gnustep-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: GNUstep on OSX


From: Ibadinov Marat
Subject: Re: GNUstep on OSX
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:14:37 +0300

On Apr 11, 2013, at 1:50 AM, Riccardo Mottola wrote:

> Hi Ibadinow,
> 
> 
> Ibadinov Marat wrote:
>> Hello, fellow GNUstepers.
>> 
>> For a quite some time i've been maintaining fork of GNUstep primarily
>> focused on OSX support and reliability.
>> The first objective is motivated by prevalence of OSX users in
>> Objective-C user base (the only group people who could help with
>> GNUstep development).
>> Second one is simply an obligation to my employer (this forks are used
>> in production environment right now).
>> 
>> I seem to be a little bit tired to be alone on these journey, and am
>> willing to be a part of a team. So i would like to offer this code
>> base for you consideration.
>> Lets try to make you interested, here goes a list of features that i
>> could remember:
>> 
> Seems you maintain a lot of work. My first impulse would be to say:
> let's check piece after piece: what is good for GNUstep generally? What
> doesn't clash? and reduce differences piece after piece.
> Of course, each maintainer should evaluate, so the best thing would be
> to have patches for only the individual stuff.

I'm afraid it is not quite possible to do so with ease. All this stuff was 
developed
simultaneously, and it will require too much work to separate it.
But if this is necessary, we'll figure it out somehow.

> 
> I'd begin, for example with your "NSInteger crusade" we did a lot of it,
> if there is something missing, we should finish it, but carefully. We
> already broke something on different platforms, just to fix it shortly
> thereafter!
> 
> Also, your "crashes, memory leaks" is surely of general interest, so
> seeing what you chanted in HTTULRProtocol and Streams might be of
> interest, especially for Richard.
> 
> * some improvements were made in compatibility with Apple's Foundation,
> also some missing methods were implemented
> --> these details should be also examined.
> 
> 
> About instead not using FFI and using platform-specific stuff, it sounds
> interesting, but I wonder how it behaves on the different platforms we
> support.
> 
> Riccardo




reply via email to

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