Re: Intermediate Summary: Re: GNUstep.org website redesign proposal

[Ivan Vučica]

"Post-2007 features in language and language runtime"?

I'd however go with Objective-C 2.0. Apple may have stopped using the name, but it is still a good historical descriptor without a suitable replacement. It is also a good name to point out a difference from a much simpler language (and runtime) that existed prior to that point.

If it comes up in conversations (and it does, because it's much easier to write and pronounce), then we can and should use it. No need to follow Apple's lead here.

Besides, Apple's replacement in the context of the runtime is '64-bit runtime'. Not as applicable to us, I'm sure you'll agree, as we can easily build the libobjc2 runtime with varying 'amounts of bits'.

On Tue Jan 07 2014 at 9:23:31 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 7 Jan 2014, at 08:37, David Chisnall <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > On 7 Jan 2014, at 08:23, Sebastian Reitenbach <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >>  * better OBJC2 support, some more proper gs-make support
> >
> > A minor point, but Apple hasn't used the term 'Objective-C 2' for over five years.  Possibly because they were mocked for describing the version of Objective-C that came after Objective-C 4 as Objective-C 2...
>
> >
> > The main point that we want to be making today is that we support ARC.  We might want some bullet-point features, such as:
> >
> > - ARC
> > - Blocks
> > - Properties
> > - Braindead array and dictionary syntax with poorly thought out semantics added to appease Python programmers
> >
> > Or, more simply, all of the language features that are supported on OS X with the latest Apple tools.
>
> Good point ... I hadn't really considered the branding of the language/runtime.
>
> I agree that ARC is the killer feature.  The others are, IMO relatively minor refinements not suitable to be the headline feature, or braindead/bloat in some way (even though they have possible good applications).
>
> However, I'm not sure that we can use the term ARC as a big selling point, simply because I'm not sure people will understand how good a feature it is.
> How can we brand the latest objc language/runtime so that it both sounds impressive without being either too technical (arc) or too vague (modern)?
>
> On the other hand, maybe calling it ObjectiveC-ARC is OK if OSX developers all understand it?
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev