Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

> On 21 Nov 2019, at 08:32, David Chisnall <theraven@theravensnest.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 20 Nov 2019, at 20:11, Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Derek
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:44 PM Derek Fawcus 
>> <dfawcus+lists-gnustep-discuss@employees.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:52:36AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote:
>>>> Oh, and with ARC, all of the C++ implementations have correct memory 
>>>> management for Objective-C, for free.
>>> 
>>> While dropping support for GCC does not strike me as a problem,
>>> switching the core implementation to depend upon C++ may well do.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what to say to this other than LOL.  Given that C++ still 
>> doesn't have some of the dynamic features of even the original ObjC it seems 
>> quite impossible.  Also it contradicts the entire purpose of the 
>> framework...   moving on…
> 
> I think you are missing my point here.  C++ is a good language for low-level 
> abstractions, for abstract data types, and so on, with aggressive 
> compile-time specialisation and opportunities for optimisation at the low 
> level.  In contrast, Objective-C is a good language for providing stable 
> interfaces, for high levels of abstraction, and so on.

I strongly agree with this ... whie I detest C++ for general use, it is 
definitely great for extremely well defined low level stuff where you are never 
going to have to change/maintain the code because the requirements don't change.
I think it's dreadful for most higher level real-world projects where 
requirements change throughout the development process and beyond.
As far as I can see there's no reason it can't be used where clearly 
appropriate and banned everywhere else.