Steve Jobs thinks Objective C is Perfect? 784
josht writes "Nitesh Dhanjani has posted an e-mail thread between Steve Jobs and himself. Dhanjani argues "I'd like to see Apple developers gain more choice. With every iteration of OSX, there seems to be so much effort put into innovation of desktop components, but the development environment is age old." I agree with Dhanjani. What has Apple done recently to wow the developers, and make it fun to code Cocoa components? I've looked into the Objective C and Xcode environment but compared to Microsoft's .NET solutions, it doesn't impress me at all. I think Apple can do a lot better. Steve Jobs disagrees. What do the readers think about Objective C and Xcode?"
Wowing developers... (Score:3, Interesting)
C#, for all of the claims of performance, is a a JIT based interpretive language. Ditto Java.
C#, for all of it's nicety, is little more than Java taken in MS' desired direction. If it weren't for Mono, C# wouldn't even be a subject of discussion as it'd been an MS only tool for use only on Windows (or whatever MS ends up calling thier stuff in the future...)
C, C++, and Objective-C are stable, robust languages that have been around for some time now. C# has not been around all that long, but since it's got all the "buzz" about it, people keep trying to deploy it everywhere.
Objective-C is actually a fairly clean OO language, moreso than C++. C++, while it's really good, has been muddied up with a bunch of conflicting design ideas that make for some...fun...with your coding if you're not paying attention to what you're doing.
All in all, I'd say that it's decent enough for doing Apple development- if you want to adapt Mono to that interface (Which, I believe, can be done...) knock yourself out.
.NET is a bit complex (Score:5, Interesting)
A good example of the complexity is the file access models for both APIs.
Learning ObjC/Cocoa (and others) now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparing ObjC to what MSFT offers nowadays seems to be apples and oranges (no pun intended) and the learning curve is much different -- coming from straight C, ObjC is much cleaner, and I can slide more extensive Cocoaization in as I go. On the other hand, the ObjC syntax is a mess and weird for people who've never done Smalltalk
As for development environments, so far I've _hated_ everything to do with visual * -- it seems to be a monster to use, to customize, and to work with efficiently, at least for this old Unix hack. XCode is far far far from perfect -- I wish the SCM integration were better, that the whole thing were a _lot_ faster, and that they'd release incremental documentation updates rather than 250M batches every couple weeks -- but since it's all wrapped on gcc/g++/gdb/make at the back end, you can entirely do your stuff with vi/emacs/whatever at the command line and never use the GUI much at all, if that's your preference...
Dev tools plus/minus (Score:5, Interesting)
This can be good, but a downside is that some of the emphasis on design, best practices, etc. is lost. An office nerd who happens to get into VB is not traditionally pushed to think about things like standard UI guidelines. So in a sense the rich toolset can detract from good software. MS seems to be aware of this, and you can see a definite push for more guidance from them. Still, they have a ways to go IMO, and finding the balance between making development easy and making it "good" is difficult.
Xcode rocks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Love it (Score:5, Interesting)
(Disclaimer: I first became aware of Objective-C about a decade ago, and have used IB/etc on Openstep -- on a NeXT slab, even).
Re:Wowing developers... (Score:1, Interesting)
I've always assumed that one of the motivations for publishing IL instead of machine code was so that a single binary could distributed for different architectures. The decision to go for IL was made when Intels Itanium looked a lot better than it does now.
I don't know that MS has made claims for the execution speed of the .NET languages specifically. I am suspicious since the installation license forbids publishing benchmarks. I think that ought to be illegal. Really.
Perhaps the most useful language and most widely used is also the slowest: javascript.
Re:Compared to Intellij IDEA, XCode sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I would like to know why you think IntelliJ IDEA [jetbrains.com] and the other IDEs are better than XCode. What features do you find important that are missing, or was there some unliveable annoyance? What language do you code in, and what level of debugger support are you expecting? IDEA doesn't seem to support C, so while I would get the benefit of less suckage compared to Xcode, I would have to switch programming languages.
Your post had potential...
Mangaged code good | .Net / Mono Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
I think sometimes we get caught up in the tinkering with latest wizbang language and loose sight of the fact that if we simply paid attention and used the languages we already know we could solve whatever we are programming much simpler.
Over the winter break I have run into two miserable examples of this...
