[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Gnustep + mac + windows? Possible?

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: Gnustep + mac + windows? Possible?
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:24:43 +0100

On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 12:54 PM, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 08:53 AM, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
"Philippe C.D. Robert" wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
Gregory Casamento wrote:
So long as Cocoa is a proper superset of the spec, it strictly
(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
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).

What do you mean by that? Cocoa is still OpenStep wrt previously
APIs, of course they add new stuff which cannot be OpenStep, but I
consider this is a GoodThing - the OpenStep spec is 8 years old and a
lot has changed since then (I don't say every addition they made is
or necessary, though...). Now if the new classes are well designed or
not I cannot judge, I never used them so far...

In Cocoa, Apple have changed (and continue to change) the existing

Out of curiosity, which one for example?...

NSObject, NSString, NSBundle, NSArray, NSMethodSignature etc etc
Lots in the gui too of course.
Most changes are just additional methods, but a few remove/change old
And then there are entirely new classes.

Simplest thing to do to get a picture is read the release notes for the
MacOS-X releases (though that won't tell you about all the differences
the first MacOS-X and OpenStep).

Uhm, what I meant is: are there methods which have a (fundamentally) different
behaviour but the same signature (as in previous releases)?

Ah, that's VERY different (much more specific) than an API change then, and depending on what you mean by 'fundamentally' may be such a narrow definition that they would have to be a bunch of madmen to change the API that way :-)

They have removed methods.
They have added methods.
They have made changes to behaviors - eg, instead of accepting nil arguments
raising exceptions.

And if yes, is this mentioned in the release notes?

Certainly a lot of it ... I'd be foolish to claim that they document all the
changes they make in the release notes though.

reply via email to

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