005 and Objective-C has shot up to overtake it with amazing growth. But the two charts are on different scales: if you plot both on the same chart, you can see that rather than rocketing up, Objective-C has just crawled its way past, and it is as much to do with the decline of C++. It simply hasn't reached the popularity of C++ in its heyday before 2005. However the real story is that C, a raw machine independent assembler-like language, with no pretense to be object oriented or sophisticated, has beaten all three of the object oriented heavy weights — Java, C++ and Objective C. Yes C is number one (and a close second in the transparent index)."
However the real story is that C, a raw machine independent assembler-like language, with no pretense to be object oriented or sophisticated, has beaten all three of the object oriented heavy weights
This sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't understand C. You can write object orientated code in C. You don't always need the language to hold your hand. And C is NOT assembler-like language. Not even close.
And as far as sophisticated code, I guess the author doesn't consider operating systems or most system programming to be sophisticated.
As much as I like languages like Perl and Java, where memory is managed for you (kind of), there will always be a great need for languages that brings programmers as close as necessary to the workings of the machine itself.
Here's a crazy brief explanation:
The big draw to OO is that it (ostensibly) makes it easier and/or faster to write applications. This doesn't mean that you can make programs with an OO language that you couldn't with an imperative or structured language, only that certain tasks may be easier to implement.
That said, OO isn't always the best option. OO languages are typically a lot more complex and produce slower executables than plain C, so there is a trade-off that can be important in certain situations. As with anything, pick the best tool for the job.
For myself, when I first learned programming (via some books), I learned C before moving to C++. I absolutely hated C++ and didn't see the point of OO programming, due in large part because of the way the book presented it. At the start, the author had you write a C program, and throughout the course of the book, you would change it into a C++ program full of OO goodness. The final C++ program wound up having 50% more lines of code for the exact same functionality, and that was the point where I gave up on it. It was a pretty bad first impression.
So maybe you're reading from the wrong book?
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Objects simply allow for an efficient programming structure for large software. That's the main reason. The real debate is about how far this object orientation should go. There are people like me that are of the opinion: use objects when necessary for structure. Others on the other hand will wrap anything in layers of objects. Dynamic allocation isn't strictly necessary for object support (see C++ to know why). It's just that most object oriented languages now also want to use polymorphism, at that point dynamic allocation is necessary cause it's near impossible for the compiler to predict what'll happen. But it's a rather pointless debate in the long run. To each his own as they say.
It's like the static vs dynamic linking debate that you sometimes hear. There's no real valid answer to that one either, it's a best guess on what'll lead to the best performance. With dynamic linking you don't need to load all the libraries at the start, on the other hand with static linking you don't need to call up the linker each time a library is loaded, and so on... My main advice: stay out of it. There's no real valid answer to these sort of things.
That'd be like saying letters are no longer required because we'll all be using words and sentences from now on.
The real problem here is that they assume that search engine popularity translates into language popularity. It's not cause a bunch of hipsters want to learn how to make an iOS application that it's actually going to become the programming language of choice for a majority of the developers. ... was written in C and assembly. And lets not forget about all the microcontrollers out there. Almost all mainstream microcontrollers are programmed in C and assembly. And there are a whole lot more microcontrollers out there than CPUs. Lets take the 8051 as an example; If you knew how many USB controllers actually use an 8051 internally. I'd go as far as appointing the 8051 assembly a top 10 spot if the amount of deployed units of software is taken into account.
C in combination with some form of assembly still holds the absolute first position in terms of how much its actually deployed. Every mainstream OS its core, bootloader,
C++ holds its second spot without problem simply due to the fact that it's compatible with C and it does offer native object extensions.
The top 5 will probably be completed by Visual Basic, C# and Java for enterprise applications. They're perfectly fine languages for such goals and they do their job well.
After that it becomes tricky, most likely a couple of web languages like PHP and Perl in combination with a few of the old gems like Ada and FORTRAN. Ada is used in the aircraft industry on a regular basis and FORTRAN is the corner stone of weather prediction. Two rather interesting languages (not really programming languages though) would most likely also show up on there: VHDL and Verilog.
