Found typo, in first Paragraph of “Objective-C without the C” section: “It dose not require a VM.”
Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
31–40 of 130 posts
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might try reading further, because the claim is actually well-supported. Just because we call something "general purpose" doesn't mean it actually is.
I read the rest of the About page and didn't see anything supporting this claim. What makes Objective-S more general than other languages? If it's the four architecture "styles" listed, I'm pretty sure other languages can do the same: * OO and Call/Return: Supported by every OO language. * Pipes and Filters: Supported by every functional programming language. * REST: Supported by many modern languages. (Go springs to…
You picked a different tool for each of the different entry, while the author is arguing their programming language is general purpose, because it allow to do each entry you listed, in a single language.
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#33How much of this is tied to Apple frameworks? I noticed that the Linux support requires GNUStep, so I'm assuming quite a bit? The impression I'm getting is that this requires a non-trivial, Apple-flavored runtime to be useful. GNUStep apps are pretty awful experiences today due to being based on outdated Nextstep UI concepts that do no adapt well to anything other than MacOS.
Is this meant to be used for creating GUI apps? Because if it is, relying on the ancient GNUStep for multiplatform support seems suspect. And if it's primarily intended for Mac/iOS development, then why should someone use this over Objective-C/Swift?
(btw no hate for GNUStep here, I've played with it in the past and think it's awesome, just not very relevant nowadays)
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#34Tip for making a programming language website: put some example code on the front page.
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#35There are numerous typos. When I saw what I'm pretty sure is on in a code example I gave up.
a := flag ifTrue: { 2. } ifFalse:{ 3 }.
^ ?
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#36Tip for making a programming language website: put some example code on the front page.
Tip for critiquing the front page of a programming language website: make sure you're actually looking at the front page.
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#37Tip for making a programming language website: put some example code on the front page.
[deleted]
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#38Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the rest of the About page and didn't see anything supporting this claim. What makes Objective-S more general than other languages? If it's the four architecture "styles" listed, I'm pretty sure other languages can do the same: * OO and Call/Return: Supported by every OO language. * Pipes and Filters: Supported by every functional programming language. * REST: Supported by many modern languages. (Go springs to…
You picked a different tool for each of the different entry, while the author is arguing their programming language is general purpose, because it allow to do each entry you listed, in a single language.
Right. A different _tool_ because they described paradigms aren’t language paradigms- they’re patterns or frameworks expressed more easily but also more commonly in some languages than others because of completely unrelated historical accidents.
We have different languages because we do different things with them, and any Turing complete language can achieve any desired program. So what we’re left with is a misunderstanding about what is the “language”, “runtime”, and … “pattern?”
There is no useful definition of “general purpose language” except to disqualify languages that are not general purpose. That’s a fine distinction to make when describing how SQL will never replace JavaScript, Java, or C- but a useless distinction when describing the characteristics of your new language that is also Turing complete.
In particular item 4 “Implicit Invocation / Event Broadcast” is one of those things that hides an enormous amount of implementation complexity that arguably shouldn’t be made magical. Like async / await or go channels, the details make all the difference and there’s not a one size fits all approach that you can take without creating serious problems for other cases. It has to be an opinionated and therefore (sometimes/often) approach depending on what you’re attempting to accomplish.
Re: Objective-S: architecture-oriented language based on Smalltalk and Objective-C
#40> By allowing general architectures, Objective-S is the first general purpose programming language. Really? I stopped reading at this spot, since this claim is so ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_programming_la...
Unfortunately OP submitted the About page rather than the home page. From https://objective.st:
> Objective-S is possibly the first general purpose programming language. It makes creating well-architected and efficient programs not only straightforward, but easy, fun and fast.
> Yes, this sounds insane, programming languages we call "general purpose" number in at least the hundreds, starting with C, Java, Smalltalk, Ruby, Python etc.
> However, these are actually DSLs for the domain of algorithms, and this architectural mismatch, the fact that we have to use algorithm DSLs for tasks that are not primarily algorithmic in nature lies at the heart of much of the pain we have in software development today.