It's not worth listening to anyone who dislikes Obj-C just because of the [] syntax, which doesn't matter after the first 48 hours.
http://twistedoakstudios.com/blog/Post8237_a-years-worth-of-...
Not true anymore; ObjC has generics with type erasure. (But not all the cases can be exported to Swift.)
> Instead, Objective-C has nil, which is like null except it won’t stop the program when you accidentally use it.
That's… not quite right… but I guess he has the visible effects down. Anyway, ObjC has nullability annotations now for this.
> For example, in Objective-C many objects have both a “core foundation” form and a “new style” “NeXTSTEP” form
This is not legacy baggage, it's an intentional C bridge.
> This is justified by conventions strongly favoring you not catching exceptions, and apparently the speed benefits are non-negligible, but it still blows my mind that Apple has their language default to incorrect behavior.
He shouldn't use ARC+exceptions, because Cocoa itself is not exception-safe. Just quit the app if you get one.
That's pretty much my thoughts these days. If you have only the most superficial understanding of these languages, then that's what you'll get caught up on, but that's like saying Java and JavaScript are similar because they both use curly braces and dot notation for their methods. Yea, that is true, but it's a superficial similarity.
https://infinum.co/the-capsized-eight/articles/android-devel...
another thing most people forget is that the entire programming community rejected obj-c as deficient in its very early days... it only persists thanks to the ego of former nextstep employees afaik. and now apple employees got lumped with it... which i'd suspect helped create the internal pressure for swift... so some good came at the end of it all. :)