Re: Is C# really "better" than C++ or C++0x? How about objective-C?

A <a@a.a> wrote:


  Do you have any source references for this claim?

  As for Objective-C being "better" than C++, I cannot but fully disagree.
Basically the only thing that Objective-C offers that C++ doesn't is full
runtime introspection (which can be handy sometimes). Otherwise Objective-C
is very crippled compared to C++. For example, it doesn't have such
essential features such as RAII (no scope-based automatic lifetime of
objects, no automatic constructors, destructors and assignment, and so on)
or templates. It has also other more minor, but still pretty annoying,
limitations, such as no inner classes nor any other inner types (inner to
a class, that is), no protected or private methods, no multiple inheritance
(it follows the fad of having "interfaces", which in this case are called
"protocols", but they cannot have member variables nor method implementations),
you cannot hide "constructors" from the base class in a derived class
(because Objective-C has no constructors) which sometimes causes irritating
bugs (inadvertedly "construct" an object by calling the wrong constructor
in the base class which does not properly construct the derived object),
and so on.

  Naturally objects in Objective-C are not value-based like in C++, meaning
that every object has to be allocated dynamically (thus increasing time and
memory overhead), like is the fad in almost every other object-oriented
language (although I hear C# is better at this than most).

  I know nothing about C#, but from a feature point of view it doesn't
sound too bad. One of its major problems from an implementation point of
view is, however, that it heavily relies on an efficient optimizing (ie.
JIT-compiling) runtime environment if you want any efficiency. Not an
insurmountable problem by any means, though.