gow@sakari.mrceg (Ed Gow) (09/27/90)
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes >I disagree strongly that ObjC is ugly compared to C++. In my language >pantheon, C++ is what you get when you add OO concepts to C, but are willing >to sacrifice OO for C compatibility. ObjC is what you get when you add >OO to C, but are willing to sacrifice C compatibility to get a good OOPL. >The advantages of OOP are not fully realized in C++, by a long shot. I spent some time programming in one of the largest Objective C projects ever undertaken. We learned a great deal about the pros and cons of the language - with the cons being currently in the limelite. Some points: Try to write two objects which work as co-routines and compile them. You find that the files (the p_... files) used to make statically typed C pretend to be Smalltalk are an ill-conceived hack. This problem alone, I feel, makes the language fundamentally unsound. This is not to mention the trouble of carting around and keeping current the p_.. and c_... files. In a word, it sucks. Inheritance causes locality of reference to go out the window. This can (and did!) degrade performance in a paged memory system with caches to a shocking degree. Dynamic binding is not fast and can be EXTREMELY slow. Objective C is not a good OOPL because it is only a pre-processor that must turn your carefully thought out OOP design into C programs. -Ed -- ------ Ed Gow ------ uwm!mrsvr!gemed!sakari!gow ----------- My opinions are NOT those of GE. MGB - The most fun you can have in a car without a back seat