[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: The goal of GNUstep 1.0 (Why Unanimous Consent Doesn't Work)

From: Nicolas Roard
Subject: Re: The goal of GNUstep 1.0 (Why Unanimous Consent Doesn't Work)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:32:41 +0100

On 10/26/05, Fabien VALLON <address@hidden> wrote:
> > By that I mean that if there are some obscure deprecated methods that
> > we don't have yet, I'm not sure it's worth implementing them/delay a
> > 1.0 just to claim "hey we're _fully_ OpenStep compliant !" -- it's not
> > like many people care about that (they care about OSX compatibility if
> > anything else).
> Of course,
> But it is not the case, and it will never be OSX  ( current version )
> compatible.

Yes, but an important point is an easy for a developer to see what is
implemented is what isn't. We lack a bit of clarity here (that could
probably be resolved via the doc system).

> You will never release GNUstep if you follow Apple.

Of course, I didn't advocate to hold GNUstep until we're 100%
compatible with current Cocoa.. I was merely pointing that "OpenStep"
compliance is not really relevant today.

> Having a 2.0 release with Cocoa ("10.2 compliance") or windows will take
> longer.
> I believe at the  "Release early release often".

I completely agree with you.

> > Same way, I don't think it's a good idea to orientate the 1.0 as
> > "Finally OpenStep-compliant", because as you say, the epidermic
> > reaction will be "yeah, good job guys, only 11 years to do it !".
> And ?
> who cares.
> It was hard work for the GNUstep developpers.
> Those guys are just stupid, don't listen to them.

Well, my wording was perhaps not right; what I meant is, you can't
boast a lot on OpenStep compliance when releasing a 1.0 when this
actually has very little importance for most of the people -- it's
counter-productive if you want to attract people. Of course, it is
important; just not a good "attraction" argument, and can even be
turned into a bad argument. I was just pointing that.

> >It would be more interesting to say something along the line of "we're
> > OpenStep compliant, we have our own additions, plus we are x%
> > compatible with Panther/Tiger ...", etc.
> That not exclusiv.

Of course. I don't care even about % of compatibility, but it's just
that we should have clearer presentation of what's actually
available/possible with GNUstep and the degree of compatibility with
OSX (imagine a cocoa dev going to for the first time and
trying to figure if its cocoa software can be ported to gnustep, and
what difficulties he can encounteer).

> Having ref. doc saying what should work and what should not would be great.
> But not a "Panther compliant" release ( not for 1.0 ).


Nicolas Roard
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
  -Arthur C. Clarke

reply via email to

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