![]() |
I chose C++ mainly because it seems easiest to me. It'd also chose PHP, Perl, ASP, and a bunch of others if they were there.
|
Assembly... why not?
|
I'd choose PHP, but thats not a choice and i guess it might not be considered a "real language" I also like C++, although i have never gone very far beyond simple command line apps, or DLLs to use in VB. I hope to find time to begin learning vc++ soon. Don't laugh but i also like VB (although it is quite restrictive).
|
C++ is my favorite, but JavaScript is good too. C++ is my favorite language for programs, while JavaScript is my favorite for web pages.
|
Perl and C (not C++)
|
x86 assembly... really.
x86 assembly is an arcane language reserved for those who are seriously without judgement, and its very elegant. Programming in assembly is unmatched by programming in any other language. No object oriented stuff here. No typedef. No nonsense. Except BBW (Branch both ways). |
I like Basic and Java or what ever gets the job done
|
Objective-C
Obj-C is awesome. Originally from the NeXTStep days, and now the preferred language for programming with cocoa classes. It's similar to C++ in that its an object oriented superset of C, but it's so much more powerful. You will NEVER rewrite the same line of code twice. Elegant and straightforward, and completely meshes with C. All C code works in objC documents. It's just a natural extension.
|
Re: Objective-C
Quote:
Matt |
Obj-C and C++
Actually, I don't know of any backwards-compatibility problems with Objective-C.
There is the issue of loading standard UNIX libraries on Mac OS X, but that's not a problem involving Objective-C itself. All C functionality can be used in Objective-C code. There is a main() function that works just as you would expect. You can freely intermix C and Obj-C. Think of Objective-C objects as wrappers for functions and data. So, instead of: int foo; int setfoo(int value) { foo = value; } int readfoo() { return foo; } setfoo(23); printf("%d", readfoo() ); You would declare on Obj-C object: @interface myObject : NSObject { int foo; } - (int) readfoo; - (int) setfoo:(int)value; @end @implementation myObject - (int) readfoo { return foo; } - (int) setfoo:(int)value { foo = value; return foo; } @end ------------- The above code encapsulates the variable foo, and all functions to work on it, in an objective-C object. Now, to read the variable foo, and print it with printf, I can do the following: printf("%d",[myObject readfoo]); As you can see, it acts just like the C function that I wrote above, readfoo(). In this light, Objective-C is used to encapsulate all variables, and the operations on those variables in a single object. Furthermore, the @interface section can be placed in a header file, so all the developer has to do is find the object they want to use in that header file, and look up the methods they wish to call, and all the syntax therein. They don't need to know about how the object goes about its business. All they need to know is what the object returns, and what variables it expects on input. You do not have to declare all methods in the interface either. Also, it is OK to call a method that may not have been declared for an object. It is also possible to intermix Obj-C and C++, though you cannot use a C++ object as if it were an Obj-C object. I have not listed all of the advantages and points about Objective-C, please visit: http://developer.apple.com/documenta...al/ObjectiveC/ for more information on the Obj-C language. You may notice that Objective-C does basically the same thing as C++ using object encapsulation. I believe that it does it in a cleaner, more understandable manner. |
I think you must be right. I can't find any information online that says C and Objective C are incompatible. Now, I swear I read that in a book about 6 or 7 years ago (now don't I feel old?) but that most definitely doesn't make it true. It does add some funky syntax however (not that that is particularly a bad thing however; it just takes getting used to). I'd bet that the only reason Objective C has any form of popularity is because of Cocoa. Then again, no one would use Java without its class library.
Matt |
.
Well yeah, Cocoa bred new life into Objective-C. Good for Apple.
Mac OS X is pretty much what it is because of the combination of the Cocoa classes and Objective-C. Also, the 'funky' syntax is a matter of preference. I prefer [myObject doSomething]; to: (might not be correct syntax) myObject::doSomething(); The first one just looks cleaner to me. |
My favorite language is Pascal because it is so readable. However, I have not programmed much lately, so that may change as I get back into it. I would like to learn Objective C and Applescript for the Mac, C for the new controller, PHP, Python, Ruby, C++. Aaah......to be able to go back to school for a few years. (Of course I didn't feel that way when I was in school, because I didn't have things like FIRST to give me opportunities to use my knowledge, so I was bored with school. Also....we didn't have computers.)
|
I'd have to go with C++ becuase I've been using it for a long time. I also have been programming games in opengl recently with it as well so it seems like a good language all round, at least to me anyway.:D
|
OpenGL
I've also been using OpenGL in my programming.
At this point, I haven't been able to get full-screen working with the CocoaGL classes, so I'm using GLUT as my IO toolkit and Objective-C classes as a backbone for GL apps. I think part of it is some arcanity with my computer, since it's the oldest machine capable of running OS X; Laptop G3 Pismo. OpenGL was written as a cross-platform interface. I can use it on Macs, PCs and whatnot. Also, since it's written in C, it can be used in programs based on C, C++, Objective-C, Objective-C++, and any other C extensions or supersets. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:19. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi