Re: Kickstarter was not successful... but it did help things...

[Doug Simons]

On Sep 12, 2013, at 4:03 AM, David Chisnall wrote:

> We could almost certainly provide them with an automated tool that they can 
> run on their codebase that would give them a pretty clear idea of the OS X 
> APIs that they use.  Actually, providing such a tool with the ability to 
> produce a report against the current version of GNUstep showing what is 
> missing would be very helpful for a lot of projects.

If such a tool could be produced, I think it would be a tremendous asset for 
GNUstep. I suspect there are plenty of developers of applications for OS X who 
would be interested in porting to GNUstep but are put off by the daunting task 
involved in making the effort, especially knowing that there are almost 
certainly some things missing but not knowing how extensive those gaps might be.

If there was an easy way for a developer to analyze their code and compare its 
requirements to what's already working in GNUstep, it would help enormously. 
First, they might see that there are only a few methods or small classes 
missing in GNUstep that they require. If it's a small number they might decide 
to implement those pieces themselves. Or someone in the GNUstep community might 
decide to implement them. The OS X developer might also check back occasionally 
to see how things are progressing relative to their specific needs, if it was 
easy to do.

If the tool were implemented in such a way that the information could be shared 
with the GNUstep developers (such as making it submit each application profile 
to an online app for comparison against the current code) it would provide some 
incredibly valuable information about which API's are used most. This would not 
only help focus development efforts on the missing pieces, but also possibly on 
optimizing the existing parts based on their level of use.

This would primarily help to target the "Commercial developers, who have an 
Apple-only app" users. But I think if that group is helped it will likely go a 
long way toward what other users need as well. And it may help draw in more 
commercial developers to contribute to GNUstep.

On a related note, I think the idea of taking a pragmatic approach to 
implementation (focusing on the methods and classes that are used and needed, 
rather than striving for a complete implementation of any particular 10.x 
release) makes good sense, to produce the most valuable results with the effort 
available.

Cheers,

Doug