ONE the program Autopano-sift (100% managed C# code developed using mono) This program does nothing couldn't be done in C++ and little that couldn't be done in C. I've lost count of the megabytes I've downloaded to access the functionality of a program that has no cause to occupy much over a half meg... it's like having the bloat of windows and the user friendliness of circa '92 Linux all at the same time.
TWO Canon and the "software" that accompanies their cameras, specifically the 350D AKA Digital Rebel XT. I am very interested in controlling that camera by computer (any computer) so I have also signed up for their development program. So I can tell that all of the canon software that came with my camera was developed with the current version of Microsoft Visual Studio and also uses the SDK canon uses to obfuscate the camera's true API. Because of the user interface and some truly bizarre design decisions this is the worst software I have ever installed on any of my computers. With the possible exception being Arcsoft's image management application which was also included. I must admit, I have seen Arcsoft's applications before and while technically they work... the user interface is so poor and has such arbitrary limitations as to make it unusable, so this is not really surprising. Bottom line... sending a few hundreds of kilobyte of data through a USB should be easily accomplished by an 8 bit Microcontroller mounted on a board the size of my thumbnail... and IT IS NOT... thanks to manged code.
Re:.NET is a bit complex (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Did nobody actually READ the emails? (Score:2, Interesting)
How the hell did that even get posted to Slashdot in the first place? Does anyone actually check anything before these things go live?
Check a few comments up for the incredibly boring emails back and forth, where basically the guy starts off by telling Jobs that Objective-C sucks without giving any reason. Makes me wonder why (and IF) he got a response in the first place.
Re:Objective C was a neat idea in the 80's BUT... (Score:4, Interesting)
The point of any programming language is to give the developer the tools they need to efficiently (programmer time + machine resources) accomplish the goal they set out to do. No more, no less.
Not using C functions simply because objective-C has methods is ridiculous; the language has the direct functional call built in for *exactly* the reason you're discussing. I write performance code for simulation data display in Objective-C; it simply requires a little thought into what functions require absolute maximum performance (and can therefore tolerate the lack of flexibility) and what functions (such as GUI functions) are better off with the dynamism that Obj-C methods provide.
I don't care what language you're programming in, but if you completely ignore one of the tools that the language provides you and then claim that the language sucks, it's difficult to lend any credence to your opinion.
Re:objective-c is cool (Score:4, Interesting)
ObjectiveC good/bad isn't the issue. (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally feel that OSX is a beautiful combination of unixy goodness and gui usability. So much so that I dropped a load on a quad-g5 last month. And i've been playing with objectivec/cocoa/xcode/ib long enough to develop a few opinions:
1. Cocoa is the best thing going for the mac. It's feature rich and has loads of good documentation and examples. Far nicer (at a code level) to build GUIs in than say... Swing.
2. XCode/IB - Hello? 1992 called and wants it tech back. Once you get the hang of it's not a bad combo. But Delphi showed the way forward to today and not having two way tools is painful.
3. Objective C ditto. As a java guy I-CANT-STAND having to deal with
4. Libraries - As long as there is a cocoa lib for what you want to do you're good. As soon as you have to start calling c or c++ based libs you're screwed. It's nice an familiar to c/c++ guys. But it's rather jarring to be running along in objc and all of a sudden have a load of pointers hit you in the face, throw in the CoreFoundatiaon and carbon stuff... ech!. Every time I see it i'm just "argh... this is why I prog in java".
5. Deprecated Java-Cocoa bridge - Nice idea but making java behave like objc does in cocoa is pretty messy from a java prospective. Probably is better than they just killed it off.
So, back to the point. ObjC has some good and some bad. If you could hope to even just port your code to another platform I'd be all over it. But without that ability what business is going to let you build an app with it? What business is going to buy an app that is osx only? Given these two constraints what left? Server based apps? Java pretty much has that wrapped up in all but the most fervent windows only shops.
The good news is that the mac market is expanding like crazy. It's only ~4% or so.. but that's millions and millions of users who actually buy software. Dunno if it's enough to make a living off of yet, but perhaps someday.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Objective C was a neat idea in the 80's BUT... (Score:5, Interesting)
C++ started out as C with a special preprocessor. So what?
