Re: Gnustep + mac + windows? Possible?

[Jeff Teunissen]

Gregory Casamento wrote:

> NeXT's own implementation of OpenStep (i.e OPENSTEP/Mach and
> OPENSTEP/Windows) contained additional methods and classes (not part of
> the spec) which could be compiled out using the STRICT_OPENSTEP flag.
> 
> Nothing in the spec indicates that extensions need to be highlighted or
> even that you must provide a way to conditionally compile certain
> features or classes out of one's one implementation of the spec.
> 
> So long as Cocoa is a proper superset of the spec, it strictly speaking
> (no pun intended ;) )  remains an OpenStep implementation.   I also
> think that if certain parts of it have been done away with that it's
> still fair to consider it an OpenStep implementation since the spec
> hasn't been updated for almost eight years.

Apple do not seem to be even _considering_ OpenStep. The new stuff they've
created has a rather different API style, and the new classes are
substantially overengineered when compared to the OpenStep philosophy (and
the Unix philosophy, for that matter).

> One final note: It is worth mentioning that MOSX and Cocoa are very
> likely directly based on source code for OPENSTEP4.2/Mach.   I can't
> really think of a more direct descendent.

Apple's Foundation is based to a large degree upon CoreFoundation, a C
library. This is one of the reasons Apple's Foundation is so slow, and a
reason why it is not a direct descendant from OpenStep.

-- 
| Jeff Teunissen  -=-  Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing  -=-  deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A   7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B  161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project        http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux              http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/