Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits)

[M. Grabert]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Chris B. Vetter wrote:

> 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 ...

no, time-wasting!
because Apple allready has a great documentation about
OpenStep and the best thing would be a GPL'd Apple
docu ...
... everthing else is time-consuming and most propable
not as good as the original ...

> > 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...

don't care. But I think HTML would be better! Moreover GNU says
man is dead.
 
> > 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

I was talking about the Library shipped with MacOS X Server.
It's like Next's docu, but just cut off the best pieces!
I think they are not as exactly and specific as the Next docu.

sersn max