discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Q's about GNUstep (-make & -base)


From: Michael Hopkins
Subject: Re: Q's about GNUstep (-make & -base)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:08:22 +0100
User-agent: Unison/1.8.1

On 2008-06-12 16:30:31 +0100, Richard Frith-Macdonald <address@hidden> said:


On 11 Jun 2008, at 16:12, Michael Hopkins rm-this wrote:


Hi all

A couple of questions:

1) Can I use gnustep-make on Linux with colormake or clmake to colourise the output during builds? If so, how? Have googled and looked through the docs but I can find but no hints there. I suspect it would just be changing 'make' -> 'clmake' somewhere in the bowels of the GNUstep directory hierarchy. Also, how to I set the default level of warnings (i.e. turn off those annoying "warning: multi-line comment").

I'm afraid I don't know colormake and am not familiar with that warning, so I can't help on this one.

http://packages.ubuntu.com/en/hardy/colormake

http://bre.klaki.net/programs/colormake/


but I am wondering about things like:

- is libgnustep-base (& libobjc) maintained now & into the future? On both linux
  and Win32?

Yes.

- is it of an overall quality to be trusted for enterprise use

Yes... and has been used in the that context for several years.

and if not where
  are the glitches at the moment?
N/A

This is great news and I would like to thank all who have contributed to making it possible for others to use and rely on the excellent Foundation API on so many platforms.


- is it likely in the near future (or ever) that Objective-C 2.0 language support
  will be provided?  Mainly interested in the syntax changes like  @properties,
  @synthesize, fast enumeration (which I suspect gcc 4.3 will mainly  support)
  rather than garbage collection which I am unlikely to use.

AFAIK, while some people have expressed an interest in part of it, nobody is working on that ... but I'm not sure. i don't think many people like the syntax changes, so I guess we are more likely to see more popular/useful features (like non-fragile instance variables) in the near future.

There have also been a few other contributions to the thread regarding these issues. If adding the key features that don't require access to the Apple runtime is not too burdensome then I think it will be a helpful to future users - and possibly necessary in terms of keeping compatibility with the Mac codebase.

M

--
______________________________________________

   Hopkins Research      Touch the Future
______________________________________________



reply via email to

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