I totally agreed with "Apple is a product-driven company, not a computing-driven company."
But part of the irony of his post occurs between his first and last statements: First statement: "When most programmers are introduced to Objective C for the first time, they often recoil in some degree of disgust at its syntax: “Square brackets? Colons in statements? Yuck" Last statement: "It seems absurd beautiful graphical applications are created solely and sorely in textual, coded languages." How much of the close-mindedness reflected by the 1st statement do you suppose causes results described by his last statement? Because if developers are so fickle they can't even get to a superficial improvement in _syntax_, they cannot open their minds to new ideas, hence they stuck in the same ideas for 30 years. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Torsten Bergmann <asta...@gmx.de> wrote: > some quotes: > > > "Borrowed largely (or shamelessly copied) from Smalltalk’s message sending > syntax ..." > > "Categories or through runtime functions (more on those soon) itself, but > Objective C’s objects pale in comparison to those of a Smalltalk-like > environment, where objects are always live and browsable" > > "So if a successor language is to emerge, it’s got to come from elsewhere." > > "It seems absurd that 30 years after the Mac we still build the same > applications the same ways. It seems absurd we still haven’t really caught up > to Smalltalk. It seems absurd beautiful graphical applications are created > solely and sorely in textual, coded languages. And it seems absurd to rely on > one vendor to do something about it." > > see > > http://nearthespeedoflight.com/article/2014_02_06_objective_c_is_a_bad_language_but_not_for_the_reasons_you_think_it_is__probably__unless_you___ve_programmed_with_it_for_a_while_in_which_case_you_probably_know_enough_to_judge_for_yourself_anyway__the_jason_brennan_rant >
