Apple Obj-C beat C# 4 by 20 years | Tech Off

ido.ran

Does anyone else notice that C# 4.0 dynamic was here 20 years ago in form of NSObject forwardInvocation:(NSInvocation *)

Or is it just me?

figuerres
???

well really I will say that

Nothing new has been invented in the last 20 years when it comes to programming.

REALLY!

go look back at what has been done for years in SmallTalk and Lisp for example.

C++ is in many ways C with some cool macros, the first gen of C++ compilers where not much more than a pre-processor that wrote C code from C++ code.

multi-core is just multi-cpu refined so that building the parts is less costly and runs better.
parralel processing has been a known problem for years, we are just now gewtting to a point where we need a general solution for low cost systems... but super computers have been there for a while.

OOP is 20 years old -- actualy more like 30 years old.

and Jobs used Mach to make the Next Cube OS when then got some bits ported to Mac OS in making OS X
but Mach pre-dates the Mac OS.

the list goes on and on....

Heck I saw Commodore 64's that ran dynamic programs... code was patched into memory from disk on-the-fly by smart coders back then... it was BASIC but the methods were far from basic Smiley

ido.ran

In reply to figuerres

#Dec 3rd, 2008 @ 3:16 PM

You are right. Things have not change much in the last 20 years.

I've been working with MacBook for only the past 1 and half years, before that I only know Microsoft programming.

After learning some Objective-C programming I realized that most of the ideas Microsoft present as their are actually been around for long time.

C# 4 dynamic directive is nothing more than forwardInvocation.

The different I see is that Objective-C has it built into the language, not as a patch added in version 4.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 3rd, 2008 @ 3:33 PM

What do you mean "patch"?

I don't remember ever hearing Anders Heisberg ever claiming the language ideas were invented by him, nor MS.

ido.ran

In reply to Minh

#Dec 3rd, 2008 @ 6:09 PM

Maybe patch was not the best word.
What I mean is that it's a "feature" added to the language, not so natural from the begining.
Obj-C is the only language I know which took "sending messages" metaphore and put it into action.

As of not claiming the language ideas were invented by MS, sometime is does look like they think they invent the wheel. I think MS is doing great job on some products (like WCF and WPF, not so much WF) but they do tend to act as if they are the first one on the plant to think about the idea.

I just happen to learn Obj-C on my free time and when I saw the "unhandled message method" exists in the core of the language it just strike me that it has been there for so long and MS only got to it now.

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 3rd, 2008 @ 11:19 PM

Obj-C is not the only language which put "sending messages" into action: it "borrowed" that metaphore from Smalltalk. Smalltalk goes much further: all its control structures (if-then-else, while-loop, ...) and operators (+, -, *, ...) are not built into the language, but are implemented as messages. For example: if-then-else is a message on the Boolean-class:(a < b) ifTrue: [ ... ] ifFalse: [ ... ]

ido.ran

In reply to TommyCarlier

#Dec 3rd, 2008 @ 11:29 PM

You right, I didn't write it well: ObjC is the only language I know which "send messages" and is in use for real-world applications.
SmallTalk, as little as I know about it, never left the class room much.

Ido.

AndyC

Late binding has been around for almost as long as programming, you'd be hard pushed to attribute it to SmallTalk let alone Objective C.

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 3rd, 2008 @ 11:32 PM

Uhm, Smalltalk is used in real-world applications. The first WIMP-based GUI was written in Smalltalk. There are multiple commercial and non-commercial implementations of Smalltalk (Squeak, GNU Smalltalk, Dolphin, VisualWorks, ...) and a whole community of Smalltalk-developers. Maybe you should look further into it, if you're interested.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

It's been around for longer than that. Besides which, the point of the C# dynamic keyword isn't to introduce the world to the benefits of the dynamic keyword - it's to allow programmers who use dynamic-style programming to use C#.

C# isn't about inventing new programming paradgms - new programming paradgms should never be introduced into a commercial in-use language - they should be integrated only once they are known to be good.

In this case, I'm not sure that the dynamic keyword is all the great idea that its made out to be (it means that lots of program-errors can't be determined until runtime, which is a bit rubbish and reduces the overall code stability of the sourcebase).

spivonious

In reply to AndyC

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 2:55 AM

I remember learning that C# didn't have late binding and was surprised, as almost every language I had used to that point had some form of it.

figuerres
???

In reply to evildictaitor

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 4:57 AM

evil: like any power tool; Use with caution!
that's been true with C and pointers, with recusion and lot's of stuff...
some folks take new stuff and try to do everything with the new toy.. and then find out they messed up.

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

In reply to figuerres

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 7:30 AM

I honestly don't see me using any dynamic stuff, and cannot see the use of it in business application development. Not the stuff I do anyway.

Any developers (smart client) that can see a use for this?

spivonious

In reply to vesuvius

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 8:03 AM

We use it with everything we write (VB6).

Instead of separate stand-alone apps, we have one MDI app that loads forms with ActiveX controls on them. So instead of recompiling the MDI app everytime something gets released, we just add an item to a menu (which is dynamically loaded) and then have the menu item open a form with the new ActiveX control on it.

Without late binding, we'd have to put a reference to every new piece we write.

TommyCarlier
I want my scalps!

In reply to vesuvius

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 8:03 AM

I suspect you've never tried to write an Office add-in using VSTO?

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

In reply to TommyCarlier

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 9:14 AM

Not yet unfortunately, though I'm sure if dynamic makes it easy, my nonchalance will evaporate. I do know Anders demo'd an interop thing, where the code gode seriously unwieldy, I presume this is the spivinious scenario.

vesuvius
Das Glasperlenspiel

This thead title reminds me of a saying about "nothing ever being new - at least the idea of it". Anyone know where that came from, I can't put the right query into Google?

ido.ran

In reply to vesuvius

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 9:51 AM

I don't think that nothing is ever new, it just not that common.

Most of the "new" things are "old" things presented differently.

Back to the issue, loading forms, dlls, modules, bundle or anyway you will like to call it is not what dynamic is about (current me if I'm wrong).

dynamic is about been able to "interpret" inside your object what a method call should mean.

Another thing is that I like new stuff, like to play with them and use them.

The problem with Microsoft is that they introduce new things, but break compatibility with exists things.

The start with Windows API, which is the only thing that stay till today.

Then they had MFC, which some say still exists, but it is pretty dead.

Then VB6 which break when they move to VB.NET.

.NET Framework 1 is not compatible with .NET Framework 2.

.NET Framework 3 is not even a framework, I like WinFX much better.

They are not adding, they changing and breaking exists code.

That's the real problem.

spivonious

In reply to vesuvius

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 9:48 AM

On the contrary, our code isn't unwieldy at all. If one piece needs to be updated, we update that piece and the MDI app automatically uses it.

figuerres
???

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 12:19 PM

I think you have some errors in that history...

MFC and VB ran "paralell" not one then the other.

and .net versions are such that old apps can run on the new framework version not the other way around.
(at least the way you wrote it... it reads like you want the other with a V3 app running on the v1 framework)

not sure what you mean about breaking code, win xp could run around 99% of apps that ran on win 95 to 2000 pro.
vista can run 99% of what ran on 2000 pro and xp.

points when old code does not work are like win 3.1 code is not working on vista.

sometimes that has to happen to move foreward.

perhaps you mean some thing else??

Yggdrasil
Pour me a cab, 'cause I can't drink no more.

In reply to vesuvius

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 8:03 AM

"That which has been is what will be,
      That which is done is what will be done,
      And there is nothing new under the sun. "

                Ecclesiastes 1:9