[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mac OS-compatible ports (was: C-g crash in C-x C-f (OSX Lion))
From: |
Carsten Mattner |
Subject: |
Re: Mac OS-compatible ports (was: C-g crash in C-x C-f (OSX Lion)) |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Jan 2012 11:50:39 +0100 |
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 2:47 AM, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 2011/12/31, at 22:22, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>
>> I agree with your statement, but we're not "pushing" the NS port only
>> because it's for GNUstep. It's quite usable on Mac OS X. I said that
>> "in its defense" it is compatible with GNUstep by using the Cocoa API,
>> which your port isn't. So, to make the current situation clear, the
>> Mac OS port choice is between:
>>
>> 1) NS port: Cocoa API, works on Mac OS X with some issues, compatible
>> with GNUstep and can work there (it needs lots of work though). Apple
>> has repeatedly stated Cocoa is the preferred API for Mac OS X
>> developers, especially for new software.
>>
>> 2) your Carbon-based port: works on Mac OS X well, can't be compatible
>> with GNUstep. Apple has not been clear about Carbon's future, even
>> though Carbon seems to be well entrenched at this point.
>
> As I've been repeatedly saying, the Mac port uses Cocoa for its
> GUI implementation. If you call the Mac port Carbon-based, lots
> of the applications including those bundled with Mac OS X such as
> Safari.app should also be called Carbon-based.
>
> (snip)
>
>> Given those choices, the NS port seems like the best choice for
>> inclusion in GNU Emacs, which is the status quo. Are any of the facts
>> I've presented inaccurate?
>
> I'm not saying about the inclusion. I'm just correcting negative
> statements with respect to the Mac port, many of which are made
> with wrong understanding about the actual situation of Mac OS X
> development, or even not based on the actual use.
>
> YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
> address@hidden
Can we please update the emacs wiki with a table for reference
comparing the different OS X ports?