Hi,
Ivan Vučica wrote:
I definitely wouldn't go with anything like Objective-C+ARC since I, for
one, don't think ARC is nearly as an important addition to the language as
@synthesize. And five years from now, any arguments against naming it
relative to Objective-C 2.0 will stand against naming it Objective-C+ARC or
similar.
well, I think it is poinlessin arguing in what is more important and
what not.
To me, they are all crap. The new language additions are dirty, have a
terrible syntax and are appeal to lazy programmers.
ARC instead is more a "taste". It is a new addition in the GC
discussion. I personally prefer ref-counting.
The point for me is making a clear statement about which runtime you can
use and which features you get, so that somebody porting Apple code
knows how much is supported, which features he can use with which
compiler mix, to estimate, for example, the porting effort.
This can't be written in stone. You don't know what Apple will invent to
appeal its lazy iOS developers in the future, if and what Objective-C
2.1 or 3.0 will be. Workstations aren't relevant anyway today...
Riccardo
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