I'd be interested to see some up-to-date figures to back up your assertion. GCC 3.1 gave a 2x speed increase in method dispatch, and GCC 4.0 has -fobjc-direct-dispatch.
msgc_ObjSend without the GCC 4.0 optimization is 22 cycles. Somehow I doubt that's really your big performance issue.
This is the usual Java/C++ argument of 'There is no value in dynamic typing, because I can write a program that does the same thing using static typing'. Well, yes, and I can write a program that does the same thing in machine code, but that doesn't mean high level languages have no value.
Some of us like having introspection, metaclasses, true parametric polymorphism and so on, without having to implement ugly workarounds. Personally, I think that ubiquitous (implicit) dynamic typing is a major aid to code reuse and software development agility.
ObjectiveC and Cocoa (Score:3, Interesting)
When I got a Apple PowerBook, my intention was not to use it for programming. ObjectiveC and Cocoa was totally irrelevant for me and I didn't bother to learn it. That is, until one evening when I decided to just take a look at some of the ADC docs included with XCode. After reading for about an hour, I was very surprised. It couldn't possibly be this easy and straightforward. It felt like it Cocoa must be seriously limited in functionality. The API was so easy and so compact, and ObjectiveC was like a halfway mix of Java and C++. I bought a book on Cocoa and read through it in about a week. It covered everything from basic GUI programming to drag and drop, printing with pagination, OpenGL, making custom widgets, data binding and persistence, preferences, making and using frameworks (think DLL's), and so much much more. And all of this was amazingly simple compared to any other OS and language combo I had ever used. And not just easier, but dramatically easier.
As an example, the chapter on drag and drop was something like 5 pages and covered making drag sources, drag targets, controlling the icon you see while you drag, data flavors, and so on. The classes involved were all extremely simple, easy and intuitive. Printing is even easier!
I haven't really had any need to do any apps of my own lately, so admittedly I haven't used Cocoa for anything in particular other than simple test applications, but I'm thoroughly impressed!! I would give about 80% of the credit to Cocoa, and 20% to ObjectiveC. You can use Cocoa with Java too, but it seems a tad bit more compatible and elegant with Cocoa. Also, looking at the more recent API's like CoreImage, it seems there's more and more functionality in the Cocoa family of API's but the simplicity remains. I strongly recommend picking up ObjectiveC if you know C++ or Java!
Peppe
Re:No garbage collector (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, smart pointers fall well short of what Java offers - since smart pointer based software typically suffer from reference count bugs, and don't handle references loops. And doing the memory collection inline rather than in a seperate thread is a real disadvantage - but then it isn't like C++ has a threading model anyway.
C++ really suffers in many ways by not having modern GC and threading support. It is really starting to look like modern technology is passing it by. THis is becommng more and more of a problem as processors become increasingly parallel.
Re:well... (Score:2, Interesting)
As an aside, I don't know what this guy is emailing Steve Jobs about. You can code for a Mac in C, C++, Objective-C, Pascal, Java, all the standard UNIX scripting languages, and any other language GCC supports, really. As for making Cocoa "fun," it already is--interface builder is awesome.
Re:Compared to Intellij IDEA, XCode sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing stops you from using a third party regular expression library like pcre. Or simply use the java - objective c bridge in cocoa to use java's regex stuff. Although java is a second class citizen, it is supported to some degree with cocoa.
As for xcode vs intellij, I would never use xcode for java after trying intellij. I use xcode for c/c++ programming all the time though. Its a great ide. I like the debugger interface as it reminds me of microsoft's vb.net debugger in some ways. One thing microsoft doesn't do is add a decent spell check library to
I don't think its fair to compare cocoa and
Objective c vs C++ is what people should be comparing here. I can see objections to syntax with objective C. It is much different than modern languages using the "." notation and so forth. My wife and I both have trouble remembering the syntax for objective C, but I haven't tried that hard to use it yet either.
If you think cocoa is so bad, try to write a
Apple could add more libraries to cocoa. That would be helpful. I personally found it confusing to connect buttons and objects in interface builder to backend code compared to
Apple blew off Metrowerks. Now they must suffer. (Score:3, Interesting)
Metrowerks offered a stable, reliable development environment, even as Apple was frantically moving from one development platform to another. (Use Rhapsody! Prepare for Copeland! Use OpenDoc! Dump OpenDoc! Use Carbon! No, use Cocoa! Use OpenStep! Use Objective-C! Switch to XCode!.) Each time Apple pulled one of these stunts, more developers dropped their platform.
