|
Nope, they're two totally separate languages. The C language was their common forerunner. Objective-C is older than C++, but the horsepower to really use Objective-C effectively has emerged only in recent years.
In many ways it's cleaner than C++, even though it's just some object-oriented features grafted on C with very peculiar syntax, but it's now a failed language that nobody uses.
Objective-C is hardly a failed language. It is growing in popularity, on Macs and on Gnustep for Linux. When used with a good framework, Objective-C gets the job done with fewer programmers compared to C++. Objective-C is easier to use, and it's a more powerful language for true object-oriented programming.
A couple of other points the author fails to mention - Mac programmers can also use plain old C++ with the Carbon library. And another language - Objective-C++ - combines the two languages. So it's difficult to understand why the author is complaining.
It's all in the XCode development tools, included in every copy of Mac OS X.
I also have serious problems with Apple's proprietary graphics engine. They should have used X11.
Generally, noone wants to run X11 on the Mac - but it's there if needed. Apple's Quartz technology produces far better results for native Mac apps.
If Apple would reconsider its view of networking, MacOS and Linux could happily coexist.
They co-exist together just fine - Mac on the desktop, and Linux on the server. There is no reason for Apple to reconsider its view of networking.
"don't see Apple making big inroads into the server market"
Huh?
I would put OSX as the best I think what hold its back in the server arena is only time. In time when it establishes itself and in that time they need to make up their mind go after Solaris and IBM targets or try to hit Linux..
Now we establish that the guy doesn't know squat about HCI. The single menu is the best for usability.
It tries to sell you an iPod and a iTunes shop membership more than I'd like
Go into the preferences and turn off the store stuff.
I also don't write programs for MacOS because I don't want to write in a quasi-proprietary language (Objective C, see below)
Tried Java?
Microkernels were all the rage fifteen years ago, but the idea totally crashed and burned because performance and resource usage was pitiful. All implementations failed, and today it's deeply buried and forgotten.
Meanwhile Minix just hit version 3, and is probably the most robust non-mainframe OS available. He should remember Minix -- his beloved Linux is based on it.
Unix and Linux prove that you can build a modern GUI on top of X11, including 3D effects and hardware acceleration, and gain complete network transparency without compromising the user experience.
Those UIs are a far cry from Quartz. Yippie, they're accelerated, but not to the extent of Quartz, nor do they use a full compositing engine.
However, he is right that Apple needs to work out their kernel innards. You'd think they'd have it right by 10.4.
Interesting arguments even if some of them are a bit wrong. Some of his criticisms about the GUI are legit; I've had similar ones since switching from Linux to OS X in 2001.
I'm not an operating system guru, so I cannot comment on the merits of why Apple chose Mach or why they decided to use a BSD instead of Linux. I just asks that it works, and for 99% of the time it does.
Still, if I had a choice, I'm always going to choose OS X over Linux for my home desktop. I still stand by to mantra, "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing."
