🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1811@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes:
> csrdi@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Rick Innis, CS4) writes:
> >... I'd also like C++, and may well end up porting
> >that myself, but I've been told that Objective-C is a better language -
> >any versions available?
> 
> Strange... My understanding is that C++ is the better language.

As usual - which is the "better" language?  All things are created to serve
some purpose and both of the aforementioned languages fulfill certain needs.

> Objective-C is apparently C with Smalltalk code embedded using escape
> sequences.  The problem is that when you program in Objective-C, you
> have to deal with two universes: the C universe, and the Smalltalk universe.
> ...
> C++, on the other hand, is a single unified language.

It all depends on your needs.  You are correct in stating that C++ is a
"unified" language, in respect that it is much more "C-like" than as is
Objective-C.  And yes, the syntax of Objective-C is very similar to that
of Smalltalk, but, like C++, the language is a pre-processor, producing
C code.  If you do not feel like learning all of the ins and outs of
object-oriented programming, but would like some more power from a C-like
language, C++ is for you.  C++ gives much more functionality per time NOT
spent learning it than does Objective-C.  C++ give the nice-ities of 
inheritance, without really understanding inheritance too well.  In fact,
one does not need to know many of the concepts of object-oriented programming
to get a lot from C++.  Just the strong type checking and inline code
expansion are valuable additions to the C language.

Like C++, Objective-C has its strengths (and weaknesses) in different
areas.  Objective-C is a wonderful language for learning object-oriented
programming.  It has those four qualities of OOPLS -
	1. information hiding
	2. data abstraction
	3. dynamic binding
	4. inheritance
The dynamic binding is what seperates Objective-C from C++.  It is just
a wonderful and powerful feature.  It gives an object the freedom of
not having to recognize all types of messages at compile time, instead
it can be done at run-time (yes, at a cost of speed - but Objective-C 
uses a quick routine to send messages to objects, using a internal hash
table).  And okay, before I get flamed, C++ does have those virtual
functions, but they are not as easy to use as Objective-C's messages
(my own opinion!).  Try building and utilizing a hetergeneous list
in both languages.  I found the Objective-C code to be more logical and
easier to read and smaller in source code size) than a similar routine
written in C++.

There are so many other similarities and dis-similaities of the two
languages, both of the languages should be investigated to find
which one suits your needs to the fullest.

Summary:  If you wish to gain some of the nice-ities of object-oriented
programming without going overboard, then time invested using C++ is
well spent.  But if you are interested in real object-oriented programming
then check out Objective-C.

> I'd be interesting in seeing the opinions of people who have had
> non-trivial amounts of experience with both languages.

I have had lots of experience in the past with both languages, but
due to current projects, have not kept up-to-fate with either.
It's been two years this month that I had tried (unsuccessfully, I
might add) to port Objective-C to the Macintosh for PPI.  Supposedly
they have someone who is to continue the port.  I also taught a "for-fun"
class about object-oriented programming, using both C++ and Objective-C 
as the main languages on which the course was based, though I took 
concepts of object-oriented programming from many different object-
oriented languages and languages with o-o extensions.

I also have some (do nothing :-) code which tries to do the
same thing in both languages, utilizing a variety of different o-o concepts
which I can make available quite easily (i think).

> Doug Moen
> University of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab


												Rickers
												..!drexel!rickers