Objective-C doesn't support methods overloading.
Why?
Is it doable but Apple decided not implement it? or it is not doable due the dynamic nature of Objective-C?
I have the impression that method overloading can be done on compiled languages (Java, C#) and can't be done on interpreted languages (Ruby, Python).
Holds some true?
The distinction that's relevant here is not between compiled and interpreted languages, but between statically typed (Java, C#) and dynamically typed (Ruby, Python, Objective-C). In a dynamically typed language, type information is very often not known until runtime. At runtime, all objects are statically typed as id in Objective-C.
Additionally, a core idea in dynamically typed OO languages is that you should not care what type an object is as long as it responds to the messages you want to send. So overloading based on type would fly right in the face of that.
Related
From the definition of strongly-typed language:
A strongly-typed programming language is one in which each type of
data (such as integer, character, hexadecimal, packed decimal, and so
forth) is predefined as part of the programming language and all
constants or variables defined for a given program must be described
with one of the data types (source)
From kotlin documentation, I can understand that kotlin is a statically typed language because the type of the variable is known at compile time, but what about strongly or weakly typed? I can't find any clear response googling. As far as I understood Kotlin should be equally strongly typed as Java because it compiles down to Java byte code, but I'm not 100% sure. Please help me to understand if I'm on the right way.
Weakly-typed languages feature implicit conversions between incompatible types while strongly-typed languages disallow it.
Kotlin doesn't feature implicit conversions between types - which makes it strongly statically typed.
Java is considered an OOP language, despite it not quite being purely OOP. Java contains 8 primitives, and in an interview, James Gosling explains why:
Bill Venners: Why are there primitive types in Java? Why wasn't
everything just an object?
James Gosling: Totally an efficiency thing. There are all kinds of
people who have built systems where ints and that are all objects.
There are a variety of ways to do that, and all of them have some
pretty serious problems. Some of them are just slow, because they
allocate memory for everything. Some of them try to do objects where
sometimes they are objects, sometimes they are not (which is what the
standard LISP system did), and then things get really weird. It kind
of works, but it's strange.
So it seems that both memory and speed are issues that Java's primitives solve. However, this got me wondering how can a language be true, pure object-oriented?
If only a byte primitive existed, you could build from there. Creating integers, chars and eventually floats and doubles. But without any base structure at all, how could you build anything? Isn't at least some base primitive necessary? In other words, isn't a base data-structure needed in to expand from?
If you're asking if there are languages that have no way to interact with primitive types, then you might want to look at something like Scala. From that page:
Scala is a pure object-oriented language in the sense that every value is an object.
However, as you point out (for Kotlin):
the compiler maps them to JVM primitives when at all possible to save memory
If your definition of what object-oriented languages can be requires that everything is always represented as an object, then a purely object-oriented language is impossible. You can't build a language that runs on a real computer that only has objects. This is because the computer must have a way to represent the data natively. This is essentially what primitives in object-oriented languages are: The native forms of data that the underlying computer (or VM) can represent. No matter what you do, you will always need to have some non-object representation of data in order for the computer to do operations with it. Even if you built a JavaScript interpreter that really represented primitives as objects, in order to add two integers, the interpreter would have to have load the integers into CPU registers and use some form of an add instruction.
But that explanation sort of misses the point of object-oriented programming. A programming language is not the same as a program. Languages are just a tool for us to make computers do what we want - they don't actually exist at runtime. You would probably say that a program written in Kotlin or Scala is more object-oriented than a program written in C, despite both languages compiling to the same assembly instructions at runtime.
So, if you relax your definition of pure object-oriented programming to no longer be concerned with what the runtime representation of data is, then you'll find that purely object-oriented languages are possible. When programming Scala, you never interact with anything that's not an object. Even if your Int becomes a 'primitive' at runtime, it doesn't really matter, because you, as the programmer, never really have to think about that (at least, in an ideal world where performance and memory never matter). The language definition of Scala doesn't include the concept of primitives at all - they are part of the implementation of the language, not the language itself.
As far your example of Java goes, Java probably isn't a purely object-oriented language by most definitions. It is, however, mostly object-oriented. Java is often mentioned as the de facto object oriented language because it was much more object oriented than what came before it.
