Re: Defacto standards (was Re: bogus retain via NSEnumerator)

[Riccardo Mottola]

on 4/22/04 11:57 PM, Gregory John Casamento at greg_casamento@yahoo.com
wrote:

> The best that Portable Object Compiler can be called is a language which
> *looks* like Objective-C, but has none of the other enhancements or niceties
> of
> the Language which Apple uses.  Besides, how many people really use POC
> anyway?
> Five? Ten? Okay... maybe Twenty.
Well, SGI for example gives POC as a read-to-be-isntalled package among
their porting effort from opensource stuff.
They call it "Portable objective-c compiler". This maybe gives fals hopes to
someone (like me).
An updated POC would be really a nice thing. SInce it can use standard C
compiler for the real output, this is the only way you could compile Obj-c
code and use the highly optimized Mips-PRO compiler instead of gcc. This is
interesting, optimized compiler are really better than GCC (similar
consideratino could be made about  SunWorks, XLC or HP's pa-risc compiler)
but usually only do Ansi-C and in some fortunate cases C++.

But I read a doc about the difference between POC, StepStone and Apple/Next
stuff and POC is really "old" it almost feels a different language with a
similar syntax.

 
> I believe what you really need to do is to either find a way to enhance the
> existing Objective-C implementation to your liking or modify POC to be closer
> to the established standard.
An updated POC would give gnustep maybe more paltforms and less gcc
dependency. But AFAIK, the POC maintainer is not hearing anything from that
point of view.

-R