Comment by jspthrowaway2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jspthrowaway2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Fine, I'll bite.

Assuming you're belittling Objective-C, let's not forget that Objective-C is simply C with Smalltalk bolted on. I'm having a hard time imagining a plane of reality in which either is not "half decent". Objective-C is, in my opinion, much better than C++ to accomplish the same task (they have semi-equivalent aims, though implemented very, very differently).

I learned Objective-C and iOS (then called iPhone OS) from scratch to write a quite-complex app once. The app has been in the store for two years now. Like you, initially, I balked at the brackets; everybody does. Eventually, I was actually pleased that my C experience carried over so well, and it was a pleasant experience in the end. As you do, I wrote two to throw away until I mastered the platform, and I didn't mind it at all.

Assuming your object user has an update method which takes a name argument and you want to store the result of calling update somewhere, here's Python vs. Objective-C (the Smalltalk-influenced terminology is different, but the concepts are the same):

    save_result(user.update(name="Larry"))

    saveResult([user updateWithName:"Larry"]);

I don't find one much more horrible than the other.

It's not just the brackets, though they're ugly and provide stops for the eyes where none should be; you have NSReallyReallyLongNames all over the place (encouraged by XCode, to the point of automatically doing it for your own classes, because namespaces are apparently too modern), required parameter names, and other silliness that makes Java look restrained. And while we're at it, its interop with an actual, fairly standardized modern (note: this means "not C") language that people use (so C++, for those keeping track at home) is not very good, and while you might find Objective-C superior nobody else uses it so C++ is probably going to be involved somewhere, be it Windows or Android.

Objective-C is tolerable, sure, but I'd rather write C++ - and that is no compliment to C++. (But, as a side note, I give Apple all the credit in the world for having a fantastic C++ environment on its own. XCode has its stupid spots, but it doesn't get in clang's way.)

I actually vastly prefer a language without namespaces, and the naming conventions are not due to the absence of namespaces. You're talking about the NextStep API (the "NS") and the conventions that were born from that -- there is no mandate nor impetus (and, I don't recall Xcode automatically doing it for me) that you use that convention yourself. They just carried it through for the other APIs, like UIKit being "UI" (UIViewController, etc).

My User object was called, unsurprisingly, "User". [[User alloc] init].

As for interop with C++, Objective-C++ exists and is used for apps in the store. (Hint: 3D games that are ports.)

XCode has a setting in a new project to prepend to all class names. The necessity of that sort of feature indicates a failure of linguistic design (by which I mean the necessity of clearing up symbol pollution--there is also an argument for their use for explicitness, which I reject because the world has shown us its obvious failure).

Even just aesthetically--vomiting out half-line identifiers every time I have to refer to a class is, for me, painful and stupid and makes me hate reading what I've written. One of the worst feelings in the world is looking at code you've written and hating even looking at it, and for me there are only three languages I've spent time with where that's the case for reasons beyond me fucking up: Java, Scala--for reasons entirely unrelated to its Java heritage, it makes its own mistakes--and Objective-C.

As for Objective-C++, it's useful in a limited capacity but often requires unscrewing your object model in pretty stupid ways just to provide inputs that the Objective-C side won't barf on. It's an "ehh" hack with painful edge cases.

I shouldn't have bitten. This is like arguing over why a Phillips screwdriver is better than a flathead with someone who particularly and angrily hates Phillips screwdrivers because he doesn't like their appearance. They're tools, bud.

I'm pulling my rip cord on this discussion based on your tone, the nearly guaranteed futility, and the complete lack of any realizable benefit in my own life of carrying on. Good evening.

Your screwdriver analogy doesn't really apply. Language choice has ramifications beyond 'appearance' and you know it. I'm afraid I don't believe that you really don't care about your choice of tools.

With every passing moment I regret replying to this thread more and more. You completely missed how my analogy works, actually, since you think I'm limiting the problem domain to appearance (I'm not; I'm characterizing someone ELSE'S displeasure).

I wish the privilege to delete didn't disappear after a time, so I could wash my hands of this thread and forget that I ever spent more than ten minutes on it.

> I actually vastly prefer a language without namespaces,

All languages have namespaces. It's clear you don't understand the concept. A namespace is an abstract container to provide context and ensure uniqueness between items with the same name. User is a namespace. Since you have a global namespace, you have to prefix the name to make another type of User. So yes, naming conventions (which are namespaces that are not enforced by the compiler) are due to the absence of namespaces as a construct. Sheesh.

Sigh. I understand that perfectly, and I thought it would be implied that I meant "multiple user-defined namespaces" where I, and the commenter I replied to, typed the shorter "namespaces". Sheesh. Bring the pedantry, eh?

Your vitriol is uncalled for, and since it's only your second comment ever, you should pause a moment to consider whether Hacker News is the community for you (judging by the two comments you've left so far, it isn't; I recommend Reddit for dick jokes and personal attacks on comprehension).

"I'm having a hard time imagining a plane of reality in which either is not "half decent""

Garlic is good. Ice cream is good. That doesn't mean that garlic ice cream is necessarily good. It exists as a promotional gimmick, sure enough, but it won't be in Baskin Robbins any time soon.

Objective C is brilliant, it's one of the few things I actually enjoy about Apple's ecosystem.

This is because it stole ideas from Smalltalk, which is also brilliant. I doubt there are many people who hate it rationally, but I'd love to have a discussion with them instead of the people that have some knee-jerk reaction to the message-passing syntax.

I dislike it because the code samples I see look really ugly and hard to follow.

Now maybe that melts away when you learn the language but I've heard enough complaints from people who have to get the feeling that's not entirely the case.

Readability is probably the most important language feature.

"let's not forget that Objective-C is simply C with Smalltalk bolted on. I'm having a hard time imagining a plane of reality in which either is not "half decent"."

One can always mix first rate components badly to create abominations. Not saying Objective C is an abomination, but pointing to the coherence of the underlying languages is not much of a defence of the clarity of Objective C.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com