Anyway, I would just wish people would stop linking to the TIOBE index cause it actually has 0 value compared to real research into the subject. I'd rather see them do a study trying to correlate suicide statistics in the programming community with the programming language that was being used at the time, that might actually give more information about how good a language is than a couple of search engine hits.
So strange... I find Ayn Rand completely guilty of the very same romantic notions that got the founders of Communism (she so despised) into so much hot water. Perhaps its true what they say about choosing your enemies well. Both presumed that the underlying greatness and magnificence of the human spirit either as a society or as a specific productive individual would prove the guiding light for humanity. In fact humanity has shown precious few guiding lights and for the most part, we are little descended from our primate ancestors. This isn't to say that we aren't capable of transcendence, simply that you can't depend on that to build a social or philosophical framework.
Design the system that demands human transcendence, inspires greatness, and puts strict limits to personal power and responsibly accounts for the grosser of human foibles and frailties, and you'll have a winner. We had that system in the form of checks and balances, until the "Randian" among us began to systematically dismantle those very defenses against our poorer natures, beginning in the 80s. Up until then, we had the time and means to look at the future we wanted as a society, not just a few social (read financial) elites, and strive towards that future wisely and with due consideration. Now we're in a kettle of fish. Those elite have proven to be every bit as ignorant, self obsessed/serving and foolish as everyone else and they've squandered the future on extra McMansions, expensive cars and yachts, and the virtual hijacking of our society.
C is a great language. You can't any closer to bare metal without slugging assembly around, and as we move to more and more intelligent particles infiltrating everything from household appliances to ubiquitous sensors in the roads we drive on, you better believe that C will bring consciousness to the dross matter that surrounds us. I can only hope, that we can put aside our prejudices (not only racial, but societal), and begin to replace belief systems with educated inquiry, and treat the future with our intelligence rather than our primate predilections. It is the only hope I can see for a future worth living in.
the idea of object oriented vs. non object oriented languages has always thrown me off.
Everyone else will attempt to explain OO using OO terms to a non-OO programmer. Thats like trying to teach my dog to sail a boat by speaking Japanese. I'll try a different tack. You know what a computed goto is, right (other than pure unadulterated evil, right?) What if your compiler enforced the hell out of good commenting and error bound checking to let you do computed goto's safely (er, more or less)? Well that is barely scratching the surface of OO. Syntactic sugar mounded on top of syntactic sugar. You know that quote about turtles all they way down, well fundamentally no matter the paradigm its Turing machines all they way down... more or less.
but really slashdot, what is the big draw to OO
When your professor was a little baby skript kiddie wannabe on his TRS-80 Coco-2 running OS/9 and BASIC09 and liking it, object orientation was the silver bullet among the crowd who could not bother to read "the mythical man month" by Brooks. So now you suffer thru OO because it was "cool" back when parachute pants were also cool, and leggings. Much as we're now raising a crop of wannabe skript kiddies who look up to the functional programming and agile methods people who have also never read "the mythical man month" by Brooks, so your kids / my grandkids are going to have to learn functional programming as The_One_True_Paradigm_And_all_disbelievers_should_be_burned_at_the_stake. And I'll still be writing device driver code on PIC microcontrollers in raw assembly, and it'll work great and I'll be liking it.
There's a really nice wiki article you probably need to read. The world is a lot bigger than "OO" "non-OO".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_paradigms
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
What the fuck? Why the fuck would I subclass a button just to make it blue? That's just data, and damned trivial data at that. If your button object doesn't already have some mechanism for dealing with that data, it sucks and I'm using a different object, not yours.
Instead of having to code buttons from scratch, you sub class them...
No no no no NO. Goddamnit NO. Fucking Java. Motherfucking Javascript. They've ruined a generation of programmers.
Subclassing is the LAST thing you should be doing. The very last. First you should be using the customization features built in to the object, and using them directly on an instance of that object. Set the blue color on the Button class and be done with it. If that's not sufficient, use object composition. Most of the time, your object is NOT a Button. It's a something that needs to have a button. Only as a last possible resort do you subclass Button, and you'd damn well better be writing an object that still is-a Button. If you're not, you've done it WRONG.