Even further, the term object-oriented doesn't really have a definitive meaning. To some people it might mean that everything has to be an object, and to others it might just mean that there need to be objects, some definitions require the concept of classes, some don't, etc.
In DCI discussions, there is a usually mention of pure object oriented languages:
Object-oriented programming languages—particularly the "pure"
ones—expressed everything in terms of objects or methods on objects.
(Of course, most programming languages used classes to do this.
The point is that nothing was supposed to exist outside of an object framework.)
Source: http://www.artima.com/articles/dci_vision.html
I'm trying to understand the difference between a pure OO language and a non-pure one in terms of DCI. To help put the differences into context, it would be good to have an example of a pure OO language so that I can contrast it with my experience with class based language such as java.
Question: What languages are pure OO languages (from the perspective of DCI)?
A non-pure OO language in this context is a language were not everything is objects. Java for example have "primitive" types, which behave differently than objects. For example, Java's primitive types are passed by value, while Java passes references when it passes it's objects.
In contrast, Python treats everything as objects, and although it has built-in types, it has no primitive types, everything is objects.
I think you misunderstand the reference to classes. I don't think they say that a pure OO language does not have classes.
I have some maybe stupid question. What is the difference between C++ and objectice-c. Is there IDE for objective-c for linux ?
I'm going to expand a bit on DaVinci's point 1.
First the similarities:
Objective-C and C++ were both originally based on C. Both languages support an object oriented model. That's where the similarities end.
Objective-C is a strict superset of C, C++ is not. Any C program is also an Objective-C program. This is not necessarily the case with C++.
The syntax of Objective-C's OO extensions is closer to the syntax of Smalltalk than that of C whereas the reverse is the case with C++.
The philosophies behind the OO models is completely different too. Objective-C's model is dynamic in the spirit of Smalltalk. C++'s model is more static. With Objective-C, you send messages to objects and the object decides at run time how it is going to respond to the message. With C++ the methods that an object responds to - even the virtual ones - are defined at compile time. This makes Objective-C's object model immensely more powerful than C++'s object model. For instance, you can add whole sets of new methods to existing classes without using inheritance. You can even replace method implementations on the fly.
This all comes at a cost of course. Sending messages to Objective-C objects is quite a bit slower than calling C++ virtual functions. However, I think the benefits are worth the cost and you can always drop back to C for performance critical sections of code.
NB there is also a language called Objective-C++ which is the Objective-C OO extensions built on top of C++ instead of C.
they are simply two quite different languages.
I think gnustep is the only objective-C environment/library, it also has a IDE: project center, however Objective-Cs home is primarily on Apple products.
I've only recently come to really grasp the difference between static and dynamic typing, by starting off with C++, and moving into Python and JavaScript. What I don't understand is how a dynamically-typed language (e.g. Python) can be implemented on top of a statically-typed language (e.g. C). I seem to remember reading something about void pointers once, but I didn't really get it.
Every variable in the d-t language is represented as a struct { type, value }, where a value is union/another struct/pointer etc.
In C++ you can get similar ("similar") result if you, for example, create a base abstract class MyVariable and derived MyInt, MyString etc. You can, with some more work, use these vars like in dynamically typed language. (I don't know C++ very well, but I think you'll need to use friend operators functions to change a type of variables in runtime, or maybe not, whatever)
This result is archieved by the same thing, runtime type information, which strores info of actual type in the object
I won't recommend it, though :)
Basically, each "variable" of your dynamically typed language is represented by a structure in the statically typed language, which the data type being one of the fields. The operations on these dynamic data types (add, subtract, compare) are usually implemented by a virtual method table, which is for each data type a number of pointers to functions that implement the desired functionality in a type-specific way.
It's not. The dynamically typed language is implemented on top of a CPU architecture. As long as the CPU architecture is Turing complete, you can implement a static language on it, or a dynamic language, or something hybrid like the CLR/DLR of .NET. The important thing is that the Turing completeness of the CPU architecture is what enables or disables things, not the static nature of a programming language like C or C++.
In general, programming languages maintain Turing completeness, and therefore you can implement anything in any programming language. Of course some things are easier if the underlying tools support it, so it is not easy to implement an application that relies on a dynamic underpinning, in C or C++. That's why people put the effort into making a dynamic system that is programmable, like Python, so that you can implement the dynamic system once and suffer going through that extra effort only one time, then reuse it from the dynamic language layer.