[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort
From: |
gepr |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:20:31 -0700 |
Perrone Alessandro writes:
> >2. Objectives (Wish list) in no particular order
> >a. Swarm should be simple to install on any 'standard' GNUstep or MacOS X
> >system. Other than GNUstep the only other non-standard item should be
> >hdf5 if it is required.
[...]
> >b. Being totally Gatesophobic, I have no idea how this plays on Windoze.
> >Is there a workable Cygwin/GNUstep installation available?
>
> Our main problem is to do a GnuStep-Swarm for OsX. Once it'll be
> ready, we'll think about a WIndoze/Linux version.
>
> >c. The above scenario is based on a possibly unfounded belief that
> >GNUstep and MacOS X/Cocoa have a large degree of source code compatability
> >at the level we would require for Swarm. Any comments?
So, it seems to me that the very first tasks are to
o test out a minimal swarm application that calls GNUStep infrastructure,
o try it against CygWin (the faq says it "should" work),
o try replacing some of swarm's basic infrastructure with GNUStep
(e.g. a graph widget -- which should give hints into using OSX
interfaces -- or a peripheral collection like "Set")
The lessons learned during those steps should tell us where we can
go from there.
> >d. Method functions are incompatable with the above objectives as well as
> >being abhorrent to any OO believer. They should be given a decent burial.
I have to take issue with this one. [grin] ... not that method
functions are abhorrent to any OO believer, which might be true. I
take issue with the opinion that they should be gone. I'm catholic in
my beliefs. [grin] Dynamism should be used where appropriate and
... static-ism should be used where appropriate. If the programmer or
compiler *can* know for sure that a method will always be called in a
certain way on a particular object and that target will never change,
then it should be bound static. Of course, i'm lazy like the rest of
the world; so, I'd prefer to write [bob dance]; and have the compiler
understand _i_Person__dance();
But, where I can't get that, there's nothing wrong with telling the
compiler precisely what to do. In fact, this is why I like ObjC
better than the "safer" languages.
Unless, of course, I would have to argue with the GCC guys about
patching their code, which I don't want to do. [grin]
--
glen e. p. ropella =><= Hail Eris!
H: 831.335.4950 http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 831.247.7901 http://www.tempusdictum.com
==================================
Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
to day usage of Swarm. For list administration needs (esp.
[un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
with "help" in the body of the message.
- GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort, W . Northcott, 2002/10/03
- Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort, Perrone Alessandro, 2002/10/03
- Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort,
gepr <=
- Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort, Marcus G. Daniels, 2002/10/03
- Swarm futures (was Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort), gepr, 2002/10/03
- RE: Swarm futures, Christopher J. Mackie, 2002/10/03
- ABM/Toolkit futures [was: Swarm futures (was Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort)], Gulyas Laszlo, 2002/10/03
- Re: ABM/Toolkit futures [was: Swarm futures (was Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort)], gepr, 2002/10/03
- Re: ABM/Toolkit futures [was: Swarm futures (was Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort)], Gulyas Laszlo, 2002/10/04
- Swarm futures (was Re: ABM/Toolkit futures [was: Swarm futures (was Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort)]), gepr, 2002/10/04
- Re: Swarm futures (was Re: ABM/Toolkit futures [was: Swarm futures (was Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort)]), Gulyas Laszlo, 2002/10/04
- RE: ABM/Toolkit futures [was: Swarm futures (was Re: GNUstep and MacOS X Port Effort)], Juan A. Rodriguez, 2002/10/04