Re: How about ...
@dogged. Slagging off mature and capable languages is a child's game. Plus, of course, any language is just a tool, and if Turing complete and moderately efficient, can be used to build pretty much anything. The end user neither knows nor cares which language was used, so language choice is usually far less important than geeks like to think.
Objective C is quirky, I'll grant you that, but there are two well known sayings about development that illustrate the nature of the problem to be addressed:
1) software engineering is a constant struggle against naming
2) premature optimisation is the root of all evil
The first objective C addresses head on, with long descriptive selectors. In this age of auto-complete gone are the days of short cryptic names; and good riddance too.
The second objective-C addresses orthogonally (as indeed do all languages) by being now (through maturity and due to recent language additions) an excellent prototyping language. Loosely typed with dynamic selectors extensible at runtime, but where low level c is available if needed/warranted in a tight loop when it is time to optimise. Very very efficient for embedded devices due to the excellent use of ARC, it's evolved into being something slightly odd but remarkably effective and efficient for programming a mobile devices. More efficient than garbage collected languages or languages that compile to a CIL (though this last distinction becomes less and less significant and can bring other advantages). Structurally, in purist terms, odd and disjointed, but practically and pragmatically very mature and practical; quite possibly judged by most who use it and other languages, better than anything else out there for getting the job done (including SWIFT until it has more time to mature).