On Jun 8, 2008, at 3:43 AM, Michael Ash wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Peter Duniho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, when you write "true proxying of method invocations", what does
that
mean, exactly?
Distributed Objects is probably the best example in terms of
real-world use of a t
Le 8 juin 08 à 12:43, Michael Ash a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Peter Duniho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, when you write "true proxying of method invocations", what does
that
mean, exactly?
Distributed Objects is probably the best example in terms of
real-world use of a techn
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Peter Duniho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, when you write "true proxying of method invocations", what does that
> mean, exactly?
Distributed Objects is probably the best example in terms of
real-world use of a technique which is difficult in stricter
languages. C
On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
As I pointed out in my other replies, implementing something like
NSUndoManager is trivial in C#. It would only be slightly more so
in Java, and only because of the above. There's really no
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:16:13 -0700
From: Bill Bumgarner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jun 7, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
As I pointed out in my other replies, implementing something like
NSUndoManager is trivial in C#. It would only be slightly more so
in Java, and only because of the abo
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Ken Ferry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Denis Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, any object oriented language that
>>> has the ability to inline methods such that t
On Jun 7, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Peter Duniho wrote:
As I pointed out in my other replies, implementing something like
NSUndoManager is trivial in C#. It would only be slightly more so
in Java, and only because of the above. There's really no need to
rehash the discussion; just look at the prev
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:43:26 -0700
From: Bill Bumgarner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Java and Objective-C
[...]
More subtly, consider what would happen if an accessor method were
inlined by the JIT or compiler. Such an action would effectively
make it impossible to do KVO agains
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:08:46 -0700
From: Bill Bumgarner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Denis Bohm wrote:
That is handled by the Java example above (via the "Object...
args"). A method with any number of arguments can be passed to
registerUndoWithTarget. So you could do some
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:38:14 -0700
From: Bill Bumgarner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This comes up time and time again -- Why did Apple choose Objective-C
vs. Language X?
That is off topic for cocoa-dev and, thus, not a useful direction for
taking this particular conversation.
I agree. In spite of
Implementation wise (and this is not to be relied on), when you begin
observing an object, the object's class is dynamically subclassed, and
the property accessors are overridden. The overrides call the
original implementation and also do the notification of interested
parties. The original obje
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Denis Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
>
>> Actually, any object oriented language that
>> has the ability to inline methods such that they cannot be "out of lined"
>> again at runtime cannot support the dynamism
Java does not have an equivalent of categories, which is what I think
you are using below. So that is certainly different.
In Java, you can load classes on the fly that derive from other
classes and override methods. I'm not aware of any issues with the
JIT improperly inlining methods in
On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Denis Bohm wrote:
I don't think the same level of dynamism could be added to any
other language without changing the nature of the language. For
Java, adding such degrees of dynamism would change the fundamental
nature of the virtual machines and JIT compilers i
On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Denis Bohm wrote:
That is handled by the Java example above (via the "Object...
args"). A method with any number of arguments can be passed to
registerUndoWithTarget. So you could do something like:
undoManag
On Jun 7, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:49 PM, WT wrote:
But here's the flip-side of your question, which clarifies what I
had been saying in previous messages: what features of
NSUndoManager require Cocoa's native language to be based on C? I'm
not familia
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Denis Bohm wrote:
That is handled by the Java example above (via the "Object...
args"). A method with any number of arguments can be passed to
registerUndoWithTarget. So you could do something like:
undoManager.registerUndoWithTarget(this, "setFrame", true,
sp
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:49 PM, WT wrote:
Actually, I think that discussing the details of how to implement X
in Java is also off-topic for this list. Nevertheless, I will point
out that Java has a whole package for managing undos
(javax.swing.undo).
Having taught Objective-C and Cocoa (and pr
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:49 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
Thank you -- this is the kind of side by side, purely code oriented,
set of comparisons that I think are both largely missing and
generally quite useful.
Comments inline.
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Denis Bohm wrote:
The Objective-C exam
Bill Bumgarner said:
This comes up time and time again -- Why did Apple choose Objective-
C vs. Language X?
That is off topic for cocoa-dev and, thus, not a useful direction
for taking this particular conversation.
Point taken. I apologize for feeding this particular topic.
I believe, how
Thank you -- this is the kind of side by side, purely code oriented,
set of comparisons that I think are both largely missing and generally
quite useful.
Comments inline.
On Jun 7, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Denis Bohm wrote:
The Objective-C example on that page is:
- (void)setGridVisible:(NSNumber
On Jun 7, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
On Jun 7, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Jose Raul Capablanca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
With the exception of the id and SEL types,
categories, and the fact that you can send messages
22 matches
Mail list logo
