> Am 22.11.2019 um 15:44 schrieb Andreas Fink <af...@list.fink.org>: > > >> >>> This is a major advantage of Objc2.0. >>> I must admit it took me a while to get used to though. But at the end it >>> paid off a lot. >> >> Well, to be precise: ARC could also be done with ObjC 1.0 as far as I see. >> There is IMHO no special syntax for ARC. You just remove all >> retain/release/autorelease from the code and the compiler is clever enough >> to magically make it still work. >> >> So in summary, ARC alone isn't sufficiently helpful for my work to switch to >> ObjC 2.0 and no longer use gcc. >> > > > The fact is that gcc can not do ARC. This is the main show stopper for gcc. > On the other hand, switching from gcc to clang is not a problem for > "traditional programming style" programmers. > > The only problem I can see is platforms which gcc supports but clang does > not. So the real question is are there any users who use ObjC stuff with > GnuStep under, lets say strange embedded systems. > Given ObjC does not have a bright future under gcc anyway (as they have still > not implemented ObjC 2.0 features after like 10 years it's out now), does > mean it will only get worse. > > Besides that we have to consider that sticking to gcc will also hinders > newcomers to get involved. And this i I think is a important point. > The developers hehre with 20 years+ experience will have no problem working > around non ARC stuff and going backwords because we all know the old way. > The youngsters out there however don't. If we want to get Gnustep into the > modern area, we will need to be attractive to newcomes and this means keeping > up with the modern API's etc. And gcc is miserably failing here. Thats the > main problem, not if you don't want to use ARC (which is still fine) or not. > Others want to use ARC but can't under GCC. > > In other words, going for clang doesnt mean ObjC 1.0 code wont run but it > means a lot of ObjC2.0 code will start to run. > I think the main problem here is that Nikolaus (and Riccardo) are using platforms where there isn’t even a recent GCC available (IIRC Riccardo called some time ago for keeping GCC 2.95 support — surely not for the pure fun of supporting such old compilers). So even fixing GCC by adding ObjC 2.0 support won’t satisfy some. What could be done about this? I have no idea … regards, Lars
Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?
lars.sonchocky-helld...@hamburg.de Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:05:17 -0800
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Matt Rice
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... David Wetzel
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Gregory Casamento
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... H. Nikolaus Schaller
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... David Chisnall
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... H. Nikolaus Schaller
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Andreas Fink
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... H. Nikolaus Schaller
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Gregory Casamento
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Andreas Fink
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... lars.sonchocky-helld...@hamburg.de
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... David Wetzel
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... H. Nikolaus Schaller
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Fred Kiefer
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Ivan Vučica
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Riccardo Mottola
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Gregory Casamento
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Riccardo Mottola
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Ivan Vučica
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Yavor Doganov
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing ... Ivan Vučica