[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits)
From: |
Chris B . Vetter |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits) |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:36:16 -0700 |
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:27:55 +0200 (CEST)
"M. Grabert" <xam@grabert.net> wrote:
> BTW, what about GNUstep man-pages ?
> People who want to programm GNUstep should have good manuals,
> and most people without OpenStep expirience don't have the
> OPENSTEP library ...
> Okay, this is something really time-wasting, and it has
Not time-wasting ... more like time-consuming ...
> lower prioriy, but it's important to think about it!
Man-Pages? Or do you mean HTML ?
Gosh, writing Man-Pages is a pain-in-the-you-know-where...
> BTW,
> I think the OPENSTEP library was one of the best manual pages
> ever. Every single class was perfectly described and you could
> even get some hints how it was implemented (if you read it
> carefully).
Exactly.
That's why I still have them around and use them, when hacking.
> MFC docs are crap, MSDN is a little bit better.
Of course - you are talking Micros~1 here... ;-)
> But even the MacOS X documentation is not that good anymore!
Can't say that for they Foundation- and AppKit-PDFs ... they are
just GREAT ... and HUGH :-P
--
Chris
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), (continued)
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), Laurent Julliard, 2001/06/27
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), Chris B . Vetter, 2001/06/27
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), M. Grabert, 2001/06/27
- quo vadis gnustep? (was Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits))), Björn Gohla, 2001/06/27
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), Chris B . Vetter, 2001/06/27
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), M. Grabert, 2001/06/28
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), Chris B . Vetter, 2001/06/28
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), M. Grabert, 2001/06/29
- Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re:gnustep compared to other toolkits)), Chris B . Vetter, 2001/06/29
- Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits), M. Grabert, 2001/06/22
- Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits),
Chris B . Vetter <=
- Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits), M. Grabert, 2001/06/22
- Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits), Chris B . Vetter, 2001/06/22
- Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits), Adam Fedor, 2001/06/22
- Re[3]: gnustep compared to other toolkits), Manuel Guesdon, 2001/06/23
- Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits), Dennis Leeuw, 2001/06/22
- Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits, M. Grabert, 2001/06/22
- Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits, Chris B . Vetter, 2001/06/22
- Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits, Dennis Leeuw, 2001/06/22
- Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits, Philippe C.D. Robert, 2001/06/23
- Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits, Chris B . Vetter, 2001/06/25