[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: Yavor Doganov
Subject: Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:34:28 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/26 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

Johannes Brakensiek wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2019, at 14:16, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > Packaging libraries and development tools just because they are cool
> > and it is expected that hordes of developers will write useful
> > programs that utilize them is not a useful activity -- you have to
> > justify their inclusion in the distro and a hypothetical future
> > benefit is not a good argument.
> Well, I think different about this (otherwise Apple f.e. would never
> have shipped any new software I think), but we can agree to disagree
> here.

TBH, I don't give a flying flute what Apple ships and how; it is
irrelevant anyway.  I described the way things work in the Free World
and Debian, in particular.

> I also typed apt-get install gnustep-devel and I was provided an IDE
> that looked like it jumped out of the 90s.

JFTR, you'd get exactly the same IDE with exactly the same
capabilities if GNUstep was configured to use the "modern" features.

> I thought: Oh, not that bad, I can use Xcode and compile then. But I
> could not because the tools installed were not able to compile
> f.e. Rik.theme or .m files using recent language features.

Off the top of my head, Rik theme is about the single piece of
software that can't be built on stock Debian because of us sticking to
GCC.  NEXTSPACE relies on custom patches to GNUstep core, which means
that you'll have to build your own GNUstep environment anyway so you
may as well configure it for Clang and the new runtime.

> So, please tell me which part of this story sounds most ridiculous
> to you?

The part that developers are waiting for Debian to move to Clang so
that they can start writing free GNUstep software.

> > Are these projects directly buildable/runnable with GNUstep
> > configured for Clang and the modern runtime?  I doubt it.
> No, of course they are not. But they could some day if the GNUstep
> project would decide and be able to develop some way further. That’s
> my point.

And that is exactly my point.  There are other major obstacles to
porting free Cocoa software; switching to Clang will not help.
Therefore, the argument that a move to Clang will bring us new free
software is moot.

What will happen "some day", we don't know.  Chances are that there
will be a gazillion of new features that these Cocoa apps require and
GNUstep doesn't yet implement.  At least this is the evidence from the
past few decades.

reply via email to

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