On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM, IainS <develo...@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk> > wrote: >> No Asbestos required - but .. I do have some observations.. >> >> I write pretty much all my serious (day-job) code in ObjC and.. >> ... I have stated that it's an intention to make *that*, at least work at >> V2 on FSF. >> >> Having said that: >> >> a) I have not anything like as much attachment to ObjC++ ... >> b) We are all limited in the amount of time we can allocate to FSF .. > > Right. I am not suggesting ObjC should go away at all. It clearly has > users and it's pretty much isolated. It mixes with the C front end, of > course, but that is not a problem. With ObjC++, you have a front end > trying to unify the C, ObjC, and C++ front ends with itself. That's > not even comparable. > > Besides, the ObjC language makes sense, whereas Obj-C++ combines the > worst of ObjC with the worst of C++ (or so I'm told by people who > should know what they're talking about ;-)
I thought Obj-C++ was most about ObjC - C++ interoperability because all the OS-X UI runtime is written in ObjC which makes it hard to write a pure C++ GUI application. Aside from all the rest as one of the four RMs I am ok with removing the Obj-C++ FE based on the broken promises by Apple (and also based on my own experience breaking it more than once and having to spend time fixing it - very bad experience with both the work on gimplification unit-at-a-time and with the LTO required cleanup of EH support). As for an ack or a nack you should seek C and C++ FE maintainers opinion (not so that of the crowd). Note that if ever the state of ObjC is improved and somebody wants to work on Obj-C++ again the FE can be resurrected easily - but there is no reason for it to stay around broken as it is (which it now does since 4.3). Richard.