By all means, there's nothing wrong with primates... fine animals. They just tend to form hierarchies along lines off dominance, commit acts of violence on one another including infants, they're greedy, scheming, back-stabbing, self serving Machiavellian bastards (to paraphrase one of the world's leading authorities on primate research.
So we aren't as bad as baboons and we aren't as good as bonobos. We fall neatly on the primate continuum of behavior (good and bad.) The problem is that we have nukes. A pissing contest among humans could end in a 20 mile wide blue glass ashtray. All I'm saying is that as good as being a primate has gotten us so far, its perhaps time to begin rising above the worst of our inclinations while rising above them still makes a difference.
Except that if you read his code, he's not actually subclassing Button, he's instantiating it. He's certainly saying it wrong, though.
So, you think that is object-orientation? Oh boy.
From wikipedia: "Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm using "objects" - data structures consisting of data fields and methods together with their interactions - to design applications and computer programs."
The GP's method certainly qualifies. Just because it doesn't include all the sugary syntax or features that are included in your favorite so-called "OOP language" doesn't mean that you can't do object-oriented programming in C.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Oh, but it is. C is actually very, very close to assembly language, with only the most unimportant CPU-specific details abstracted away. The primitive types in C are almost always natively supported by the CPU in assembly language, with few exceptions. Instead of having to manage your own stack, it mostly manages it for you, but it still leaves plenty of room for shenanigans, particularly because it doesn't enforce the number of arguments any more than asm does. And if you use varargs, you pretty much are doing direct accesses to the stack using indexed addressing. Simple asm.
Accesses to a struct are just a tiny bit of syntactic sugar on top of an indexed load/store. Goto is a jmp, setjmp and longjmp just set a register and then perform a jump to that address The if/then commands have near exact ASM equivalents (albeit with a couple of extra jump instructions thrown in), and even while loops are just a couple of instructions (not counting whatever calculations must be performed to determine which path to take).
C abstracts away some stack management details, register quantity limits, etc., but it really is little more than portable assembly language, by design. It was intended for systems-level programming, and does that job well, in part because it is such a thin layer compared with most other languages.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
That'd be like saying letters are no longer required because we'll all be using words and sentences from now on.
That's what the Chinese did!
Objects simply allow for an efficient programming structure for large software. That's the main reason.
Sorry, those imaginary benefits are as mythical as unicorns. OOP is objectively inefficient.
Really, this shit has been studied. No benefits in productivity were found for OOP. I'm actually shocked to find that OOP didn't harm productivity!
OOP leads to an incomprehensible mess of dependencies (inheritance is bad, composition is almost worse) -- and design patterns lead directly to over-engineered monstrosities that are not only bloated and slow, but destroy any hope of maintainability.
People get confused because objects can be handy abstractions -- and used extremely sparingly, and only when other modular approaches don't fit the problem as well, can make code easier to understand and maintain. Objects, however, do not OOP make.
Even Alan Kay (the guy who coined the term) regrets it. It distracted from his much better idea: agents that communicate via message passing (incidently, a concept NOT well served by modern OOP languages)
One apology I hear all the time is that no one really understand OOP and that it takes years of study to truly grok the concepts and see the benefits. Well, if that's the case (very doubtful) then half of the promises of OOP are false. It's not easier to use, it clearly doesn't simplify design or development, and to top it all off, it bloats your code with no tangible benefits.
OOP is a lie, a hoax, over-hyped, and over-sold. It's a blight on software development. It needs to die. It's anti-modular (accidentally) and anti-parallel (intrinsically) It's the single worst paradigm (if that even qualifies, as there is so little agreement about what constitutes OOP) for this modern era.
If you're an advocate of OOP, I can automatically assume that you're either an idiot or so insecure that you don't dare question the "mainstream" view, like the average creationist.
I think that falls under "I hope to the great FSM that I never have to maintain your code."
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
If you look at the description of how they compute the index, it's essentially useless for any practical purpose. So why even bother debating it?