Re:Wowing developers... (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, they've done public comparisons to Java that showed C# being way faster, which Java devs pointed out was biased in favor of C#, but that's no surprise.
Of course, I hear rumors about Apple releasing their Cocoa/Obj-C stuff for Windows. Which would truly rock and would give Windows developers a reason to use those superior APIs. Photoshop could take advantage of things like CoreImage without losing Windows compatibility. But we'll see if that's just a geek fantasy.
Re:Love it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Objective C was a neat idea in the 80's BUT... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's highly inaccurate. The ObjC runtime is not as fast as a function call in C, I'll grant you that. However, it isn't that slow - see my signature for a 3D OpenGL game written in Objective C. Objective C overall is certainly faster than Java, and orders of magnitude faster than Javascript.
Re:ObjC problems are many (Score:5, Interesting)
Namespaces is the one I see foisted around the most. I can see some value to adding namespace, but not enough to muck up the language. Objective-C was designed to be the simplest wrapper around C as possible while enabling an OO approach. With the much flatter hierarchies Objective-C's weak-binding and dynamicism encourage, the lack of namespaces is a relatively minor thing. Some people want them, but there's really no compelling need for them. I, for one, am glad that Objective-C has avoided the "throw in everything but the kitch sink" approach that has caused C++ to bloat in recent years.
Abstract class support? Again, why? The language doesn't need this. Objective-C's approach is to trust that the developer knows that he or she is doing. It doesn't take the paranoid approach that C++ and Java and the other Modula-3 inspired languages do, but that's not a flaw, it's a design choice. Objective-C is bad for stupid programmers, that I'll readily admit.
All methods are public, but they don't have to be advertised in your header file. Again, it's the nature of the language, and the result of a conscious design choice, not a flaw. You don't need this, even though many programmers have been indoctrinated into thinking they do.
I give you some points on the constructor issue. A language-level support for the DI or an official "constructor" method would be a good addition and add relatively little to the language and runtime. Garbage Collection is not something I personally want, but I know many people do; it's in the works. GCC 4.0 has support for it, it just hasn't been fully integrated into Cococa yet. Probably with the next release (is it Puma? I can't even remember all the cat names any more).
What's wrong with pointers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Function pointers are probably my favorite thing about low-level languages (and even a few higher-level languages that provide such support).
Categories (Score:3, Interesting)
I hinted on a much more important feature above. When you have to work with many objects that you know little about, categories are awesome. Take GORM for example. GORM should integrate with many flavores of objects but it really only knows a lot about a couple of base-classes. Classes like view, object, and window. GORM might need to know if a view acts as a container. To do this, it might put a category method on view called 'isContainer'. It could return NO by default and be overrided in all containers to return YES. Now when working with a view, GORM just has to say [view isContainer] to find out if the view is a container. This is much better than looking asside in some table, or manually coding up the reflection hack that would be nessecary to ask such a question in other statically bound/typed languages.
Re:Wowing developers... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying C is bad for all situations. I just wouldn't use a saw to drive a nail.
By the same token I try not to find problems for my solution.
It may be very simple to do the refernce counting by hand, I'm just saying that it's possible to do a lot of this stuff automatically in a language design. See Limbo. It even has a way to get out of dreaded cycles that cause reference counting to leak memory [a cyclic keyword]. It's a shame Limbo only really works with the Inferno OS.
Also C++ has libraries of things like shared_ptr that do the reference counting in the constructors and destructors of the object. It also can suffer from the cyclic reference leaks of course but the need to double check code or even suspect it of being wrong at the "use" level is greatly diminished.
At the end of the day it's worth noting that no language is perfect, and just knowing the syntax doesn't make you a good coder. It takes practice... and just having a degree in CS isn't gonna make you great.
Re:Love it (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is what is keeping you from developing with Objective-C, then you've picked a poor reason to avoid learning it.
Pointers are as easy to avoid in Objective-C as they are in Java. In Java, all reference types are in fact a pointer, but simply a pointer which you don't need to think about. There is no pass-by-value for reference types, and no pointer arithmetic is allowed.
In Objective-C, everything is again passed by reference (as opposed to by value). Pointer arithmetic is generally completely unnecessary (although it is technically permitted).
