SFML community forums
General => SFML projects => Topic started by: shamanas on December 28, 2010, 01:59:28 am
-
Hello everybody :)
I just finished writing some ooc bindings for sfml2, so I thought I'd come and post a link for my github repo. But first, I am sure that very few of you have heard of ooc. Ooc ( which originally meant object orientated c but has been renamed to out of class ), is an awesome language with cool syntax ( I know it's subjective but anyways, how can you not like pure awesomeness ? :P ). It is translated to C, which makes it very practical as writing bindings for C libraries is extremely easy. As you may have guessed by that last sequence, ooc-sfml is actually a binding for csfml and not for sfml itself. However, the fact that ooc is an object orientated langugage makes the usage of ooc-sfml closer to sfml than to csfml.
Links
------
ooc-sfml: http://www.github.com/shamanas/ooc-sfml
Ooc website: http://www.ooc-lang.org
Please let me know about any bugs/comments and post your feedback here
-
First I thought it was Apple's Objective-C but OOC's syntax actually looks a bit cleaner and more C-like. I'll have to have a look at it later. Does it also try to follow smalltalks way of object oriented programming? You know with messaging and so on?
-
Well I never programmed in smalltalk, but i just googled it for 2 seconds. Messages look like another way of calling member functions (or are there other differences?). I honestly do not know exactly where the ooc syntax/grammar was inspired from, although i do know that ooc's creator talks alot with the creator of io (http://www.iolanguage.org) and that these two langiuages are similar in many ways (decl-assign operator, object member syntax [no dots])
P.s: ooc's syntax is alot cleaner than objective-c's
-
Messages look like another way of calling member functions (or are there other differences?).
The main difference that I've understood by practicing Obj-C is that messages can be sent to anyone – even if they don't understand them – unlike methods. But I'm not sure about that – and Apple often use methods and messages for the same thing so...
ooc's syntax is alot cleaner than objective-c's
cleaner maybe, but not «a lot cleaner» – it's a quite different from what I've seen very quickly. In fact I looks more like Scala (in the Java way) than Obj-C to me.
-
Messages look like another way of calling member functions (or are there other differences?).
The main difference that I've understood by practicing Obj-C is that messages can be sent to anyone – even if they don't understand them – unlike methods. But I'm not sure about that – and Apple often use methods and messages for the same thing so...
So you mean you can just do someObject someMessage, even if the object has no message named someMessage? I don't quite get how this is helpful.
ooc's syntax is alot cleaner than objective-c's
cleaner maybe, but not «a lot cleaner» – it's a quite different from what I've seen very quickly. In fact I looks more like Scala (in the Java way) than Obj-C to me.
Yep it is true that Objective-C and ooc don't have very much in common. However, every time i've seen Obj-C code, i turned my head and closed my eyes in horror.
I mean, how can you say that
o := MyObject new(myString)
is not alot cleaner than
MyObject *o = [[MyObject alloc] initWithString: myString];
However, they share some common aspects, like the way you can do foreach'es (yep, I know it is done in many other languages this way too)
for(cat in cats) {
...
}
Also ooc supports function suffixes, wich are, i believe, an obj-c feature (not sure about this). For example you can do taht in ooc:
MyClass : class {
init : func ~withString (str : String) { // Do something ... }
init : func ~withInt (num : Int) { // Do something ... }
}
Of course, when calling the funcion, you dont have to write the ~ part, wich is only here to help debugging and read the code. Always in this example, you could then do
obj1 := MyClass new("foo")
obj2 := MyClass new(42)
Note: new is actually not a keyword, but a static function wich is added by default to your class (it can be overwritten of course) and that calls init
-
The main thing with messaging in this kind of way is that you get a language with support for duck-typing, you decide the type of the class at runtime by what methods it support(It sounds like a duck, it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck, it must be a duck). More or less, the type is not what we are interested in but only what method it supports. We do not need to specify a type for variables, arguments and so on. Also mostly why it was used in all the Smalltalk children languages is because you can create a object who will forward the message to another object if itself do not understand the one it received. There's a lot of other neat tricks that I currently don't remember.
Ruby also uses it deep down in the core :P
I'm wondering, is OOC compiled or interpret?
-
So you mean you can just do someObject someMessage, even if the object has no message named someMessage? I don't quite get how this is helpful.
In OOC it wouldn't be usefull I think, as it's a static language (I mean, you can't add methods afterward to a class, can you ? ). And in Obj-C you'll get a crash if you send a message to an object which doesn't respond to it. At this point you may think : «what on Earth does the Obj-C designers thought when they add such feature?». Well, it's kind of tricky :
In obj-c you can add stuff to a class at runtime with «categories» for example (some doc (http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Articles/ocCategories.html)).
Yep it is true that Objective-C and ooc don't have very much in common. However, every time i've seen Obj-C code, i turned my head and closed my eyes in horror.
When I started learning Obj-C I was also a little bit stunned but when you have large amount of code you're grateful to have such method name because you can read the code almost like English. But I agree : sometimes it's a little bit too heavy.
-
ooc (not OOC :evil: :P ) is first translated to C and then compiled (thought id mentioned that?). And yes, it is a static language. However you could use first-class functions to change an object's methods during execution (but not add new ones)
-
I am updating ooc-sfml to the latest commit of sfml2 :)
Just letting everyone know this project is revived.