Re: [Moderator] EOT Re: NYT confirms rumor of Apple switch to Intel
Re: [Moderator] EOT Re: NYT confirms rumor of Apple switch to Intel
- Subject: Re: [Moderator] EOT Re: NYT confirms rumor of Apple switch to Intel
- From: Nicko van Someren <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:34:23 +0100
On 6 Jun 2005, at 19:36, j o a r wrote:
On 6 jun 2005, at 08.39, Nicko van Someren wrote:
How about discussion of the implications of having to build apps
with fat binaries?
If you could keep it on the topic of Cocoa development (I would bet
that most issues will not be related to Cocoa).
While I appreciate that these things might not be strict Cocoa issues
this list frequently covers topics surrounding the tools chains, the
construction of frameworks and linking issues. I'd be very surprised
if the (re)introduction of fat binaries does not raise at least some
issues that are of interest to everyone here. My question was not
entirely facetious.
Also, keep in mind that most sessions on WWDC are not public.
Attendees are under NDA.
The keynotes however, are not closed or covered by NDA. Steve
(apparently) announced that we will shortly be presented with Xcode
2.1 and this will contain cross-compilation and fat executables for
Cocoa.
Personally I don't write much assembly language these days, and none
of what I do write is for Cocoa applications. I suspect that the
only ways in which this change will effect authors of Cocoa
applications will be an increase in the cost of release testing and a
large amount of market confusion when selling what we produce. That
said, I'll be really surprised if from a technical standpoint the
transition for Cocoa developers is actually painless.
Nicko
----
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax
si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden