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: âSquare 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 <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
some quotes:
"Borrowed largely (or shamelessly copied) from Smalltalkâs message sending syntax ..."
"Categories or through runtime functions (more on those soon) itself, but Objective Câs 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, itâs 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 havenât 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_langu...