[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ANN: One Step to GNUstep - pre-release version 0.9

From: Riccardo Mottola
Subject: Re: ANN: One Step to GNUstep - pre-release version 0.9
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:41:04 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101113 SeaMonkey/2.0.10


I initially avoided jumping into this thread...because it considerably diverts from the comments about a release of the virtual machine image to the status of GNUstep, a point where we often argue about.

However since I had already personal chats again about this matter, I will express my view in public. They are my opinions, as a long time developer, user and enthusiast of GNUstep and as a (former) Mac enthusiast. No more, no less.
Anyone coming from OS X or iPhone development is going to expect either clang, 
or a compiler with equivalent functionality to clang.  Giving them an 
Objective-C environment that is just about at feature party with OS X 10.4 does 
not give the best impression of GNUstep.
And? They may expect, let them expect! DO I have a binding contract with them? Is GNUstep some kind of porting tool at the convenience of any Mac developer?

That's not my view of the project. I want a powerful framework which can support and produce useful Applications in the free software world, thus Linux, BSD and which is capable of running on other hosts as well like Hurd, Solaris, Windows and others

Of course, when implementing stuff, it is a good thing to be compatible with Apple, to ease code reuse. But Since I dislike more and more the direction of Apple's software, why should GNUstep follow them? ON the other side Apple has a lot of cool stuff I want too!
So APple may be an inspiration.

As Nicola writes... if I want an Apple I buy an Apple, not a Pear or a Lemon. Are KDE and GNOME clones of Windows or CDE? Much less than we are of Mac! They are often heavily inspired. We can do better of course, we have more interesting premises, but that's it.

Some people may wish to have GCC support as well. I've recently stopped testing everything with GCC, as the lack of features means that I can no longer build significant portions of my code with it (anything that requires the non-fragile ABI or blocks, and anything that needs to interoperate with code using GC), although I still try to test code that only uses ObjC 1 features with GCC 4.2.1 (the last GPLv2 version - the license change means that I will probably never see more recent GCC in the FreeBSD base system - FreeBSD 9 is expected to ship with Clang and GCC, FreeBSD 10 with just Clang).
I want my code to work from gcc 2.95 upwards! Including clang.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]