Re: GNUstep base vs libobjc

[Nicola Pero]

Difficult question ... libobjc is really obsolete in terms of
functionality.  You don't even get a string class - you have to write
everything that a normal 'foundation' library has from scratch, which is
really a waste of your time, given we have an excellent library already.

On the other end, gnustep-base is not as easy to install (and bundle with
your application) on Windows.

Probably if you have to spend your time on something, rather than
rewriting all the foundation classes, you could rather help us with making
the Windows port better and easier to install / distribute. :-)

But, as I said, I can see your point.  PS: not sure static linkage would
work at the moment on Windows.

Thanks


> Hello, I am very new to Objective-C and I'd like to try it out for a
> while (looks like the language I'm looking for, dynamic, small,
> compiled, portable, and C-like)
> 
> I do not feel like stepping all the way into the NeXT framework, but
> I'd like to use Objc as a development language (I'm going to be
> building games, and portability to both Windows and Linux is a top
> issue) If you are curious, I'm planning on SDL/OpenGL in Obj-C
> 
> I was wondering if libobjc was made obsolete by GNUstep base, and
> weather or not I should use NSObject or just plain old Object if I
> want to stay away from NeXT gui stuff and so forth. My main concern is
> that I'd like to have it running on Windows easily without the user
> installing a bunch of extra stuff. Static linkage would be great,
> though i guess DLLs would be fine as well (i'd much prefer a static
> .exe in Windows, solves a lot of problems :) )
> 
> In essence, I'd like to avoid dependancies as much as possible.
> 
> Thank you for hearing me out.
> 
> Percy.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>