On 7 Jan 2014, at 08:37, David Chisnall <thera...@sucs.org> wrote: > On 7 Jan 2014, at 08:23, Sebastian Reitenbach <sebas...@l00-bugdead-prods.de> > wrote: > >> * better OBJC2 support, some more proper gs-make support > > A minor point, but Apple hasn't used the term 'Objective-C 2' for over five > years. Possibly because they were mocked for describing the version of > Objective-C that came after Objective-C 4 as Objective-C 2... > > The main point that we want to be making today is that we support ARC. We > might want some bullet-point features, such as: > > - ARC > - Blocks > - Properties > - Braindead array and dictionary syntax with poorly thought out semantics > added to appease Python programmers > > Or, more simply, all of the language features that are supported on OS X with > the latest Apple tools.
Good point ... I hadn't really considered the branding of the language/runtime. I agree that ARC is the killer feature. The others are, IMO relatively minor refinements not suitable to be the headline feature, or braindead/bloat in some way (even though they have possible good applications). However, I'm not sure that we can use the term ARC as a big selling point, simply because I'm not sure people will understand how good a feature it is. How can we brand the latest objc language/runtime so that it both sounds impressive without being either too technical (arc) or too vague (modern)? On the other hand, maybe calling it ObjectiveC-ARC is OK if OSX developers all understand it? _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
