Re: Lack of extension
Posted: Mar 2, 2007 8:30 AM
> > I'm not suggesting that we all program in Lisp, but the
> > Lisp inspired languages like Smalltalk, Ruby etc do
> > to point the way forward. Static typing is the last
> > argument for languages like Java and C#. But this can
> > added to Smalltalk/Ruby/Python etc without affecting
> > dynamic runtime nature.
> Actually, I think Objective C offers a better solution --
> static typing with dynamic binding. Essentially Obj C
> allows you to type an object reference as (void *), in
> which case the compiler doesn't attempt to resolve any
> method references for that object. All method invocations
> are resolved dynamically, even for statically typed object
> references. That opens the door to additional flexibility,
> such as adding methods to an existing class at compile
> time, as discussed earlier in this thread.
> Various optimizations (such as caching method selectors)
> can be done to reduce a lot of the overhead of dynamic
> lookups. NeXT claimed to have reduced it below 15%, which
> seems a reasonable price to pay for the added flexibility.
> (Plus, in performance critical sections of code, you could
> always get a pointer to the actual method implementation
> and invoke it directly.)
Objective C is a move in the right direction. Mac OS X Cocoa GUI is built using it and the Mac GUI is definately sexy! The big vendors chose to back C++ instead of Objective C and the rest is history.
Personally, my take is that Objective C was a good compromise back in the day when 64M was a lot of memory on a PC. As I understand it, it is not VM based (so no mobile code) and it lacks Garbage collection.
With the machines of today why not go one better, like Smalltalk? :^)