[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Intermediate Summary: Re: website redesign proposal

From: Riccardo Mottola
Subject: Re: Intermediate Summary: Re: website redesign proposal
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 01:06:05 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; OpenBSD i386; rv:22.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/22.0 SeaMonkey/2.19


Ivan Vučica wrote:
I definitely wouldn't go with anything like Objective-C+ARC since I, for
one, don't think ARC is nearly as an important addition to the language as
@synthesize. And five years from now, any arguments against naming it
relative to Objective-C 2.0 will stand against naming it Objective-C+ARC or
well, I think it is poinlessin arguing in what is more important and what not. To me, they are all crap. The new language additions are dirty, have a terrible syntax and are appeal to lazy programmers. ARC instead is more a "taste". It is a new addition in the GC discussion. I personally prefer ref-counting.

The point for me is making a clear statement about which runtime you can use and which features you get, so that somebody porting Apple code knows how much is supported, which features he can use with which compiler mix, to estimate, for example, the porting effort.

This can't be written in stone. You don't know what Apple will invent to appeal its lazy iOS developers in the future, if and what Objective-C 2.1 or 3.0 will be. Workstations aren't relevant anyway today...


reply via email to

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