• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
GNUStep and Cocoa Portabilitiy (Re: Carbon API with carbon)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GNUStep and Cocoa Portabilitiy (Re: Carbon API with carbon)


  • Subject: GNUStep and Cocoa Portabilitiy (Re: Carbon API with carbon)
  • From: Marcel Weiher <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:54:51 +0200

Oh boy, here we go again...


I know about GNUstep.

Obviously not.

GNUstep isn't really a viable solution for most people.

How do you know? You don't seem to be very well informed about GNUStep, and I sincerely doubt you know about "most people".

I can't say I have seen many commercial or shareware or even freeware Cocoa applications that are available for OS X and Win32 and/or Linux.

Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. First of all, 'Cocoa' is a fairly new marketing-term for (at least) two separate frameworks, Foundation and AppKit.


If you want portable code, use a cross-platform GUI framework like Qt (or, these days, PowerPlant which is available for Win32 IIRC), which will be C++ and built on Carbon. Or use Java. Or write a highly portable, C-only core and have different GUI implementations for each platform.

Foundation code is fully portable, two highly functional and compatible OpenSource exist (libFoundation and gstep-base). This isn't something that is new: I was writing commercial Foundation-based Objective-C code 5 years ago on Solaris (with ports to various other platforms, including NT). There are other examples.

So writing your core in Objective-C is a viable solution, there is no reason to drop down to C. I am aware of at least one company that is shipping a commercial product built in this matter, with a non Objective-C GUI on top.


I maintain that Cocoa isn't really portable.

That is wrong. It is completely wrong for Foundation code.

OK, so it might be in theory,

No, people are doing it, and have been doing it for years. This is commonly referred to as "in practice".

but the reality is that Apple killed YellowBox for Windows

That is reality.

and GNUstep doesn't have enough manpower.

Well, then the people who use it are all hallucinating. Thanks for bringing us all back to reality!

Marcel

--
Marcel Weiher Metaobject Software Technologies
email@hidden www.metaobject.com
Metaprogramming for the Graphic Arts. HOM, IDEAs, MetaAd etc.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: GNUStep and Cocoa Portabilitiy (Re: Carbon API with carbon)
      • From: Nat! <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Carbon API with carbon (From: Finlay Dobbie <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Strange NSInvocation behavior when passing pointers
  • Next by Date: Re: NSStringEncoding troubles
  • Previous by thread: Re: Carbon API with carbon
  • Next by thread: Re: GNUStep and Cocoa Portabilitiy (Re: Carbon API with carbon)
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread