[Top][All Lists]

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

Mac OS-compatible ports (was: C-g crash in C-x C-f (OSX Lion))

From: Ted Zlatanov
Subject: Mac OS-compatible ports (was: C-g crash in C-x C-f (OSX Lion))
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:22:16 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux)

(changing the thread subject, we've drifted off-topic long enough)

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 07:12:58 +0900 YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <address@hidden> wrote: 

YM> When I tried the GNUstep port some time ago, it was quite
YM> unsatisfactory.  I thought it might be only for me and the problem
YM> of the GNUstep version I tried or because of my configuration.  So I
YM> asked your GNUstep version/configuration because I took it for
YM> granted that those who are backing the GNUstep port at least have
YM> experience of its use, otherwise it looked so irresponsible to me.

I understand and apologize I was not clearer.

YM> I even think that pushing software that is far from usable only
YM> because it is for GNUstep might result in lowering the
YM> image/evaluation of GNUstep itself and do harm for the GNU project's
YM> goal, because those who actually tried the GNUstep port will feel
YM> disappointed.

I agree with your statement, but we're not "pushing" the NS port only
because it's for GNUstep.  It's quite usable on Mac OS X.  I said that
"in its defense" it is compatible with GNUstep by using the Cocoa API,
which your port isn't.  So, to make the current situation clear, the
Mac OS port choice is between:

1) NS port: Cocoa API, works on Mac OS X with some issues, compatible
with GNUstep and can work there (it needs lots of work though).  Apple
has repeatedly stated Cocoa is the preferred API for Mac OS X
developers, especially for new software.

2) your Carbon-based port: works on Mac OS X well, can't be compatible
with GNUstep.  Apple has not been clear about Carbon's future, even
though Carbon seems to be well entrenched at this point.

3) Aquamacs: I don't know if it uses Cocoa, how its author feels about
inclusion, or whether it's fundamentally different from (1) or (2)

4) Other ports?  I don't know of any.

5) A brand new port.

Given those choices, the NS port seems like the best choice for
inclusion in GNU Emacs, which is the status quo.  Are any of the facts
I've presented inaccurate?

I have great respect for the work you've done with your Mac port, and I
hope you don't see this discussion as an attempt to diminish it.


reply via email to

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