[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Intermediate Summary: Re: website redesign proposal

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: Intermediate Summary: Re: website redesign proposal
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:23:11 +0000

On 7 Jan 2014, at 08:37, David Chisnall <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 7 Jan 2014, at 08:23, Sebastian Reitenbach <address@hidden> wrote:
>>  * better OBJC2 support, some more proper gs-make support
> A minor point, but Apple hasn't used the term 'Objective-C 2' for over five 
> years.  Possibly because they were mocked for describing the version of 
> Objective-C that came after Objective-C 4 as Objective-C 2...
> The main point that we want to be making today is that we support ARC.  We 
> might want some bullet-point features, such as:
> - ARC
> - Blocks
> - Properties
> - Braindead array and dictionary syntax with poorly thought out semantics 
> added to appease Python programmers
> Or, more simply, all of the language features that are supported on OS X with 
> the latest Apple tools.

Good point ... I hadn't really considered the branding of the language/runtime.

I agree that ARC is the killer feature.  The others are, IMO relatively minor 
refinements not suitable to be the headline feature, or braindead/bloat in some 
way (even though they have possible good applications).

However, I'm not sure that we can use the term ARC as a big selling point, 
simply because I'm not sure people will understand how good a feature it is.
How can we brand the latest objc language/runtime so that it both sounds 
impressive without being either too technical (arc) or too vague (modern)?

On the other hand, maybe calling it ObjectiveC-ARC is OK if OSX developers all 
understand it?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]