Re: Cross-Platform Windows plus Mac

In comp.sys.mac.programmer.help Ben Artin <macdev@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> What I am trying to say is that by its nature Obj-C++ must suck as much
as C++ 
> does, but it doesn't have to add suck of its own. Effectively
prohibiting use of 
> exceptions in C++ APIs called by Obj-C is one case in which I think
Obj-C++ 
> added suck on top of the suck of C++ (and I was glad to see that's fixed
in the 
> 64-bit runtime).

There's kind of two ways to look at that, though. There's the broader 
question of whether ObjC and C++ can be theoretically integrated that way,

and obviously the answer is yes, given the changes for 64-bit. But then 
there's the more specific question involving the actual 32-bit ObjC that 
Apple had to work with at the time, and for that one the answer was that 
this dis-integration is in fact inherent to that particular environment.

> Programming in C++ is already like being in a straightjacket. In some
cases, 
> Obj-C++ also ties your shoelaces together.

Or sneaks into your house while you're away, hides in your closet and then

jumps out and strangles you in your bed at night. I'd say it's the easiest

language to provoke that I've used personally.

>> Of course a major consequence of this would be to suddenly make C++
*slower* 
>> than the others, due to all the extra indirection. That might be enough
to 
>> qualify as "suck", but I'm not sure.
> 
> Well, it would to C++ weenies. It cracks me up every time I see a
discussion of 
> C++ libraries that goes along the lines of
> 
> "We should have a C++ Unicode string class"
> "Yeah, but what encoding would it use?"
> "Store the encoding in a private member, and convert to other encodings
if 
> needed"
> "That would be too slow"
> "Never mind then."

C++ is a great example of why you should avoid premature optimization. For

whatever reason, the design of the language seems to encourage that sort 
of thinking.

-- 
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software