I recently finished v1.0 of a decent sized Objective-C application, and the "&" operator isn't used once. The '*' operator is only used when defining a variable, return type, or parameter.
I don't even think of pointers when coding in Objective-C. I tend to think of it as no different than Java. Extra capabilities to do pointer arithmetic are there, but I simply don't typically feel the need to use any of them.
Yaz.
Re:Love it (Score:2, Interesting)
Best example why top posting just sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
But sadly Top posting is so common nowadays, that managers complain if you don't do. Last time I normaly answered an email to an management person in our office and he complained later why my answer was not on top like "normal" people do
oh where there world went thanks to preset outlook settings
Re:Objective C is hard to beat (Score:3, Interesting)
You can write apps on Mac OS X using Python that you can't distinguish from ObjC apps without inspecting the contents of the packages. Far better than Java in fact, since the
If you like Python and you have a Mac, try out PyObjC. It's my favourite development environment by far.
Re:namespaces (Score:2, Interesting)
And I'm sure successful people choose to be born into stable, wealthy societies rather than in some God-forsaken African nation wracked by famine and war, yes? No luck involved there, huh?
Btw Steve Jobs was abandoned by his birth parents. Stable and wealthy family indeed eh?
Doesn't work with programming. (Score:3, Interesting)
And there are definitely mistakes in Cocoa, things that are broken and need fixing. Many things in Objective C feel like they're from a 20 year old language-- because they are. The new features in Java 1.5 (generics, real generics not this C++ template crap, and foreach/iterator support) make the cast-filled use of collections in even a simple Objective C program simply painful to contemplate, and objective c could stand to incorporate a few more of C++'s modern features without requiring you to go whole-hog to objective-c++. "Fix and run" or whatever it's called is a neat nod to dynamism, but ultimately is just part of a tendency within the Objective C language and Cocoa tools to go halfway to a state of perfect python-like dynamism but stop halfway. Cocoa is in some ways even more dynamic than Java, but it must be compiled, which offers a sort of dynamism gap which the tools need to bridge. Right now they don't. The tools, amazing as they were compared to the alternatives two or five years ago, really, really need work. The work you must go through to use a language other than Objective C in a Cocoa program is, frankly, bullshit. PyObjc and Camel Bones are clumsy add-ons; they should be built into the developer tools from the moment I install it. In general XCode is too prone to freaking out if I do something unexpected as opposed to just using the expected interface paths, and after you run into this problem where you're afraid to do anything unpredictable in XCode in case everything stops working. In general meanwhile XCode consistently engages in behavior that I can only describe as "mysterious". The great and interesting features XCode offers-- features which are truly necessary to get the most out of Cocoa-- cease to be of use, because XCode's general unreliability prevents you from making use of them. The worst thing about Cocoa comes in when you have to use any library which is written by one of Apple's Carbon-centric groups instead of one of the Cocoa-centric groups. Leave the little cloystered world of cocoa classes and try to work with, say, Quicktime, or CoreAudio, and suddenly you are in a strange and incoherent land, suddenly needing a crash course in new and interesting types of strings and something called the Component Manager, and suddenly devoid of the high documentation standards common in the Cocoa classes. Spend a few weeks using one of these "alien" APIs, and suddenly you won't care how great the core Cocoa APIs are, you'll be simply yearning for an operating system where the GUI library and the sound library are based on OS APIs which vaguely resemble one another.
Basically, Cocoa was without a doubt the best available developer system five years ago. But that was five years ago. The APIs have received new and interesting additions (KVM and coredata come to mind), but some things have not improved at all, for example the base language (in fact if anything the base language has devolved, thanks to the recent removal of Java as a future-proof coding option), the documentation, in many ways the tools, and the cross-language compatibility. Objective C and Cocoa are in many ways standing still while Java and
The Real Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
Most well-designed programming languages allow code that can be optimized to reduce the amount of garbage generated. For the things where speed really matters, it can sometimes be possible to prevent the generation of any garbage.
This isn't meant to be a troll on how slow OS X is. My point is that the advantages/disadvantages of using GC parallel those of using a microkernel. It seems silly that Steve Jobs would endorse one and not the other.
Re:The emails are already gone. (Score:5, Interesting)
I program with Objective-C and Cocoa all the time. I am mostly happy with it and in fact I will not be using the Garbage Collection feature for my apps.
