> On 21 Nov 2019, at 08:32, David Chisnall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 20 Nov 2019, at 20:11, Gregory Casamento <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Derek
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:44 PM Derek Fawcus
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:52:36AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote:
>>>> Oh, and with ARC, all of the C++ implementations have correct memory
>>>> management for Objective-C, for free.
>>>
>>> While dropping support for GCC does not strike me as a problem,
>>> switching the core implementation to depend upon C++ may well do.
>>
>> I'm not sure what to say to this other than LOL. Given that C++ still
>> doesn't have some of the dynamic features of even the original ObjC it seems
>> quite impossible. Also it contradicts the entire purpose of the
>> framework... moving on…
>
> I think you are missing my point here. C++ is a good language for low-level
> abstractions, for abstract data types, and so on, with aggressive
> compile-time specialisation and opportunities for optimisation at the low
> level. In contrast, Objective-C is a good language for providing stable
> interfaces, for high levels of abstraction, and so on.
I strongly agree with this ... whie I detest C++ for general use, it is
definitely great for extremely well defined low level stuff where you are never
going to have to change/maintain the code because the requirements don't change.
I think it's dreadful for most higher level real-world projects where
requirements change throughout the development process and beyond.
As far as I can see there's no reason it can't be used where clearly
appropriate and banned everywhere else.
