On 2009-01-31 15:39:17 -0500, Chris R Miller
<[email protected]> said:
Anyways, I decided to write up a comparison of the two languages from a
less technical, more deployment oriented standpoint. IOW, examining
how well they perform for the last mile of development: deploying
software.
You talk about IDEs in there, and praise Xcode. Do you know about D for Xcode?
<http://michelf.com/projects/d-for-xcode/>
And since have you taken a look at my D/Objective-C bridge?
<http://michelf.com/projects/d-objc/>
Unfortunately, these two projects aren't getting much attention these
days, mostly because I can't do much with the current state of the one
D compiler that runs on my PowerPC iBook.
One area I think Objective-C to be very great and that you haven't
touched is for creating stable APIs. In Objective-C, contrary to D and
C++, you don't have to recompile every dependency when reordering,
adding and removing member functions in a class. In 64-bit Objective-C
2.0, you can even add variables to a class without care about
recompiling derived classes. Compare that to D, where exposing a class
as a public API will either force you to not change much that class, or
force your users to recompile every time you make such a change.
Also, I do honor the right of reply. If there's something I have
written that is now incorrect or inaccurate I will of course change my
page to reflect that. Heck, all the comparisons in the world are
worthless if they aren't accurate!
Well there's one error:
"If you ignore Cocoa, then there is the GNUStep [gnustep.org] project,
which is an Open-Source implementation of the old Carbon standard from
NeXT Step."
No. Carbon was created to ease port of classic Mac OS applications to
Mac OS X. It's a revamped version of the Mac OS Toolbox, which got some
additions as Mac OS X evolved. It has nothing to do with NeXT.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API)>
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
