[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality contr
From: |
Philip Mötteli |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control) |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:05:39 +0100 |
Am 26.10.2003 um 16:19 schrieb Philippe C.D. Robert:
On Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 10:38 Uhr, Philip Mötteli wrote:
CoreFoundation is almost ported. Apart from that, it's very little
used from Cocoa developpers.
I seem to recall seeing it used by a lot of frameworks and other
lower level stuff.
1. "Well, seem to recall" is not very convincing.
2. If those guys knew, that they will be able to deploy with very
little effort also on Windows, I think, they would carefully think
about using CF.
3. What is used from CF is essentially the CFMap. And we have an
equivalent here in Gnustep. So porting this is not a problem.
4. CoreFoundation is almost ported to Linux.
CoreFoundation, CoreAudio, CoreGraphics, CoreMIDI, ... all of these
are created to be used by Mac OS X programmers
Yes. But the aim of the core, that's at least an Apple employee, who
told me, is to serve as a base to other programming languages. So that
not only ObjC is usable on MOSX. But if you use ObjC, you usually don't
use Cores, when available.
The problem is alwys the same: When you use a library, that is not
available on the other platform, you're in a mess. But it's not up to
us to implement for every library on every platform a clone. No, the
programmers will chose, what is available on their target platforms.
And sometimes, they will even port something. I do agree, that this is
not always easy. But we don't need all the programs. 60% of them would
already be a huge progress. I just do not agree to say: "we gonna loose
40% of the programs, so let them all throw away!"
- there are no Cocoa or Carbon programmers anymore
Yes, there are. Give me some non legacy programs, that use Carbon. Very
few! And the few, you gonna find, are usually people, who don't want to
learn Cocoa. And the people, who really need something, that is really
not available in Cocoa, try to implement as much as possible in Cocoa
and just the strict minimum in Carbon.
Yes, those worlds are very separated!
in these days, they are all just Mac OS X
No!
programmers who will probably use whatever framework there is as long
as it offers what they need.
Of course, they don't take, what they don't need. But they also think
what they need in the future. And some of them also need to make a
living of it. So they need clients. And selling ten times more, means
ten times more money. At least me, I wouldn't say no to that and would
prefer to learn some Cocoa, then continuing with my classic Carbon.
Wrt Carbon, Apple's standpoint is clearly that Cocoa and Carbon are
both first class citizens which even can/should/be mixed, also because
Carbon offers functionality which is not available via Cocoa.
Personally I do not like this strategy very much, but then it makes
sense from a business perspective.
No, this is pure marketing! The CEO before Jobs came back, even wanted
to drop Classic Mac OS completely. But the big companies like Adobe
didn't agree and threatened them to leave the Apple market. So Apple
made the whole effort to bring out Carbon, so that these companies just
had to (officially) change 10% in their code to make their software a
MOSX citicen. Of course Apple never said that, publically, because
Apple is living from their "die hards". Those people reject everything,
that doesn't come from Apple. So they rejected MOSX, Cocoa,
Objective-C, just plain simple everything. So Apple was forced, for
marketing reasons, to say, that actually MOSX is nothing new, but a
smoth upgrade from MOS. I mean, no really new technology. The same as
before. We all know, that MOSX is a completely new OS and has strictly
nothing to do with the old MOS (fortunately). You see the problems of
Apple? Do you think, that they would ever have told the people, that
Carbon has no future? They don't even say that from MOS-Classic. The
official version is still, that Classic will continue to be developped
– new features and everything. But every "non die hard" knows, that MOS
Classic is just debugged and adapted to work smoothly with MOSX. Apart
from that it's dead. But Apple never sais that. Please don't take
Apples word everywhere literally. I think you, with a NeXTstep
background, you perfectly know, where they should go and they usually
do exactly that.
But the question was, if it is important to have companies on our
side or not. M$ had that. Phil Roberts doubted, if that would help
GS. He said, the hobbyists would be enough for GS to succed. And I
said, if we have the companies on our side, we've almost won the
battle.
No, I never say that, I never said anything about Hobbyists.
That was your word. I didn't even know, that it exists in English.
I said that the chance to find programmers in the free *nix world
(Linux, BSD, ... ) who would be willing to support GNUstep to create a
complete, stable end-user environment solution
And those are not hobbyists? (concerning their work for GS)
is probably higher and more realistic than trying to port GS to
Windows in order to come up with a full blown,
Not full blown. Just finish the port to Windows. No ProjectBuilder and
all that.
cross-platform development solution which perfectly integrates into
the native host OS (and thus not being an end user environment!)
We don't need the perfect solution. We just need as much, that
companies say: "it's almost complete for our needs. We could complete
the rest with a reasonable investment."
Re
Phil
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), (continued)
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/25
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Jason Clouse, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Pete French, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Pete French, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Pete French, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philippe C . D . Robert, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control),
Philip Mötteli <=
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philippe C . D . Robert, 2003/10/26
- Message not available
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Marcel Weiher, 2003/10/26
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Alex Perez, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Chris B. Vetter, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Pete French, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Alex Perez, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Pete French, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Philip Mötteli, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Helge Hess, 2003/10/22
- Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control), Rogelio M . Serrano Jr ., 2003/10/22