I have complaints about Cocoa, but not being able to program in Ruby or Python is NOT one of them.
I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree.
Specifically, I work at a small software house that writes exclusively in java. Our product is a piece of server software, quite large, runs on multiple machines, etc. Now, I won't say that GC isn't nice, but I will say this: it took us over three months to find settings that kept java from seizing up for over three minutes once every half hour or so for full GC, when it's under heavy load. When Java 1.5 came out, all those settings failed and we had to try again. (They're still failed; one of the hidden settings we depended upon has been taken out of 1.5, or at least appears to have no effect when used.) When that happens, our servers get out of sync and we had to write an entire new section of code to handle the fact that the servers regularly go away for minutes at a time. One solution, it turns out, is to load up the machine with 4 gigs of RAM, but we're hesitant to suggest this because even Oracle doesn't require 4 gigs of RAM to run. Another solution could be requiring multiple servers and failover setups... that would be awfully popular.
I agree that situations like this are rare, but they aren't unknown. If we had a choice, it's possible we would, in fact, redo this whole mess in Java Minus GC, despite the headaches. (Unlikely, but possible. I sure know a lot of our customers would like us to.)
-fred
NIH at its finest (Score:3, Interesting)
This was the time of Windows 95 vs OS 9, pre-OS X. What was a huge problem back then was the Not Invented Here syndrome, which sounds silly until you realize that this is bound to happen at a company like Apple. Apple has the brightest engineers and used to make the best software and hardware. Now, if you are the best, who is going to voluntarily run Windows 3.x (for example) just to keep on top of what's happening on the other side. So at Apple, Win95 was pretty unknown. NT - even more unknown. People had no idea why it was better than OS 9. All they could see was the uglier interface.
The exact same thing happens these days with XCode and Objective-C. Once upon a time, Objective-C and InterfaceBuilder and the predecessor to XCode were light-years ahead of the competition. They were literally about 10 years ahead in NeXT times. Like, two or three generations ahead. Nowadays, they are falling behind. but because no one at Apple even considers to use anything else, they still think they are the best. XCode developers think that XCode is way better than anything else out there, even though VS.NET, Eclipse, and IDEA for Java development are far better. XCode's latest improvement was auto-completion (that works)... Eclipse and IDEA meanwhile are working on ever more refined refactoring mechanisms that automate away days and weeks of development time.
As for Objective-C I don't know it well enough to make a judgement but the syntax is certainly extremely different from anything else. I don't want to lean it if it is just for the sake of writing proprietary OS X-only software.
But since Obj-C is already dynamic and can do "everything" a dynamic programming language can do, why not at least provide wrappers for Ruby and Python? Ruby wrappers should be totally simple to write, and then I could just use my favorite programming language to program my favorite OS. Ruby would really be a perfect fit for OS X - elegance from within.
Developer's ignorance plays a good part in this too. If XCode is better than the previous XCode and works for you, why should you use anything else. I actually run into this problem with colleagues who use CodeWarrior or some other abomination of an IDE, or who use no IDE at all and claim that that's better for them than learning an IDE. Yeah, right. I have not met anybody who wanted to switch back from a modern IDE (IDEA, Eclipse, VS
Re:The emails are already gone. (Score:2, Interesting)
To the best of my knowledge he isn't actually a coder. Yet he has concisely and accurately identified the key weaknesses in comtemporary competing products. (Maybe he has good people working for him?).
Managed code like C# (and Java and maybe Ruby, Python, VB) is slow, and this a problem when developing and deploying apps in a competitive market place.
Also garbage collection is a performance hit and does tend to use CPU at just the wrong time.
Actually wrt memory management garbage collection entirely misses the main memory management problem I have to deal with. Now how can I explain what this is... here we go it is "keeping heap out of virtual memory (e.g. off the disk)" (from http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thre
No comment on C# vs Objective C libraries. I'm not interested in Objective C or C# as I mainly do cross platform GUI development on code that has to be fast. I need mmap more and more.
(Can you guess who I work for?)
Bzzzzt! (Score:2, Interesting)
Umm.... bzzzzt! Wrong answer contestant!
Really, do you know what you're talking about? Every language in
Now, your assertion that language choice under
Or not. It's your loss then.
The ONLY major complaint I have about