Re: GNUstep Cocoa compatibility

[Alex Perez]

Stefan Urbanek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am moving this to gnustep-dev...
>
> On 3.3.2006, at 17:47, Adam Fedor wrote:
>
> > On 2006-02-21 08:07:01 -0700 Dmitri Sotnikov 
> > <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I understand that both the Cocoa API and GNUstep inherit from the 
> > > NeXTSTEP
> > > API, having read the documentation at gnustep.org, I notice that
> > > it is already possible to cross-compile basic applications between 
> > > Cocoa and
> > > GNUstep, so I was wondering if it is one of project goals to eventually
> > > have full cocoa compatibility.
> >
> > You can read here about our mission
> >
> > http://www.gnustep.org/information/mission.html
> >
> > Cocoa compatibility is a goal, but one that is almost impossible to 
> > fully achieve.
>
> To what exact point it is a goal? What is on "the radar" and  what is not?
>
> What are the definitions of sets depicted in the following diagram?
>
> http://stefan.agentfarms.net/Download/GNUstep/DesignNotes/GNUstep%20and%20Cocoa.png 
>
>
> Clear definition would help.

I agree, this is the first step. To this end, I fleshed out the GNUstep 
Cocoa wiki page at http://mediawiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Cocoa with a 
small amount of extra information on GNUstep/Cocoa compatibility, and 
outlined what should be there in the future. I also included the image 
linked above on that page.

> For example, I am now developing "on the real thing", but I would like 
> to keep GNUstep compatibility. To achieve this, I need a clear list of 
> what I can use and what I can not use from Cocoa. That is, I need to 
> know, what is planned for gnustep (does not have to be fully implemented 
> at this time) and what is not going to be in gnustep in any way.

Right. This currently doesn't exist, but we need to work together to 
create a compatibility matrix, and then keep it up to date.
> Stefan Urbanek
>
> p.s.: Btw. why is old OpenStep compatibility so important? Is not new 
> OpenStep what we define now by defining API that is common for GNUstep 
> and Cocoa??

I don't think it should be. OpenStep is dead. I think in practice, there 
have been at least a few instances where we've gone with the cocoa 
implementation over the OS one because it was more sane/non-buggy. Our 
policy needs to reflect what the devs have been doing in practice for 
some time now. The reverse isn't possible any more. We need to move the 
project forward, not cement it in time.

> p.p.s: from the mission statement: "We won't remove things, even if they 
> have been removed by Apple." why not, regardless of apple? Death is so 
> natural to life...

Indeed it is. This policy statement is too absolute and should probably 
be changed to allow for more wiggle room. Statements like that, if 
nothing else, serve to scare away potential contributors, in my opinion. 
Continual bloat isn't a good thing. What do others think?