[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

From: Gregory Casamento
Subject: Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 05:44:10 -0500


With respect...

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:18 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller <address@hidden> wrote:
I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from an elevated point of view...

> Am 25.11.2019 um 10:30 schrieb Gregory Casamento <address@hidden>:
> * Compatibility, much of the API is moving towards using blocks. Blocks *ARE NOT SUPPORTED* on GCC and aren't likely to be anytime in the near future.

Hm, where has our own creativity gone?

Mine, personally, nowhere.  I've been putting a great amount of work into this project as of late.  Where should our creativity be spent?  Bridging the gap between an old version of the language and it's successor or debugging and building new functionality in GS?
Fred mentioned that it could be possible to define some block wrapper macros if some time is invested.
It that works out, we do not make our decisions depend on gcc *not* implementing something.

I have no problem with bridging the gap, but shall we continue to do so?  Where can we draw the line?  The only thing we are doing by constantly doing this is, as you said some time needs to be invested... is wasting time.   We are delaying the inevitable.

So this argument for moving to clang looks more like an excuse that we do not work on our own gcc compatible solution, isn't it?

Given the list of things that I have mentioned as advantages, it's far from an excuse.   I am simply advocating that we make things simpler for our developers and, potential contributors. Pretending or casting it as an "excuse" minimizes the weight of the argument without actually arguing the point.

-- hns

Gregory Casamento
GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com

Mailtrack Sender notified by
Mailtrack 11/25/19, 05:42:56 AM

reply via email to

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